Although there is much research detailing the pedagogical constraints of high-stakes testing (HST), there is less that examines teachers’ practices within and beyond its control. This multiple case study analyzes ethnographic data to explore two teachers’ practices in an urban context where HST was relevant. Drawing on Foucault’s conceptualization of a plague-stricken town, we explore the mobilization of disciplinary power associated with HST. We then examine teachers’ agency as they taught beyond the administrative gaze. We found that teachers sometimes complied with administrative mandates while also articulating tensions of providing access and actively resisting/critiquing the test.
AhearnL. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137.
2.
AnyonJ. (2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. Routledge.
3.
AppleM. W. (2006). Educating the right way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality (2nd ed.). Routledge.
4.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.
5.
AuW. (2009). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. Routledge.
6.
AuW. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45.
7.
AuW. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62.
8.
AuW. (2017). What the resistance to high-stakes testing can teach us about urban classrooms. In SirrakosG.EmdinC. (Eds.), Between the world and the urban classroom (pp. 35–42). Sense Publishers.
9.
BaconJ.FerriB. A.RoodC. E. (2016). Promoting access through segregation: The emergence of the “prioritized curriculum” class. Teachers College Record, 118(14), 1–22.
10.
BakhtinM. M. (1986). Speech genres & other late essays. University of Texas Press.
11.
BeckerA. L. (1991). Language and languaging. Language & Communication, 11(1), 33–35.
12.
BlaiseJ. G. (2018). The effects of high-stakes accountability measures on students with limited English proficiency. Urban Education, 53(9), 1154–1181.
13.
BlommaertJ.JieD. (2010). Ethnographic fieldwork: A beginner’s guide. Multilingual Matters.
14.
BloomeD.BeaucheminF. (2016). Languaging everyday life in classrooms. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65(1), 152–165.
15.
BloomeD.CarterS. P.ChristianB. M.OttoS.Stuart-FarisN. (2004). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Routledge.
16.
BomerR. (2011). Building adolescent literacy in today’s English classrooms. Heinemann.
17.
Darling-HammondL. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “No Child Left Behind.”Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260.
18.
DaviesB. (2008). Re-thinking “behavior” in terms of positioning and the ethics of responsibility. In PhelanA. M.SumsionJ. (Eds.), Critical readings in teacher education: Provoking absences (pp. 173–186). Sense Publishers.
19.
DaviesB.HarréR. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.
20.
De LissovoyN. (2018). Pedagogy of the anxious: Rethinking critical pedagogy in the context of neoliberal autonomy and responsibilization. Journal of Education Policy, 33(2), 187–205.
21.
DelpitL. D. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New Press.
22.
DiamondJ.SpillaneJ. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176.
23.
DuffyG. G. (2009). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies. Guilford Press.
24.
DuránL. (2017). Audience and young bilingual writers: Building on strengths. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(1), 92–114.
25.
DurantiA. (2004). Agency in language. In DurantiA. (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 451–473). Blackwell.
26.
DutroE.SellandM. K.BienA. C. (2013). Revealing writing, concealing writers: High-stakes assessment in an urban elementary classroom. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(2), 99–141.
27.
DysonA. H.GenishiC. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press.
28.
EricksonF. (2004). Talk and social theory : Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Polity Press.
29.
Fisher-AriT. R.FlintA. S. (2018). Writer’s workshop: A (re)constructive pedagogy for English learners and their teachers. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 13(4), 353–373.
30.
FosterJ. B. (2016). The opt out revolt: Democracy and education. Monthly Review, 67(10), 1–7.
31.
FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon. (Original work published 1975).
32.
GoldenbergB. M. (2014). White teachers in urban classrooms: Embracing non-White students’ cultural capital for better teaching and learning. Urban Education, 49(1), 111–144.
33.
GraueE.JohnsonE. (2011). Reclaiming assessment through accountability that is “just right.”Teachers College Record, 113(8), 1827–1862.
34.
HeathS. B.StreetB. V. (2008). On ethnography: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press.
35.
HoestlandtJ. (1993). Star of fear, star of hope. Walker & Company.
36.
HornofM. (2008). Reading tests as a genre study. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 69–73.
37.
JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. Routledge.
38.
JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. A. (2013). Plugging one text into another: Thinking with theory in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(4), 261–271.
39.
JenningsJ. L. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice? Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 227–247.
40.
JenningsJ. L.BearakJ. M. (2014). “Teaching to the test” in the NCLB era: How test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 381–389.
41.
JohnsonA. W. (2012). “Turnaround” as shock therapy: Race, neoliberalism, and school reform. Urban Education, 48(2), 232–256.
42.
KroskrityP. V. (2004). Language ideologies. In DurantiA. (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 496–517). Blackwell.
43.
LamanT. T. (2013). From ideas to words: Writing strategies for English language learners. Heinemann.
44.
LeonardoZ. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. Routledge.
45.
LeonardoZ.HunterM. (2009). Race, class, and imagining the urban. In LeonardoZ. (Ed.), Race, whiteness, and education (pp. 143–166). Routledge.
46.
Lévi-StraussC. (1966). The savage mind. University of Chicago Press.
47.
LipmanP. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. Taylor & Francis.
48.
Lippi-GreenR. (2012). English with an accent : Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.
49.
LoveB. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon Press.
50.
LukeA. (1995). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3–48.
51.
MartínezR. A. (2017). “Are you gonna show this to White people?” Chicana/o and Latina/o students’ counter-narratives on race, place, and representation. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(1), 101–116.
52.
MacSwanJ. (2020). Academic English as standard language ideology: A renewed research agenda for asset-based language education. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 28–36.
53.
MilnerH. R. (2012). But what is urban education?Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561.
54.
MortonJ. M. (2016). The educator’s dual role: Expressing ideals while educating in nonideal conditions. Educational Theory, 66(3), 323–339.
55.
MurphyP. K.WilkinsonI. A.SoterA. O.HennesseyM. N.AlexanderJ. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740–764.
56.
NeumannJ. (2016). Examining mandated testing, teachers’ milieu, and teachers’ knowledge and beliefs: Gaining a fuller understanding of the web of influence on teachers’ classroom Practices. Teachers College Record, 118(2): n2.
57.
O’BrienD. (2015). “A view from the field”: A practitioner’s perspective on violence and resistance: The Garfield teacher boycott—A multimedia interview with Jesse Hagopian. Landscapes of Violence, 3(3), Article 8.
58.
PalmerD.LynchA. W. (2008). A bilingual education for a monolingual test? The pressure to prepare for TAKS and its influence on choices for language of instruction in Texas elementary bilingual classrooms. Language Policy, 7(3), 217–235.
59.
PalmerD.RangelV. S. (2011). High stakes accountability and policy implementation: Teacher decision making in bilingual classrooms in Texas. Educational Policy, 25(4), 614–647.
60.
PandyaJ. Z. (2011). Overtested: How high-stakes accountability fails English language learners. Teachers College Press.
61.
ParisD. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.
62.
PennycookA. (2010). Language as local practice. Routledge.
63.
SegalA.SnellJ.LefsteinA. (2017). Dialogic teaching to the high-stakes standardised test?Research Papers in Education, 32(5), 596–610.
64.
SolorzanoD. G.BernalD. D. (2001). Examining transformational resistance through a critical race and Latcrit theory framework: Chicana and Chicano students in an urban context. Urban Education, 36(3), 308–342.
65.
SturgesK. M. (2015). Curriculum testing on the persistent fringes: Neoliberal policy and the new regime of Title I high school reform. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 46(2), 129–146.
66.
UrrietaL. (2010). Working from within: Chicana and Chicano activist educators in whitestream schools. University of Arizona Press.
67.
VoloshinovV. N. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Harvard University Press.
68.
WaitollerF. R.PazeyB. L. (2016). Examining competing notions of social justice at the intersections of high-stakes testing practices and parents’ rights: An inclusive education perspective. Teachers College Record, 118(14), 1–24.
69.
ZochM. (2013). Crafting theoretically defensible literacy teaching practices while supporting students with test preparation. In DunstonP. J.FullertonS. K.BatesC. C.SteckerP. M.ColeM. W.HallA. H.. . . HeadleyK. N. (Eds.), 62Nd yearbook of the literacy research association (pp. 53–67). Literacy Research Association.
70.
ZochM. (2017). “It’s important for them to know who they are”: Teachers’ efforts to sustain students’ cultural competence in an age of high-stakes testing. Urban Education, 52(5) 610–636.
