Teachers' practices: Responding to governmentality in accountability testing policy

International Journal of Leadership in Education

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 34-60

  Atkinson, Becky M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925041308     PISSN: 13603124     EISSN: 14645092     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2014.932436     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Atkinson, B. (2012). Target practice: Reader Response theory and teachers' interpretations of students' SAT 10 scores in data based professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 201-213.
2. Booher-Jennings, D. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. The American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
3. Booher-Jennings, D. (2006, June). Rationing education in an era of accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 756-761.
4. Boudette, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (Eds.). (2007). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Chen, E., Heritage, M., & Lee, J. (2005). Identifying and monitoring students' learning needs with technology. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 241-267.
6. Crawford, V. M., Schlager, M., Penuel, W. R., & Toyama, Y. (2008). Supporting the art of teaching in a data-rich, high performance learning environment. In E. B. Mandinach & M. Honey (Eds.), Linking data and learning (pp. 109-129). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
7. Curtis, S. M. (2011). Formative assessment in accounting education and some initial evidence on its use for instructional sequencing. Journal of Accounting Education, 29, 191-211.
8. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.
9. Ding, C., & Navarro, V. (2004). An examination of student mathematics learning in elementary and middle schools: A longitudinal look from the US. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30, 237-253.
10. Education Week. (October 2, 2013). NCLB waivers: A state by state breakdown. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/nclbwaivers.html
11. Foucault, M. (1977/1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Vintage Books.
12. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8, 777-796.
13. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In M. Foucault, G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87-104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14. Foucault, M. (2004/2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the College de France 1977-1978. (G. Burchell, Trans.). New York, NY: Picador.
15. Gallagher, L., Means, B., Padilla, C., & Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (ED), Policy and Program, Studies Service. (2008). Teachers' use of student data systems to improve instruction: 2005 to 2007. (ED-04-CO-0040/0002). Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/teachers-data-use-2005-2007/teachers-data-use-2005-2007.pdf
16. Gamoran, A., Secada, W., & Marret, C. (2011). The organizations context of teaching and learning: Changing theoretical perspectives. In A. Sadovnik (Ed.), Sociology of education: A critical reader (pp. 153-175). New York, NY: Routledge.
17. Gillborn, D. (2005). Educational policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 485-505.
18. Gillborn, D. (2010). The colour of numbers: Surveys, statistics and deficit-thinking about race and class. Journal of Education Policy, 25, 253-276.
19. Gillborn, G., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform, and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
20. Goldring, E., & Berends, M. (2009). Leading with data: Pathways to improve your school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
21. Graham, C., & Neu, D. (2004). Standardized testing and the construction of governable persons. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 295-319.
22. Haladyna, T. (2006). The perils of standardized achievement testing. Educational Horizons, 85, 30-43.
23. Halverson, R., Pritchett, R. B., & Watson, J. G. (2007). Formative feedback systems and the new instructional leadership. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
24. Hursh, D. (2003). Discourse, power, and control: The rise of testing and accountability and the decline of teacher professionalism and local control. In J. Satterthwaite, E. Atkinson, & K. Gale (Eds.), Discourse, power, and resistance: Challenging the rhetoric of contemporary education (pp. 43-57). London: Trentham Books.
25. Jara, J. (2010). Boom or bust? Educators' perceptions of a formative assessment system. (Electronic doctoral dissertations for UMass Amherst. [AAI3409599]) Retrieved from http://www.crifpe.ca/publications/veille/page:15/pubcat:3/sort:Publication.annee/direction:desc
26. Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27. Kozol, J. (2006). The Shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
28. Lachat, M. A., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 10, 333-349.
29. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3-12.
30. Landsman, J. (2004). Confronting the racism of low expectations. Educational Leadership, 62, 28-32.
31. Linn, R. L. (2009). The concept of validity in the context of NCLB. In R. W. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions, and applications (pp. 195-212). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
32. Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York, NY: Routledge.
33. Long, L., Rivas, L., Light, D., & Mandinach, E. B. (2008). The evolution of a homegrown data warehouse: The TUDStats. In E. B. Mandinach & M. Honey (Eds.), Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning (pp. 209-232). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
34. Love, N., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., & DiRanna, K. (2008). A data coach's guide to improving learning for all students: Unleashing the power of collaborative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
35. Lynn, M., Bacon, J., Totten, T., Bridges, T., & Jennings, M. (2010). Examining teachers' beliefs about African American male students in a low-performing high school in an African American school district. Teachers College Record, 112, 289-330.
36. Madaus, G., & Russell, M. (2010). Paradoxes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Education, 190, 21-30.
37. Mandinach, E., & Gummer, E. (2012). Navigating the landscape of data literacy: It IS complex. Washington, DC/Portland, OR: WestEd/Education Northwest.
38. Mandinach, E., & Gummer, E. (2013). A systemic view of implementing data literacy in educator preparation. Educational Researcher, 42, 30-37.
39. Mandinach, E., Honey, M., Light, D., & Brunner, C. (2008). A conceptual framework for data-driven decision making. In E. B. Mandinach & M. Honey (Eds.), Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning (pp. 13-31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
40. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform. New York, NY: Routledge.
42. Means, B., Chen, E., DeBarger, A., & Padilla, C. (2011). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Office of Planning, Education, and Policy Development.
43. Means, B., Padilla, C., DeBarger, A., & Bakia, M. (2009). Implementing data-informed decision making in schools: Teacher access, supports and use. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED504191.pdf
44. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1-31.
45. Monpas-Huber, J. (2010). Explaining teachers' instructional use of state assessment data: A multilevel study of high school teachers in Washington state. Journal of School Leadership, 20, 208-237.
46. Moos, L., Krejsler, J., & Kofod, K. (2008). Successful principals: Telling or selling? On the importance of context for school leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11, 341-352.
47. Niesche, R. (2010). Discipline through documentation: A form of governmentality for school principals. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13, 249-263.
48. Noguera, P. (2007). Extended view: Race, student achievement and the power and limitations of teaching. Sage Race Relations Abstracts, 32, 44-47.
49. No Child Left Behind (NCLB). (2002). Retrirved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/testing-f aq.html
50. Oláh, L. N., Lawrence, N. R., & Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 226-245.
51. Pearson Education. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=SAT10C
52. Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined whiteness of teaching: How white teachers maintain and enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12, 197-215.
53. Popkewitz, T. S. (1998). Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the construction of the teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
54. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.
55. Ryan, J. (1991). Observing and normalizing Foucault, discipline and inequality in schooling. Journal of Educational Thought, 25, 104-119.
56. Ryan, J. (1998). Critical leadership for education in a postmodern world: Emancipation, resistance and communal action. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1, 257-278.
57. Ryan, J. (2002). Leadership in contexts of diversity and accountability. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 989-1-001). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
58. Ryan, W. (1971/1976). Blaming the victim. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
59. SAT 10. Stanford Achievement Test 10. Retrieved from http://jcschools.net/test/Stanford10/Stanford10-GeneralOverview-Handouts%209%2010%2008.pdf
60. Satterthwaite, J., Atkinson, E., & Gale, R. (Eds.). (2004). Discourse, power, and resistance: Challenging the rhetoric of contemporary education. London: Trentham Books.
61. Schildkampf, K., & Kuiper, W. (2010). Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 482-496.
62. Segers, M., & Tillema, H. (2011). How do Dutch secondary teachers and students conceive the purpose of assessment? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 49-54.
63. Shen, J., & Cooley, V. (2008). Critical issues in using data for decision-making. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11, 319-329.
64. Shepard, L. A., Davidson, K. L., Bowman, R., & National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (2011). How middle-school mathematics teachers use interim and benchmark assessment data. (CRESST Report 807). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Retrieved from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R807.pdf
65. Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20, 8-11.
66. Spencer, B. L. (2009). Governmentality and urban schooling: The effects of policies for accountability and standardized literacy testing. Discourse of Sociological Practice, 8, 75-87.
67. Spencer, B. L. (2012). Counting in, counting out, and accounting for the administrative practices of standardized literacy testing. In B. L. Spencer, K. Gariepy, K. Delhi, & J. Ryan (Eds.), Canadian education: Governing practices and producing subjects (pp. 131-143). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
68. Spencer, B. L., Gariepy, K., Delhi, K., & Ryan, J. (Eds.) (2012). Canadian education: Governing practices and producing subjects. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
69. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70. Suspitsyna, T. (2010). Accountability in American education as a rhetoric and a technology of governmentality. Journal of Education Policy, 25, 567-586.
71. Title I. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
72. Urrieta, L. (2004). Assistencialism and the politics of high-stakes testing. The Urban Review, 36, 211-226.
73. Valencia, R. (Ed.). (1997a). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. London: Falmer Press.
74. Valencia, R. (1997b). Introduction. In R. Valencia (Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. ix-xvii). London: Falmer Press.
75. Valencia, R. (1997c). Conceptualizing the notion of deficit thinking. In R. Valencia (Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. 1-12). London: Falmer Press.
76. Valencia, R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
77. Young, V. M., & Kim, D. H. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(19), 1-37.