Resistencias cotidianas a las políticas de rendición de cuentas o accountability: un estudio de casos de dos educadoras diferenciales en Chile

In Chile, school inclusion is an ideal that is in check. In recent decades, accountability policies have been legitimized as the predominant discourse in schools. These institutions have prioritized the standardization of educational processes and the demonstration of results through assessments such as the System of Measurement of the Quality of Education (SIMCE). The present investigation, from a Foucauldian analytical perspective, seeks to know the resistance tactics displayed by the special education teachers, actors in charge of the implementation of inclusion, before the mandates of accountability in everyday life. Through a case study with an ethnographic approach, in which interviews and observations were conducted with two special education teachers, it is possible to realize the production of collective and individual tactics to resist the standardization processes of the teaching and referral of students with learning disabilities to special education schools, practices that turn out to be contrary to the identity and ethics of these teachers.


Introduction
The present investigation seeks to know through a case study with an ethnographic approach the resistance tactics produced by two differential educators 1 facing the demands that emerge from the logics that the policies of accountability or accountability have installed in Chilean schools.
In the last decades in Chile, a set of policies has been enacted to ensure the quality of education, which include logics of positive discrimination towards groups of students labeled as vulnerable in socioeconomic terms, providing an additional grant amount considering that the education of these children and young people is more expensive in terms of human and monetary resources (Bellei, 2015;Raczynski, Muñoz, Weinstein and Pascual, 2016;Román and Murillo, 2012).
At the same time, these policies have introduced accountability mechanisms, that is, schools and educational actors must demonstrate improvements in the quality of education through an educational improvement project (PME) and through goals and indicators.
quantitative, which are mainly measured through the standardized evaluation called the Educational Quality Measurement System (Simce). When an educational institution fails to improve its performance in this test, it becomes subject to sanctions such as the loss of official recognition and the closure of this center. An emblematic policy in this regard is the Preferential School Grant Law (SEP) 2 (Assaél, Acuña, Contreras y Peralta, 2014;Fardella y Sisto, 2015).
In a scenario like the one described, accountability and demonstration of results in the Simce evaluation 3 they become the priority, leaving other educational initiatives, such as inclusion, as second-order processes, since schools and actors are stressed and (pre) occupied by compliance with the quality indicators imposed by policies.
It is in these schools where an educational actor in particular must produce a work that becomes countercultural with respect to the standardization and homogenization of the student body: the differential educators, education professionals in charge of school inclusion in Chilean schools, who They carry out their work through a set of pedagogical actions to support students with learning difficulties in general and specifically those who have been categorized with special educational needs (SEN).
In this regard, the existing scientific literature in Chile shows little empirical research on these teachers. With one exception, represented by the study by Inostroza (2020), the investigations have been mainly in charge of examining the challenges that school inclusion policies have posed for their teacher identity and professional performance and have not paid attention to the effects of the policies of accountability in their daily pedagogical work.
In short, in school institutions that have historically been characterized by a school grammar focused on the homogenization and normalization of students, an aspect that has been amplified and intensified by the standardization of educational processes that promote accountability with high consequences (Ball, 2016;Tyack and Cuban, 2001), deploying discourses and practices aimed at school inclusion becomes a countercultural and highly stressed work. Therefore, the present investigation tries to answer the following question: 2 La SEP otorgó un aumento de 60 % de la subvención escolar regular por estudiante vulnerable condicionando la entrega de estos recursos a la elaboración de un PME, que es evaluado fundamentalmente por medio de los puntajes en la evaluación Simce en Lenguaje y Matemáticas en 4.° grado de educación básica o primaria.
what are the resistance tactics that two differential educators deploy before the mandates of accountability policies in their daily pedagogical work?

Theoretical framework
Accountability or accountability policies Accountability or accountability policies emerged in the 80s of the last century in order to reform the public system: give more dynamism to the slow and bureaucratic action of the State, incorporating and importing business management models in the provision of public services, such as education (Verger, Bonal and Zancajo, 2016).
Specifically in the educational field, accountability policies can be defined in terms of a contractual relationship established between a specific actor (school) and a counterpart, which usually corresponds to the State. In this contract, schools and school actors are held accountable for their behavior and for the use of funding received by the central or federal State. In this sense, the State as the entity that finances educational institutions has the right to demand evidence, supervise and produce consequences for educational establishments that do not meet the educational goals committed to quality (Parcerisa and Falabella, 2017).
Regarding taxonomies of educational accountability, at international level the classification elaborated by Darling-Hammond (2004) stands out, who distinguishes five types: political, legal, bureaucratic, professional and market. While Maroy and Voisin (2013) produce another distinction between accountability models: strong accountability, neobureaucratic, reflective and soft accountability. In the case of Chile, researchers Falabella and de la Vega (2016), through a literature review, propose that, currently worldwide, the most widely used accountability approaches correspond to the state or bureaucratic one, for performance or market and professional.
In the case of the Chilean educational system, the focus or type of accountability that has guided the latest educational policies (for example, the SEP) is what is referred to in the literature as responsibility for performance or the market (Falabella and de la Vega, 2016 ;Parcerisa and Falabella, 2017). This type of accountability is characterized by a relationship between the State and the schools that receive the financing, where the educational institutions commit themselves to improve the quality of education that they offer their students, a quality that is measured in a relevant percentage. using the Simce standardized Vol. 10, Núm. 20 Enero -Junio 2020, e0 assessment. In the event that the school institution does not improve its performance, within a certain period (approximately four years) it may consequently lose official recognition and be eventually closed.

Power and resistance
The notion of resistance will be understood in this investigation from a Foucauldian approach, a perspective in which one cannot speak of resistance without first hinting at power. Power since Foucault does not respond to an acquired or inherited capacity that is exercised in a unidirectional manner, but rather corresponds to an omnipresent and constitutive force of human relations; a power that is exercised in different directions and at the same time is an object of struggle (Foucault, 2013). Therefore, for the French thinker as long as there is a power relationship in the interaction between the subjects, there will be the possibility of resistance to it.
The novelty of this notion of resistance is that it is distinguished from more traditional conceptions where it is represented as the inverted image of power. In this sense, rather than an antagonistic force that is exerted unidirectionally by the subjects to escape domination by a great structure that oppresses, for Foucault (1994) resistance is "as inventive, as mobile, as productive as power . That is why it is necessary to organize, clot and build. Let it go from the bottom up, and like power, be strategically distributed "(p. 114).
That is, from Foucault's analytics, resistance corresponds to the deployment of strategies and tactics that allow subjects to counteract the subjection of certain powers, including this relationship as forces that meet and collide at various points in the framework of human relations. . In this sense, resistance can be produced as a counter-behavior, as a form of fissure or a line of flight in which subjects can creatively and transformatively change and modify the distribution of power in their favor (Castro, 2004;Foucault , 2013).
Consequently, and taking up the work of the French thinker regarding the government of subjectivities, Foucault (2013) proposes that the State seeks to govern or conduct the behaviors of subjects, limiting the field of possible actions to a restricted number of actions or of ways to build the self for the population. In this same line of argumentation, it conceptualizes what would correspond to a counter-conduct, which can be defined as any action that a conscious subject displays and that escapes or distances itself from the expected Vol. 10, Núm. 20 Enero -Junio 2020, e0 and desired behaviors from the mentality of government or governmentality in this spacetime (Foucault, 2006).
As an example, every time a teaching subject deploys concerted, individual or collective tactics that are "not expected or unwanted" by the discourses of policies and that, in turn, escape the norm of what corresponds in this society and in this space-time to what "a good educator" should do or be, one would be in the presence of a resistance, which would materialize by means of a bundle or set of counter-behaviors (Castro, 2004).

Methodological framework Design
This study responds to a research of qualitative tradition that considers the postcritical perspective of social research as an epistemic approach (Da Silva, 2001;Larraín, 2011).
This investigation was carried out contemplating two phases. In a first stage, in-depth interviews were carried out with 10 differential educators from various educational establishments in the Metropolitan Region of Chile, who provided their speeches regarding school inclusion, accountability policies and educational policies in general. From these teachers, two pedagogues were selected, who expressed diverse perspectives regarding accountability and who, in turn, worked in schools that were in diametrically opposite positions regarding the demonstration of performance according to the Simce standardized evaluation. : one institution that was classified as "in recovery" and another that was classified as "autonomous". It should also be noted that the fieldwork for this study was carried out in 2018.
In general terms, a school classified as "in recovery" is one that has shown low performance at the Simce level in the 4th year of primary school in Language Arts and Mathematics, and that, in the event of not improving its results, is revokes official recognition and runs the risk of being closed. Meanwhile, a school classified as "autonomous" is one that has shown high results in the Simce at the 4th grade level of primary school and, consequently, has a lower degree of supervision and pressure to improve its performance in the standardized assessment already mentioned.
Vol. 10, Núm. 20 Enero -Junio 2020, e0 This research in particular focused on the second stage, on the ethnographic monitoring of these two educators, with the purpose of deepening their discourses, as well as to demonstrate in their performance contexts how they displayed resistance through counterconducts to the logics of accountability installed in schools through the SEP.
Regarding the design, this responds to a case study with an ethnographic focus (Guber, 2004;Rockwell, 2009). As already mentioned, a selection of participants was made through a qualitative and intentional sampling: two differential educators were chosen who worked in educational establishments subsidized by the State of Chile and who were attached to accountability policies. or accountability. Previously, in the case of the first 10 participants, the same number of schools was chosen and an invitation letter was sent to them so that some of the educators who worked in these centers could participate and then sign the corresponding informed consents. Subsequently, the two teachers who were part of the case studies were chosen using three fundamental criteria for this research: 1) the degree of affinity with the accountability policies, 2) the classification of the school according to its performance in the Simce and 3) the educational level in which they practiced (first or second cycle of primary education).

Description of the participants
One of the participants named in this study as Claudia 4 He worked in one of a municipal school of high social vulnerability (98%), an institution that was "in recovery" according to the classification produced by the Educational Quality Agency (2019). And the other educator, here named Pamela, belonged to a subsidized private school, an institution that was administered by a Catholic religious congregation, which had a lower level of vulnerability (around 80%) and was categorized as "autonomous" according with data provided by the Agency for Educational Quality (2019).

Procedures
Regarding the procedures, each of these two participants underwent ethnographic monitoring during an academic semester (which was equivalent to five months per case study), period in which the field work was carried out. During this process, in-depth interviews (two each), non-participant observation (once a week during a working day) were applied to the educators and they were asked to write a reflective blog for each of them. This blog consisted of describing, using their own words, in a document with an extension of no more than two pages, a "typical" pedagogical work day, in such a way that a written record could be had in which the lived experience of the participants in their work routines, and with it achieve to capture with greater wealth and depth the influence of policies in their daily work.
In total, the discursive corpus compiled during the fieldwork included four in-depth interviews (equivalent to six hours of recording), 120 observation notes and 10 logs produced by the educators themselves. 5 El índice de vulnerabilidad escolar (IVE) es un indicador elaborado por la Junta Nacional de Auxilio Escolar y Becas (Junaeb) para medir el grado de riesgo social y pobreza de los educandos del sistema escolar chileno.

Information analysis techniques
In terms of the analysis technique of the discursive corpus produced in this investigation, this process was divided into two phases. In the first instance, this was oriented through content analysis (Bardin, 1996), in which the qualitative analysis software Atlas Ti version 7.1 was used instrumentally to develop a systematization and preliminary organization of the qualitative material.
Once a first systematization of the information was developed, from which preliminary categories emerged, we proceeded, in a second stage, to carry out an analysis with a discursive approach oriented by the theoretical-analytical keys provided by Foucault (2013). In other words, the resistance to policies was analyzed due to the counter-behaviors produced by the educators in their contexts of institutional performance in their daily pedagogical work.
Specifically, a double-entry analysis matrix was prepared in which columns were provided with the respective instruments for collecting information from where the selected speeches came from: interview, field notes and blogs. While in the ranks the theoretical categories from Foucault's analytics were consigned, as well as the present power relations materialized through the resistance to standardization and to the referral of students to special education schools.

Results
Among the most relevant findings that emerged from the process of analysis of the discursive corpus is a resistance on the part of educators to the standardization processes of teaching and to the mandate of referring students with learning difficulties to special education schools. These counter-behaviors that the participants deployed occurred both individually and collectively.
Vol. 10, Núm. 20 Enero -Junio 2020, e0 Resistance to standardization: training of students for the Simce assessment Regarding standardization practices, diverse and creative forms of resistance by educators were found in the speeches and episodes. This disobedience occurred in different ways in the case studies. It should be remembered that, in the framework of this research, the participants will be called Claudia y Pamela 6 . On the one hand, the counter-behaviors that Claudia displayed were limited: given the educational context in which she worked, she was highly pressured to obtain "good" results in the Simce. On the other hand, in Pamela, disobedience was more explicitly manifested before the mandates to work in favor of standardized evaluation.
Following are speeches and episodes in which the participants displayed resistance to the logic of standardization. Firstly, the case of Pamela is revealed, who explained her position regarding the Simce student training process in this way: Well, the months before Simce are very complicated, August, September and October. They mess up your day when they send you to work with the children of the PIE for the Simce. But let's see, one can still cheat, as they say, with the Simce theme. Sometimes they have sent me to work with the third and fourth to support them with the Simce theme, but I bring them to the resource room and here I work on the leveling of their math or language skills, but we do the differentiated work that I decide , here nobody watches me. In the end, just like in the class book I can support the classroom teacher, so it is up to you to go with the flow or go against it (Pamela, 7 de septiembre de 2018, entrevista).
In this fragment, the educator manifests the possibility of resisting the mandates of the accountability policy, which are crystallized through the orders issued by the management of the school in which she worked. The participant was able to produce these "traps" or misconduct in a space where she is not directly supervised or observed, that is, the resource 6 También es importante recordar que Claudia es la educadora que se desempeñaba en la escuela municipal con alto nivel de vulnerabilidad, institución que se encontraba clasificada como "en recuperación". Mientras que Pamela es la docente que trabajaba en la escuela de dependencia particular subvencionada, con un nivel de vulnerabilidad del alumnado menor y que estaba categorizada como "autónoma" o con "desempeño medioalto".
Vol. 10, Núm. 20 Enero -Junio 2020, e0 room. 7 In fact, this place is one of the places within schools where empirical research has not paid enough attention to delve into the understanding of the resistance that emerges as a result of the demands for standardization of educational processes.
It is precisely in this space where Pamela mentioned that she can "cheat", that is, this teacher has the possibility of exercising a differentiated job according to her professional criteria as an educator, disobeying the mandates of explicitly preparing students with learning difficulties to perform on the Simce assessment.
This finding is consistent with episodes observed in the educational institutions in which the participants worked, since it was recorded that the resource room was constituted in a space in which both teachers disobeyed the standardization discourses promoted by the policies of surrender of accounts, specifically the SEP law, which questioned them to work on obtaining "high" scores on the Simce evaluation.
As an example, this resistance was expressed through collective agreements in the case of Claudia, through the production of an apparent "obedience" to the mandate to train students for the Simce.
In the context of a school that was highly stressed and overwhelmed by the threat of closure, where educational actors directed their behavior towards achieving a "good score" in the Simce, the educators did not have the possibility of explicitly disobeying, but they did produce a collective resistance tactic in the resource room to apply standardized assessment tests to learners with a significantly lower percentage of questions and a greater focus on addressing learners' learning difficulties. In this episode it can be seen that a collective agreement was reached by the coordinator and the differential educators to resist the standardization mandates, applying professional criteria focused on working in the regular classroom with learners with learning difficulties. In this way, it was complying with what was requested by the management and at the same time deploying counter-conduct linked to their role as managers of inclusion within the school. Thus, in this educational context, it would be disobeying in a more "veiled" way to normalization, in Foucaultian terms, aimed at the elaboration of subjectivities of productive students based on the Simce.
While in the case of Pamela, in the scenario of the application of tests prior to the students taking the Simce, in an exceptional way, this teacher was allowed to withdraw the students with learning difficulties from this school and carry out these evaluations in the resource room. In this episode the following way was manifested in which the educator "disobeyed" the practice to which she was questioned: (The educator has already gone to look for the children in the basic room in the classroom and told them to sit at the large table in the resource room).
Pamela (speaking to the children): Okay, children, we have to work with these Simce guides, but do you remember that last week in mathematics we were working with fractions and we were using a material called Cuisenaire strips?
Children: Yes (in a choral way).
Educator Carmen: Since there are six of them, they will work in pairs and I will pass them the strips and a guide that I had prepared for them. That's what we will do today (26 de septiembre de 2018, nota de campo).
In this episode it is evident that Pamela disobeyed the mandates of conducting a test preparation for the Simce test, contempt that materializes by taking students with learning difficulties from the basic room (or fourth year of primary school) to the resource room.
Similar to what happened in the case of Claudia, the educator Pamela developed an alternative pedagogical work to the tests for the Simce, a pedagogical activity that although it corresponded to the same subject (mathematics) did not have a direct relationship with answering a standardized assessment instrument that emulated the Simce. Therefore, in the case of Pamela, an individual resistance tactic was detected in the resource room.
In these two episodes presented previously, various ways are reflected in which the participants Claudia and Pamela, respectively, resisted the logics that installed the accountability policies through the deployment of counter-behaviors, although they obeyed (apparently) the mandates of the respective school institutions. Likewise, it is in the resource room where they deliberated and exercised behaviors that are linked to their professional criteria as differential educators, which can be conceptualized as resistance to the discourses promoted by accountability in their respective contexts of professional performance.

Resistance to the referral of students to special education schoolsl
Among the practices that the participants produced and which they called "exclusionary" and that, moreover, were found more frequently in the case of Claudia and with less intensity for the educator Pamela, was the referral of students with greater difficulties in learning in the subjects of Language and Mathematics at special education schools.
These practices, according to the professional criteria of the teachers belonging to the case studies, corresponded to the exclusion of students that they, as differential educators or their colleagues in charge of inclusion, paradoxically had to assume, given the mandate of the respective educational institutions in which they performed, actions that in the opinion of these pedagogues were against all professional ethics.
Vol. 10, Núm. 20 Enero -Junio 2020, e0 In particular, both in the speeches and in the episodes observed, this exclusion of students from special education schools was detected in the cases of Claudia and Pamela, which was mentioned in one of the cases as an express mandate (Claudia). On the other hand, Pamela suggested in her speech that this type of practice did not occur in the school in which she worked, which is not consistent with the behaviors that were identified in the educational institution in which she developed professionally.
When these educators were consulted regarding the existence of this type of practice in the schools in which they worked, these teachers referred to this topic in the following way. First Claudia: It is a delicate subject, but I cannot deny that it has been done here. The subject is not talked about much, because it is contrary to inclusion and for me it should not happen under any circumstances, but, as we discussed before, the subject of the Simce and that the school is in danger produces this type of thing. A colleague had to refer a girl to a special school and we all knew that this girl had nothing serious enough to send her to a special school, but here they pressured us from all sides and it happened. But, as I say, the topic is not discussed, because at the time it was very strong and it still is (Claudia, 5 de junio de 2018, entrevista).
Pamela, for her part, mentioned the following: Well, I am aware that it is something that happens and I am not saying that it does not exist, because I have heard from other colleagues from other schools that do it, but in this school it has not been done and I have spent many years working here and I would have found out. I know that for some people children with difficulties are a problem and that they do not perform well in the Simce, but it is not a reason to refer them. But I know that in other schools it is a very common practice, like hiding children with difficulties on the day of the Simce, to tell you (Pamela, 10 de noviembre de 2018, entrevista).
In accordance with the aforementioned, in the school contexts in which Claudia and Pamela worked, it was also evident that, in practice, these teachers displayed resistance to the mandates of excluding students with learning difficulties, although this disobedience emerged mainly in the case of Claudia, who, using the resource room, strategically summoned a student's attorney who was being evaluated to be eventually referred to a special Claudia: That's why I called her, so that we can work together and you can support her from home, so that she can improve her grades and stay in school so they don't send her to the special school (7 de mayo de 2018, nota de campo).
In the episode presented, the educator Claudia, before the direction of the management, anticipated and requested the collaboration of the student's attorney, to whom she sought to refer, so that the student in question was not excluded from regular school. This situation occurs before the contingency of the school in which Claudia worked, which, remember, was classified "in recovery" and, therefore, was faced with the urgency of demonstrating a significant increase in the scores of the Simce evaluation , and thus avoid losing official recognition and not having to be closed.
Given the aforementioned contingency, educators were directed from this school's direction to evaluate the lowest-performing children in the 4th year of primary (primary) in the subjects of Language and Mathematics. Claudia, aware that this type of exclusion was against her professional criteria, presented a "veiled" counter-conduct from the restricted Vol. 10, Núm. 20 Enero -Junio 2020, e0 range of actions that she could take, since this pedagogue also depended on the direction of the establishment to maintain her employment, due that his labor regime was not associated with an indefinite contract, but with one of annual renewal, through fees, resources that were financed through the SEP.
The possibility of resistance and the production of counter-behaviors of the participants depended on certain factors that were investigated. In the case of Claudia and Pamela, it was evident that the labor pressures and the contractual conditions in which they found themselves influenced the exercise of resistance that they could create in the face of the referral practices of students with learning difficulties to special education schools.
Regarding contractual limitations, an episode is presented in which Pamela, in dialogue with one of her colleagues at the school, comments on the situation of a teacher who explicitly opposed the referral of students to a special school, which implied that this pedagogue was disconnected (fired) from her work.
Pamela: Did you hear about Maria? They were recently.
Educator Rosa: Yes po. I was singing. But it was her decision in any case. We advise her, but the good thing is that she is young, without family or children. In my case, I would not have refused to refer the child, because I have bills to pay and family.
Pamela: Unfortunately. We should be on the ground and have indefinite work and so, if they force you to make a referral, one can just refuse and if you want to kick you out, one goes for inspection. But now, it depends on you, no matter how much you need money, if they had forced me to refer, I wouldn't have done it, always ethics first.
Educator Rosa: You say that because you have been in school for more years than others and they consider you. On the other hand, one, like the Mary, if you refuse, they just throw you out and there is no one to claim (15 de mayo de 2018, nota de campo).
In the dialogue presented, it is possible to identify that there were factors in this school that hindered the exercise of resistance by these two educators in the event of a request by the management for the referral of some students with learning difficulties to an institution of special education. These factors or variables were linked to the precarious and unstable Vol. 10, Núm. 20 Enero -Junio 2020, e0 working and contractual conditions under which these education professionals were in the school institution in question.
In the episode presented, Pamela was emphatic when she pointed out that, despite her work at school being threatened, in the event that she was asked to refer a student to a special education school, it is her ethics that must prevail in her role as a differential educator and, therefore, she would rather lose her job than obey the referral mandate. In addition, another aspect to highlight in her speech is that Pamela explicitly recognized that, in this educational institution, the practice of excluding students "did or had happened", which is contrary to what this teacher stated in the first in-depth interview offered in the framework of this research.
In addition to these episodes and stories, it was in the reflective blogs that both Claudia and Pamela expressed their tension in the face of these dynamics of standardization / exclusion in which they were, to a certain extent, participating actors, as they were immersed in stressed educational contexts (to varying degrees ) for high stakes accountability.
In this sense, Claudia constructed a narrative of her daily work in which she portrayed this tension in her work: that of an actor who includes and at the same time contributes to exclusion in the school in which he worked. In this way he explained it in one of the blogs that he produced in the framework of this study: Claudia, in this blog, evidenced a production of a tense identity, confused and vulnerable to the mandates of accountability policies and to the demands of standardization / exclusion to which the authorities of their school institution questioned them.
In the particular case of Claudia, in her speech she reported an overwhelm and exhaustion due to these contradictory demands, which stressed her, which made her doubt and question her pedagogical work as a teacher in charge of school inclusion. In addition, the educator tried not to reflect too much on these problems, since they led her to "get depressed." Despite this and all the adversity, he believed that it was his duty and responsibility to concern himself with inclusion and work with the students with the greatest learning difficulties and, at the same time, to try to resist and defend their role despite the multiple pressures to which she was exposed in her daily pedagogical work.

Discussion
Taking into account the findings presented, the resistance identified and materialized through counter-behaviors by the educators, these actions emerged before the teaching standardization mandates to prepare students for the Simce assessment, as well as as an effect of the practices of referring students with major learning difficulties to special education schools.
Regarding the standardization of teaching, the educators displayed collective and individual counter-behaviors. In the case of Claudia, they were crystallized through a group agreement between the teachers that accomplished two things: apparently obeying the mandates of preparing students for the Simce and adjusting the tests for this evaluation in order to improve knowledge and skills. Most descended from students in the subjects of Language and Mathematics.
The previous finding partially agrees with research that has been carried out at the national level with primary school teachers, who have resisted the standardization of educational processes through complaints to their managers or internalizing the discomfort caused by developing a job. pedagogical that goes against their identities and their ethics (Assaél et al., 2014;Rojas and Leyton, 2014). Similarly, empirical studies at the international level have shown resistance on the part of teachers, manifested through murmurs, annoyance, anxiety and stress in the face of demands for the preparation and training of students to take standardized assessments (Ball, Braun and Maguire, 2011;Braun and Maguire, 2018).
As for Pamela's case, this produced a resistance that was unfolded by means of an individual counter-behavior: she disobeyed the mandate to apply an essay to prepare the Vol. 10, Núm. 20 Enero -Junio 2020, e0 students for the Simce and instead carried out another pedagogical activity according to her professional criteria as differential educator in charge of inclusion; in this way, it omitted the demand for standardization of teaching-learning processes. This resistance could be carried out in a space of the establishment in which he worked and which was far from the evaluative gaze of managers and supervisors, or from the panopticon, from Foucault's analytics, a place that corresponded to the resource room of the educational establishment.
Regarding the referral of students to special education schools, it turned out to be a controversial topic in both case studies. Claudia, given the context in which she found herself, stressed at the eventual closure of the school in case the results of the Simce evaluation did not improve, displayed a counter-conduct that led her to associate with the mother of a student who was to be referred to a special education school. This pedagogue arranged a meeting and agreed with the attorney on a pedagogical plan to improve the performance of the student in question in Language and Mathematics, key subjects in the Chilean curriculum and in Simce, an action that would help prevent referral. While Pamela, in an educational setting without exacerbated pressure, stated that she preferred to follow her ethics as a professional in charge of school inclusion and resign her job due to the demand to refer students to the special education system.
In both cases, the referral of students to special education schools was interpreted by the participants as a practice that challenged them professionally and ethically, as Falabella (2019) has studied, that is, the educators were at the crossroads of being agents of exclusion of students, which turned out to be contrary to their work as managers of inclusion and, in turn, it was detected that the participants were hyperresponsible for their students who, in addition to being considered to have learning difficulties, came from sectors of extreme urban poverty, so sending them to these special education institutions represented, for Claudia and Pamela, a profound damage to the educational and life trajectories of these students.
The previous result partially agrees with the findings of the researcher Grinberg What this research allows to illuminate and make visible is how the policies of accountability in its implementation, such as Ball et al. (2011) conceptualize it, generate "unwanted effects" in schools and in the subjectivities of teachers and children. In the case of this study, it realizes the various counter-behaviors that the educators in charge of inclusion had to deploy to resist the exclusion of students with learning difficulties, both to avoid that these students were subject to standardization as well as of educational eugenics, a term coined by Baker (2002), that is, they were sent to educational spaces in which school subjects who escape the norm desired and expected by the Chilean educational system are locked up and confined (Infante, Matus y Vizcarra, 2011).

Conclusions
This research accounts for the various counter-behaviors that the participants deployed as forms of resistance to the logic of accountability. Both were questioned by managers, who were also stressed by standardizing learners, preparing them for the Simce assessment, and referring those who were coded "problematic" or "risky" due to their disabilities to special education schools. learning difficulties and the possible low score that could occur in the aforementioned test.
Before schools and actors who are stressed by the logic of accountability with high consequences, the political agenda of each institution is disrupted and the "training" of children becomes a priority to obtain a good score in the evaluation. Simce. In the case of Claudia, given her precarious and urgent contractual conditions of her threatened school, this teacher, together with her colleagues, collectively agreed to deploy counter-behaviors linked to an "apparent" obedience in preparing students for the Simce assessment. . However, in reality they carried out a differentiated work and adjusted to the needs and abilities of the students with greater learning difficulties. While Pamela generated more explicit and individual resistance, since, in the resource room, she did not apply the Simce tests to students with learning difficulties.
Regarding the referral of students to special education schools, this practice had been carried out in both educational institutions and was a controversial topic. In this sense, it was identified that differential educators were asked to evaluate children who could "harm" schools, given the potential low score in the Simce evaluation that they could produce. In Vol. 10, Núm. 20 Enero -Junio 2020, e0 Claudia's case, she displayed a counter-conduct when working with the mother of a student who was to be referred. Pamela, for her part, mentioned that in case she was required to send a student to a special school, she made her work available, since her professional ethics prevailed as an educator in charge of school inclusion and not exclusion. of students.
In turn, it must be considered that these participants were inserted in sociocultural contexts where urban poverty and school institutions intersect, whose educational actors are required to be responsible for their own lives, for the education of their students, to include them. and sometimes even to exclude them, generating tensions in the identity and ethics of differential educators.
In this sense, this study accounts for one of the "unintended" consequences due to the logic of accountability with high consequences in an educational system such as the Chilean one: the standardization and exclusion of those students who paradoxically require a more inclusive education. and comprehensive.