Scholars have documented the effects of accountability policies on student outcomes and, to a lesser extent, instruction. Beyond test preparation and curriculum narrowing, little empirical evidence has examined the relationship between policy and pedagogy. Guided by social cognitive and achievement goal theories, this study explored the relationship between U.S. federal education policies and teacher-reported classroom goal orientation. Survey data from approximately 260 teachers were analyzed in conjunction with interviews from seven teachers in a sequential explanatory design. Findings suggest accountability policies create environments conducive to performance goal orientation. The irony of policy intentions and instructional implications for student learning are explored.
AmesC. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
2.
AmesC.ArcherJ. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
3.
AmreinA. L.BerlinerD. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1-74.
4.
AuW. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 25-45.
5.
BallS. J. (1993). Education policy, power relations and teachers’ work. British Journal of Educational Studies, 41, 106-121.
6.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
7.
BerlinerD. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 287-302.
8.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
9.
BoykinA. W.TylerK. M.MillerO. (2005). In search of cultural themes and their expressions in the dynamics of classroom life. Urban Education, 40, 521-549.
10.
BraunH. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(1), 1-43.
11.
BraunH.ChapmanL.VezzuS. (2010). The black-white achievement gap revisited. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(21), 1-99.
12.
CarnoyM.LoebS. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
13.
CohenD. K.BarnesC. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In CohenD. K.McLaughlinM. W.TalbertJ. E. (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (1st ed., pp. 207-239). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
ComberB.NixonH. (2009). Teachers’ work and pedagogy in an era of accountability. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30, 333-345.
15.
DesimoneL. M.SmithT. M.FrisvoldD. E. (2010). Survey measures of classroom instruction: Comparing student and teacher reports. Educational Policy, 24, 267-329.
16.
DiamondJ. B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80, 285-313.
17.
DiamondJ. B. (2012). Accountability policy, school organization, and classroom practice: Partial recoupling and educational opportunity. Education and Urban Society, 44, 151-182. doi:10.1177/0013124511431569
18.
DiamondJ. B.SpillaneJ. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?Teachers College Record, 106, 1145-1176.
19.
D’LimaG. M.WinslerA.KinsantasA. (2014). Ethnic and gender differences in first-year college students’ goal orientation, self-efficacy, and extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Educational Research, 107, 341-356.
20.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, codified as 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002).
21.
FinniganK.GrossB. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 594-629.
22.
FirestoneW. A.MayorwetzD.FairmanJ. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 95-113.
23.
HeiligJ. V.Darling-HammondL. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75-110.
24.
HessF.PetrilliM. (2007). No child left behind: Peter Lang primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
25.
HornI. S. (2018). Accountability as a design for teacher learning: Sensemaking about mathematics and equity in the NCLB era. Urban Education, 53, 382-408. doi:10.1177/0042085916646625
26.
JacobB. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives, and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796.
27.
KeithT. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
28.
KhajavyG. H.BardachL.HamediS. M.LüfteneggerM. (2017). Broadening the nomological network of classroom goal structures using doubly latent multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 52, 61-73.
29.
KinlochV. (2017). “You ain’t making me write” Culturally sustaining pedagogies and Black youths’ performances of resistance. In ParisD.AlimH. S. (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 25-42). New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
30.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
MaxwellJ. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-301.
33.
MayerD. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 29-45. doi:10.3102/01623737021001029
34.
MayohJ.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2015). Toward a conceptualization of mixed methods phenomenological research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 91-107.
35.
McGuinnP. (2010). Creating cover and constructing capacity: Assessing the origins, evolution, and impact of race to the top (Education Stimulus Watch, No. 6). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
McNeilL. M.CoppolaE.RadiganJ.Vasquez HeiligJ. (2008). Avoidable losses: High-stakes accountability and the dropout crisis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(3), 1-48.
38.
MeeceJ. L.AndermanE. M.AndermanL. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
39.
MidgleyC.KaplanA.MiddletonM. J. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost?Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77-86.
40.
MilnerH. R. (2012a). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43, 693-718.
41.
MilnerH. R. (2012b). But what is urban education?Urban Education, 47, 556-561.
42.
MilnerH. R. (2014). Scripted and narrowed curriculum reform in urban schools. Urban Education, 49, 743-749. doi:10.1177/0042085914549685
43.
MoustakasC. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
44.
MuellerR. O.HancockG. R. (2010). Structural equation modeling. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 385-396). New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
46.
NicholsS. L.GlassG. V.BerlinerD. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning?Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1), 1-180.
47.
NicholsS. L.GlassG. V.BerlinerD. C. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20), 1-35.
48.
PalmerD.RangelV. S. (2011). High stakes accountability and policy implementation: Teacher decision making in bilingual classrooms in Texas. Educational Policy, 25, 614-647. doi:10.1177/0895904810374848
49.
PlankS. B.CondliffeB. F. (2013). Pressures of the season: An examination of classroom quality and high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1152-1182. doi:10:3102/0002831213500691
50.
PorterA.McMakenJ.HwangJ.YangR. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40, 103-116. doi:10.3102/0013189X11405038
51.
RoderickM.JacobB. A.BrykA. S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 333-357.
52.
RollandR. G. (2012). Synthesizing the evidence on classroom goal structures in middle and secondary schools: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Review of Educational Research, 82, 396-435.
53.
SenkoC.HullemanC. S.HarackiwiczJ. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at a crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 26-47.
54.
SteeleC.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
55.
ValliL.BueseD. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 519-558. doi:10.3102/0002831207306859
56.
WatanabeM. (2007). Displaced teacher and state priorities in a high-stakes accountability context. Educational Policy, 21, 311-368.
