Search results

The purpose of this paper is to determine the differing ways in which nonprofit charter and traditional public school board members define the concept of accountability in the school or schools they oversee. The findings speak to the governing consequences of shifting oversight of public education from democratically elected bodies to unelected nonprofit governing boards.

The authors use originally collected survey data from democratically elected school board members and nonprofit charter school board members in Minnesota to test for differences in how these two populations view accountability. Open-ended survey questions are coded according to a previously used accountability typology.

The authors find that charter school board members are more likely than traditional public school board members to define accountability through high stakes testing as opposed to staff professionalization and bureaucratic systems.

The results speak to the link between board governance structure and accountability in the public education sector, providing new understanding on the way in which non-elected charter school board members view their accountability function.

The prevailing theory of action underlying accountability is that holding schools and students accountable will increase educational output. While accountability's theory of action intuitively seemed plausible, at the point of No Child Left Behind's national implementation, little empirical research was available to either support or critique accountability claims or to predict the long‐term impact of accountability systems on the success of at‐risk students and the schools that served them. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the work and perceptions of school teachers and leaders as they seek to meet the requirements of educational accountability.

Interviews with 89 administrators, staff and teachers revealed a variety of methods utilized to manage risks associated with low test scores and accountability ratings.

The findings reported in this paper challenge the proposition that accountability improves the educational outcomes of at‐risk students and indicates that low‐performing Texas high schools, when faced with the press of accountability, tend to mirror corporate risk management processes, with unintended consequences for at‐risk students. Low‐scoring at‐risk students were often viewed as liabilities by school personnel who, in their scramble to meet testing thresholds and accountability goals, were at‐risk student averse – implementing practices designed to “force kids out of school.”

In this paper, the authors use theory and research on risk management to analyze the work and perceptions of school teachers and leaders as they seek to meet the requirements of educational accountability. This paper is among the first to use this particular perspective to conceptualize and understand the practices of educational organizations with regards to the treatment of at‐risk students attending low‐performing high schools in the midst of accountability.

This paper examines how a beginning teacher in Virginia and a beginning teacher in Florida make sense of the high-stakes tests in their state. By examining beginning teachers in two states where the tests are so very different, we gain important insight into whether there are similarities and differences across states and how the nature of the test affects the teaching and learning of history. We first offer insight into the context of accountability in Virginia and Florida and then discuss what ambitious teaching and learning look like in these states as informed by the literature. Then, we turn to our research methods, findings, and implications for the field of social studies.

This article contributes new understanding to a small but critical body of research indicating that high-stakes testing in reading/language arts and mathematics is contributing to marginalization of social studies in the elementary school curriculum across the US. It provides evidence from interviews with fifth-grade teachers that the “squeeze” on history-social science occurs disproportionately in low-performing schools with large minority and low-income populations, where curricular mandates prevail. The interviews shed light on elementary teachers' decision-making in history-social science and how it is influenced by state testing, local community pressures, as well as other influences. It indicates the need for more extensive qualitative study and concludes with a research design to guide future investigations.

The central argument in this paper is that ethical school leadership is imperative in a context of increasing performance-driven accountability. The purpose of this paper is to focus on school principals’ perceptions of how they understand ethical leadership and how they lead the ethical use of data.

This study utilises semi-structured interviews with six state school principals (one primary and six secondary) to explore their perceptions of ethical leadership practices; and how they balance current competing accountabilities in a context of performance-driven accountability.

There were four key findings. First, principals used data to inform and direct their practices and their conversations with teachers. Second, while ethics was a central consideration in how principals’ led, practising in an ethical manner was identified as complex and challenging in the current context. Third, Starratt’s (1996) ethical framework proved to be relevant for interpreting principals’ practices. Finally, all of the principals referred to dilemmas they faced as a result of competing priorities and all used a variety of strategies to deal with these dilemmas.

While there is a small body of research that explores school leaders’ understandings of ethical tensions and dilemmas, there is little research that has focused on school leaders’ understandings of the ethical use of data. This study, then, contributes to this area as it provides a discussion on school principals’ leadership practices in the current climate driven by data use.

By recognizing high-stakes testing as a key constraint to teacher agency, this paper aims to provide a close analysis of one teacher’s testing narrative to illustrate how emerging positioning is relative to high-stakes testing shapes perception of pedagogical agency.

Data were generated through a series of semi-structured interviews with an early career fourth-grade teacher, Ms Moore, in a school facing pressure to raise test scores. Using theoretical lenses of narrative positioning and a linguistic anthropological centering of constraint and emergence, 67 narratives of accountability were analyzed, with particular focus on how Ms Moore positioned herself relative to other actors involved in high-stakes testing and the consequent rights and duties these positions afforded.

In narrating the constraints of high-stakes testing, Ms Moore positioned herself relative to three groups involved in high-stakes testing: “purposefully tricky” test creators, “disjointed” administrators and “worried” students. The rights and duties associated with three positions varied with respect to two dimensions – proximity and hierarchy – in turn providing her distinct resources for responding to the pedagogical constraints of high-stakes testing.

Teachers might use positioning analysis as a tool to locate possibilities for agency amidst high-stakes testing, both by exploring the resources afforded by their positioning and by considering how alternative positions might afford different resources.

These findings suggest that high-stakes testing serves as a dynamic and perhaps malleable constraint to teacher agency. Teacher positioning, particularly relative to hierarchy and proximity, provides possible resource for responding to such constraints.

Pre-service teachers may leave their graduate programs with strong social justice leanings, yet most begin teaching struggling to integrate their visions into a context constrained by accountability demands. Pressures and constraints, such as high-stakes testing and mandated curriculum, may require teachers committed to social justice to negotiate what they want to teach and what they are able to teach. This piece highlights the daunting journey of one beginning teacher and her struggle to uphold her commitment to teach for social justice while still meeting administrative expectations. The study’s findings point to the myriad complexities surrounding teaching social studies for social justice, especially regarding integrating social justice content into the general curriculum. As a result of these findings, several questions have been formulated for further research surrounding the education of teachers for social justice.

Principals face shifting accountability pressures from many sources. The most notable recent change in the USA has been the growing pressure from state and federal government. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which the accountability pressures experienced by principals in one American state were the same as those reported in research documenting “objective” changes in those pressures.

This qualitative study uses interviews with New Jersey middle school principals. The purposeful sample includes principals who had been in their buildings at least three years and enhances variation on socioeconomic status (as measured by New Jersey's rating of “district factor groups”) and school achievement. The authors averaged three years of achievement data and controlled for variation in poverty, ethnicity, language proficiency, and enrollment. A total of 37 principals were contacted; 25 were interviewed. Principals first rank ordered seven sources of accountability. They were then interviewed to learn why the one they ranked highest was most important.

The most frequent top source of accountability was “your own conscience.” Principals who selected this option highlighted a sense of personal responsibility, responsibility to the children in their charge, and how conscience mediates among competing accountabilities. Accountability to one's conscience was most prevalent in high achieving schools.

Frequent reference to internal responsibility among leaders suggests that they continue to feel a strong sense of internal accountability in spite of increasing external pressures. It also illustrates the range of external, often conflicting pressures that principals face which include pressures from the public and the district office as well as state and federal government. In this increasingly prescriptive and contradictory environment the principal's moral code is important to her or his school.

Whilst beneficial, the use of evidence to improve teaching and learning in schools is proving difficult to achieve in practice. The purpose of this paper is to shed new light on this issue by examining the applicability of a model of rational behaviour as relates to the notion of evidence-informed practice (EIP). Specifically, exploring the question: “if EIP is rational behavior, why are not all teachers engaged in it?”, the authors examine whether the beliefs and perspectives of teachers in relation to EIP, align with their evidence-use behaviours. The authors then assess what factors prevent teachers/schools from engaging in EIP.

To examine beliefs, instances of, and barriers to evidence use, the authors employ a Gradient Boosted Tree predictive model to analyse data from a survey of 696 practitioners in 79 schools.

The findings suggest that, should they wish to increase EIP within their schools, school leaders need to: first, promote the vision for evidence-use (i.e. actively encourage its use); second, illustrate how research and evidence can be effectively employed to enhance aspects of teaching and learning; and third, establish effective learning environments, in which learning conversations around the use of evidence, can flourish.

Using a new, innovative model of rationality, the authors conclude that despite the focus on EIP in many school systems world-wide, evidence use will never be meaningfully realized unless school leaders prioritize EIP as a school commitment. Simultaneously, given the high-stakes accountability environments facing many school systems it is unlikely that prioritization of EIP will occur until EIP forms part of any education system’s accountability regime.

This qualitative study examined urban school personnel’s opinions, perceptions, and strategies in implementing the following: (a) locally mandated Zero Tolerance Discipline Policies, (b) nationally mandated standardized high-stakes testing laws, and (c) how the two combined can be counterproductive to one another. Three themes emerged from the research. The first and predominate theme that emerged and discussed was “perspectives that described the potential impact standardized high-stakes assessments have on African American male students that violate the Zero Tolerance Discipline Policy.” The research and its recommendations are valuable to policymakers, education advocates, stakeholders, superintendents, boards of education, administrators, teachers, and parents.