State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers' interpretations of a new era

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 177-204

  Louis, Karen Seashore ^a   Febey, Karen ^a   Schroeder, Roger ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability policy; Teachers

Indexed keywords

EID: 23844513551     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737027002177     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Abram, M. (1985). For equity and excellence. New Perspectives, 77(2), 1.5-18.
2. Angelides, P., & Ainscow, M. (2000). Making sense of the role of culture in school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 145-163.
3. Baker, E. (2002). Validity issues for accountability systems. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
4. Barr, P. S. (1998). Adapting to unfamiliar environmental events: A look at the evolution of interpretation and its role in strategic change. Organization Science, 9, 644-669.
5. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1997). The micropolitical orientation of facilitative school principals and its effects on teachers' sense of empowerment. Journal of Educational Administration, 35, 138-164.
6. Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 106-126.
7. Bracy, G. (2003). April foolishness: The 20th anniversary of A Nation at Risk. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 616-621.
8. Broadway, F. S. (1999). Student teachers' sense-making of an instructional ecology. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 234-245.
9. Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Promoting school improvement through professional communities: An analysis of Chicago elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 707-750.
10. Buckendahl, C., Endorf, D. P., & Boss, T. (2002). Informing state assessment from the local level. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
11. Burch, P., & Spillane, J. (2002). Making sense of accountability pressures: Intermediary actors as interpreters of district instructional policy. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
12. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
13. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-170.
14. Conley, D. T., & Bodone, F. (2002). University expectations for student success: Implications for system alignment and state standard and assessment policies. Eugene: University of Oregon.
15. Cross, R. W., Rebarber, T., Torres, J., & Finn, C. (2004). Grading the systems: The guide to state standards, tests, and accountability policies. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
16. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Standards and assessments: Where we are and what we need. Teachers College Record. Retrieved May 1, 2004, from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID= 11109
17. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106, 1047-1085.
18. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106, 1145-1176.
19. Donnellon, A., Gray, B., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Communication, meaning, and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 43-55.
20. Dutro, E., Fisk, M. C., Koch, R., Roop, L. J., & Wixon, K. (2002). When state policies meet local district contexts: Standards-based professional development as a means to individual agency and collective ownership. Teachers College Record, 104, 787-811.
21. Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94, 601-619.
22. Emshoff, J. G., Blakely, C., Gottschalk, R., Mayer, J., Davidson, W. S., & Erickson, S. (1987). Innovation in education and criminal justice: Measuring fidelity of implementation and program effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 300-311.
23. Febey, K., & Louis, K. S. (2005, April). State policy and data-based decision-making: A cultural analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
24. Firestone, W., Meyrowitz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 95-113.
25. Firestone, W., & Shipps, D. (2003, April). How do educational leaders interpret the multiple accountabilities that they face? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
26. Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41. 370-403.
27. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theoiy: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
28. Gold, B. (2002). Social construction of urban education: New Jersey whole school reform and teachers' understanding of social class and race. New York: Pace University.
29. Grant, S. G. (2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing in New York State on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103, 398-426.
30. Gupta, P. P., Dirsmith, M. W., & Fogarty, T. J. (1994). Coordination and control in a government agency: Contingency and institutional theory perspectives on GAO audits. Administrative Science Quarterly. 39, 264-284.
31. Halpin, D., & Troyna, B. (1995). The politics of education policy borrowing. Comparative Education, 31, 303-310.
32. Hannaway, J. (1993). Political pressure and decentralization in institutional organizations: The case of school districts. Sociology of Education, 66, 147-163.
33. Hannaway, J. (2003). Accountability, assessment, and performance issues: We've come a long way... or have we? In W. L. Boyd & D. Miretzkey (Eds.), American educational governance on trial: Change and challenges (pp. 20-36). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Harris, S. G. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based perspective. Organization Science, 5, 309-321.
35. Hilliard, A. G. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 293-304.
36. Honig, M., & Hatch, T. (2004). Grafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, conflicting demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.
37. Ingram, D., Louis, K. S., & Schroeder, R. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making. Teachers College Record, 106, 1258-1287.
38. Kantor, H. (1991). Education, social reform, and the state: ESEA and federal education policy in the 1960s. American Journal of Education, 100, 47-83.
39. Kelley, C., Kimball, S., & Conley, S. (2000). Payment for results: Effects of the Kentucky and Maryland group-based performance award systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 75, 159-199.
40. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). Examining the institutional transformation process: The importance of sensemaking, interrelated strategies, and balance. Research in Higher Education, 43, 295-328.
41. Kruse, S. D. (1997). Reflective activity in practice: Vignettes of teachers' deliberative work. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31, 46-60.
42. Levy, F., & Murnane, R. (2001). Will standards-based reforms improve the education of students of color? National Tax Journal, 54, 401-415.
43. Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
44. Louis, K. S., & Dentier, R. (1988). Knowledge use and school improvement. Curriculum Inquiry, 18, 32-62.
45. Marks, H., Louis, K. S., & Printy, S. (2002). The capacity for organizational learning: Implications for pedagogy and student achievement. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Organizational learning and school improvement (pp. 239-266). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
46. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 145-174.
47. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge/Falmer.
48. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49. Mertens, D. M. (1998). Sampling: Definition, selection, and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Monk, D. H. (1989). The education production function: Its evolving role in policy analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 31-45.
52. O'Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 293-329.
53. Ogawa, R., & Collom, E. (2000). Using performance indicators to hold schools accountable: Implicit assumptions and inherent tensions. Peabody Journal of Education, 75, 200-215.
54. Peterson, M. F. (1998). Embedded organizational events: The units of process in organization science. Organization Science, 9, 16-33.
55. Porter, A. (1989). External standards and good teaching: The pros and cons of telling teachers what to do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 343-356.
56. Porter, A. (1993). School delivery standards. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 24-30.
57. Porter, A. (2000). Doing high stakes assessment right. School Administrator, 57(11), 28-31.
58. Ravitch, D. (2001, Spring). A century of failed school reforms: Minnesota's Profile of Learning. American Experiment Quarterly, pp. 13-25.
59. Reyes, P., & Rorrer, A. (2001). U.S. school reform policy, state accountability systems, and the limited English proficient student. Journal of Education Policy, 16, 163-178.
60. Romberg, T. (1993). NCTM's standards: A rallying flag for mathematics teachers. Educational Leadership, 50(5), 36-41.
61. Rubin, S., & Spady, W. (1984). Achieving excellence through outcome-based instructional delivery. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 37-44.
62. Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2002). Raising test scores and lowering dropout rates: Can schools do both? Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara.
63. Rutledge, S. A. (2002). Principal decision making in a high-stakes context: A case study of two Chicago high schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
64. Sheldon, K. M., & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability and school reform: Perils and pitfalls. Teachers College Record, 100, 164-180.
65. Shrum, W., & Wuthnow, R. (1988). Reputational status of organizations in technical systems. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 882-912.
66. Sipple, J. W., & Killeen, K. (2004). Context, capacity, and concern: A district-level analysis of the implementation of standards-based reform in New York State. Educational Policy, 18, 456-490.
67. Smith, K. B., & Meier, K. J. (1995). Politics and the quality of education: Improving student performance. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 329-343.
68. Smith, M. L., Heinecke, W., & Noble, A. J. (1999). Assessment policy and political spectacle. Teachers College Record, 101, 157-191.
69. Spillane, J. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 33-63.
70. Spillane, J. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy makers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 141-179.
71. Spillane, J., Diamond, J. B., & Burch, P. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 76, 731-762.
72. Spillane, J., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Refraining and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431.
73. Spillane, J., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 185-203.
74. Stake, R. (1999). The goods on American education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 668-672.
75. Stecher, B., & Hamilton, L. (2002). Putting theory to the test. Rand Review, 26(1), 16-23.
76. Timar, T. B. (1997). The institutional role of state education departments: A historical perspective. American Journal of Education, 105, 231-260.
77. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453-479.
78. Waite, D., Boone, M., & McGhee, M. (2001). A critical socioculture view of accountability. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 182-203.
79. Warren, D. I. (1968). Power, visibility, and conformity in formal organizations. American Sociological Review, 33, 951-970.
80. Warren, D. I. (1970). Variations on the themes of primary groups: Forms of social control within school staffs. Sociology of Education, 43, 288-310.
81. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652.
82. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381.
83. Wiggins, G. (1991). Standards, not standardization. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 18-25.
84. Winkler, A. (2002). Division in the ranks: Standardized testing draws lines between new and veteran teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 219-225.
85. Zald, M. (1978). On the social control of industries. Social Forces, 57(11), 79-102.
86. Zembylas, M. (2003). Interrogating "teacher identity": Emotion, resistance, and self-formation. Educational Theory, 53, 107-127.