Abstract

Performance-based accountability systems that rank schools based on their effectiveness produce 'winners' and 'losers'. Substantial evidence has pointed to the (side)effects of these classifications, particularly in the most disadvantaged communities. Whilst previous studies have compared schools under different effectiveness categories within and between countries, this qualitative study takes a cross-case comparison approach to analyse education policies, grey literature and previous research evidence to explore the mechanisms that construct 'failing' schools in three notable high-stakes accountability systems worldwide: Chile, the USA and England. After describing (1) the identification and classification of 'failing' schools; (2) the instruments used to justify these classifications; and (3) who make these judgements, we conclude that the construction of 'failing' schools serves the competition and differentiation required for maintaining neoliberal hierarchical and unequal market-oriented regimes. Instead of disciplining only 'failing' schools, these labels also provide a caution for the whole school system.