Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago's low-performing schools

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 594-630

  Finnigan, Kara S ^a,c   Gross, Betheny ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Educational policy; Motivation

Indexed keywords

EID: 37649003499     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831207306767     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abelmann, CH, RF Elmore, J Even, S Kenyon, and J Marshall (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer?. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
2. a(2004). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. In Fuhrman, SH and RF Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 189-219). New York: Teachers College Press.
3. Center on Education Policy (2007). Answering the question that matters most: Has student achievement increased since No Child Left Behind?. Washington, DC: Author.
4. Clark, PB, and JQ Wilson (1961). Incentive systems: A theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6 (2). 129-166.
5. Day, C, B Elliot, and A Kingston (2005). Reform, standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 563-577.
6. Finnigan, KS, and J ODay (2003). External support to schools on probation: Getting a leg up?. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
7. Firestone, WA, J Fitz, and P Broadfoot (1999). Power, learning, and legitimation: Assessment implementation across levels in the United States and the United Kingdom. American Educational Research Journal, 36 (4). 759-793.
8. Firestone, WA, D Mayrowetz, and J Fairman (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20 (2). 95-113.
9. Forum on Educational Accountability (2007). Assessment and accountability for improving schools and learning: Principles and recommendations for federal law and state and local systems. Cambridge, MA: Author.
10. a(2005). Summary. In Gross, B and ME Goertz (Eds.), Holding high hopes: How high schools respond to state accountability policies (pp. 123-132). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
11. Gross, B and M Goertz (Eds.) (2005). Holding high hopes: How high schools respond to state accountability. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
12. Haney, W (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 8(41). Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://eppa.asu.edu/eppa/v8n41.
13. Johnsrud, LK, RH Heck, and VJ Rosser (2000). Morale matters: Midlevel administrators and their intent to leave. Journal of Higher Education, 71 (1). 34-59.
14. Kelley, C, and K Finnigan (2003). The effects of organizational context on teacher expectancy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39 (5). 603-634.
15. Kelley, C, H Heneman, and A Milanowski (2002). Teacher motivation and school-based performance awards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 (3). 372-401.
16. King, JC, and B Malen (2003). The human costs of education reform: The case of school reconstitution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39 (5). 635-666.
17. Koretz, DM, SI Barron, KJ Mitchell, and BM Stecher (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) (MR-792, PCT/FF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
18. Lawler, E (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
19. Leithwood, K, R Steinbach, and D Jantzi (2002). School leadership and teachers motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 (1). 94-119.
20. Lipman, P (April, 2002). Chicago school policy and the politics of race: Toward a discourse of equity and justice, Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
21. McLaughlin, MW (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9 (2). 171-178.
22. McNeil, L (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. London: Routledge.
23. Mintrop, H (2003). The limits of sanctions in low-performing schools: A study of Maryland and Kentucky schools on probation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 11(3). Retrieved July 30, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v11n3.html.
24. ODay, J, and C Bitter (2003). Evaluation study of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
25. Ofoegbu, FI (2004). Teacher motivation: A factor for classroom effectiveness and school improvement in Nigeria. College Student Journal, 38 (1). 81-89.
26. Porter, L, G Bigley, and R Steers (2003). Motivation and work behavior, 7. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27. a(1996). Standards as incentives for instructional reform. In Fuhrman, S and J ODay (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 195-225). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28. Talbert, JE, and M McLaughlin (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102 (2). 123-153.
29. Vroom, V (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
30. a(2001). Hedging bets: Standards-based reform in class-rooms. In Fuhrman, SF (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 193-216). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.