We conducted an inductive analysis of 166 interviews from a longitudinal study of 26 Chicago Public School principals. Test-based accountability pressures played a visible role in principals’ views of and relations with parents. Some principals reported banning parents from classrooms based on the need to protect instructional time to raise test scores; others thought more parental involvement would help their school reach its academic goals. Viewing principals in urban schools as street-level bureaucrats who have discretion in how they implement policy demands offers a way to understand variation in principals’ decisions about parent involvement.
AnagnostopoulosD. (2003). The new accountability, student failure, and teachers’ work in urban high schools. Educational Policy, 17(3), 291–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803254481
2.
AuerbachS. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9–31.
3.
BoutteG. S.JohnsonG. L.Jr. (2014). Community and family involvement in urban schools. In MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 167–187). Routledge.
4.
BrownJ. C.GravesE. M.BurkeM. A. (2020). Involvement, engagement, and community: Dimensions and correlates of parental participation in a majority–minority urban school district. Urban Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920902245
CrowG. M.ScribnerS. P. (2014). Professional identities of urban school principals. In MilnerH.LomoteyL. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 287–304). Routledge.
8.
Darling-HammondL. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “no child left behind.”Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320701503207
9.
DemossK. (2002). Leadership styles and high-stakes testing: Principals make a difference. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/001312402237217
10.
DerringtonM. L.LarsenD. E. (2012). Principal pressure in the middle of accountability. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(4), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458912470656
11.
DiamondJ. B. (2012). Accountability policy, school organization, and classroom practice: Partial recoupling and educational opportunity. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511431569
12.
DiamondJ. B.GomezK. (2004). African American parents’ educational orientations. Education and Urban Society, 36(4), 383–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124504266827
13.
DiamondJ. B.SpillaneJ. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176.
14.
DixsonA. D.RoyalC.HenryK. L.Jr. (2014). School reform and school choice. In MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 512–541). Routledge.
15.
EwingE. (2018). Ghosts in the schoolyard: Racism and school closings on Chicago’s south side. University of Chicago Press.
16.
FinniganK. S. (2012). Principal leadership in low-performing schools: A closer look through the eyes of teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511431570
17.
GarnerB.ThorneJ. K.HornI. S. (2017). Teachers interpreting data for instructional decisions: Where does equity come in?Journal of Educational Administration, 55(4), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0106
18.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.
GoldringE. B.ShapiraR. (1996). Principals’ survival with parental involvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(4), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345960070404
21.
HarrisD. M. (2012a). Postscript: Urban schools, accountability, and equity: Insights regarding NCLB and reform. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511431571
22.
HarrisD. M. (2012b). Varying teacher expectations and standards: Curriculum differentiation in the age of standards-based reform. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 128–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511431568
HindsP. S.VogelR. J.Clarke-SteffenL. (1997). The possibilities and pitfalls of doing a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Qualitative Health Research, 7(3), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239700700306
25.
Hinnant-CrawfordB. N. (2019). Legislating instruction in urban schools: Unintended consequences of accountability policy on teacher-reported classroom goal structures. Urban Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919838004
26.
Hoover-DempseyK.WalkerJ.SandlerH.WhetselD.GreenC.WilkinsA.ClossonK. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105–130. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/499194
27.
HornI. (2018). Accountability as a design for teacher learning: Sensemaking about mathematics and equity in the NCLB era. Urban Education, 53(3), 382–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916646625
28.
HornI.KaneB.WilsonJ. (2013). Making sense of student performance data: Mathematics teachers’ learning through conversations with assessments [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, United States.
29.
JeynesW. (2014). Parent involvement for urban students and youth of color. In MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 194–166). Routledge.
30.
JohnsonA. W. (2012). “Turnaround” as shock therapy: Race, neoliberalism, and school reform. Urban Education, 48(2), 232–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912441941
31.
KupchikA. (2010). Homeroom security: School discipline in an age of fear. New York University Press.
32.
LewisA. E.FormanT. A. (2002). Contestation or collaboration? A comparative study of home-school relations. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33(1), 60–89. https://doi.org/aeq.2002.33.1.60
33.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
34.
LoderT. L. (2005). African American women principals’ reflections on social change, community othermothering, and Chicago public school reform. Urban Education, 40(3), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085905274535
35.
LomoteyK.LoweryK. (2014). Black students, urban schools, and black principals: Leadership practices that reduce disenfranchisement. In MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 325–350). Routledge.
36.
McNealL.DunbarC.Jr. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: Urban student perceptions of zero tolerance policy. Urban Education, 45(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910364475
37.
MehtaJ. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980-2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212471417
MittlemanJ.JenningsJ. L. (2018). Accountability, achievement, and inequality in American public schools: A review of the literature. In SchneiderB. (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education in the 21st century (pp. 475–492). Springer.
NealD.SchanzenbachD. W. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.2010.12318
42.
NieszT. (2010). “That school had become all about show”: Image making and the ironies of constructing a good urban school. Urban Education, 45(3), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085908322691
43.
PattilloM. (2015). Everyday politics of school choice in the black community. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 12(1), 41–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X15000016
44.
PazeyB. L.DematthewsD. (2019). Student voice from a turnaround urban high school: An account of students with and without dis/abilities leading resistance against accountability reform. Urban Education, 54(7), 919–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916666930
45.
Posey-MaddoxL. (2014). When middle-class parents choose urban schools: Class, race, and the challenge of equity in public education. University of Chicago Press.
46.
Posey-MaddoxL.Haley-LockA. (2016). One size does not fit all: Understanding parent engagement in the contexts of work, family, and public schooling. Urban Education, 55(5), 671–698.
47.
ReardonS. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In DuncanG. J.MurnaneR. J. (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91–116). Russell Sage Foundation.
SaporitoS.SohoniD. (2007). Mapping educational inequality: Concentrations of poverty among poor and minority students in public schools. Social Forces, 85(3), 1227–1253. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0055
50.
SheddC. (2015). Unequal city: Race, schools, and perceptions of injustice. Russell Sage Foundation.
51.
SpillaneJ. P.DiamondJ. B.BurchP.HallettT.JitaL.ZoltnersJ. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/089590402237311
52.
SpillaneJ. P.LeeL. C. (2014). Novice school principals’ sense of ultimate responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 431–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13505290
53.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiningerM. (2011). School principal preparation, recruitment, retention, and career paths. Spencer Foundation Grant.
