Most importantly, the decentralization of decision-making should have different implications in systems with and without central exams. Specifically, when schools are autonomous, they have ample leeway in their behavior. Whenever there is large room for opportunism on a decision– that is, when information asymmetries as well as differences in interests between schools and parents or administrators are both large, the extent of monitoring is vital to whether autonomous decisions will be carried out in the interest of student learning or not. Without central exams, schools with substantial autonomy may act in ways inconsistent with furthering student achievement without penalty, as their detrimental behavior cannot be observed. With central exams, by contrast, the results of such opportunistic behavior will be observed, forcing schools to lean more towards behavior conducive sslc results to student performance. Informational asymmetries are quite large in most areas of educational decision-making. However, the extent to which schools’ own interests run counter to the interest of furthering student knowledge will depend on the specific task, or area of decision making, in question. It might be expected that schools have a strong self-interest running counter to student learning whenever there is money involved in the decision, as it is only natural to try to increase the personal payoff for a given level of work (or, conversely, to reduce the level of work for a given payoff). It is in this group of tasks where devices that hold agents accountable should have their largest beneficial impact. By contrast, schools’ own interests may be well in line with student learning in such decision-making areas as the choice of textbooks or supplies, as it is not obviously in the interest of schools to use poor supplies. In these tasks, the scope for opportunistic behavior is limited, and the need for accountability systems is correspondingly small. The effects of school autonomy also depend on whether decentralized knowledge is important for a specific task. In many decision-making areas, local decision-making is likely to be more informed because it can draw on the decentralized knowledge that is available to schools, but not to any central entity. The extent to which decentralized knowledge is important again depends on the decision-making area in question.