Accountability-era reforms have promulgated a discourse of crisis and a looming threat for public schools. While these threats negatively affect all, this paper focuses on how schools’ responses to these threats shape novice Teach for America Corp Members’ (CM) socialization. By analyzing nearly 6,000 daily reflections from 38 CMs about their experiences during a high-stakes cheating scandal, we argue that schools’ responses indicated a threat rigidity response that allowed what we call the mesosystem of transgressions to occur. Our implications present ways to (a) mitigate threats inflicted on schools through unjust policies and practices and (b) enact equitable public schools.
AchinsteinB.OgawaR. (2006). (In)fidelity: what the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.1.e14543458r811864
2.
AchinsteinB.OgawaR.SpeiglmanA. (2004). Are we creating separate and unequal tracks of teachers? The effects of state policy, local conditions, and teacher characteristics on new teacher socialization. American Educational Researcher Journal, 41(3), 557–604. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041003557
3.
AnnammaS. A.FerriB. A.ConnorD. J. (2018). Disability critical race theory: exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of dis/crit in education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759041
4.
AppleM. W. (2018). Ideology and curriculum (4th ed.). Routledge.
5.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523
6.
AuW. (2009). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. Routledge.
7.
AuW. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0. High-stakes standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multicultural education. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815614916
8.
AuW. (2020). High-stakes testing, standardization, and inequality in the United States. In NoblitG. W. (Ed.), Oxford Research encyclopedias: education. Oxford University Press.
9.
BaeS. (2018). Redesigning systems of school accountability: A multiple measures approach to accountability and support. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(8), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2920
10.
BergeyW.RanellucciJ. (2021). Motivation profiles of urban preservice teachers: relations to socialization, initial career perceptions, and demographics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 64, Article 101936. 5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101936
11.
BerkovichI.GrinshtainY. (2022). Typology of tough love leadership in urban schools facing challenging circumstances. Urban Education, 57(1), 108–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918801883
BrewerT. J. (2014). Accelerated burnout: How teach for america's academic impact model and theoretical culture of accountability can foster disillusionment among its corps members. Educational Studies, 50(3), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2014.907163
14.
BrezichaK. F.MitraD. L. (2019). Should We Be testing civics? Examining the implications of the civic education initiative. Peabody Journal of Education, 94(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1553602
15.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
16.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.
17.
CohenE.LotanR. (2014). Designing groupwork: strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. Teachers College Press.
18.
CollinsP. H. (2019). The difference that power makes: intersectionality and participatory democracy. In HankivskyO.Jordan-ZacheryJ. S. (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of intersectionality in public policy (pp. 167–192). Springer.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods design (2nd ed.). Sage.
21.
CroccoM.CostiganA. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907304964
22.
DalyA. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08330499
23.
DalyA. J.Der-MartirosianC.Ong-DeanC.ParkV.Wishard-GuerraA. (2011). Leading under sanction: Principals’ perceptions of threat rigidity, efficacy, and leadership in underperforming schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(2), 171–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.557517
24.
DatnowA.CastellanoM. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037003775
25.
EngvikG.EmstadA. B. (2017). The importance of school leaders’ engagement in socialising newly qualified teachers into the teaching profession. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(4), 468–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1048745
26.
EspositoJ.DavisC.SwainA. (2012). Urban educators’ perceptions of culturally relevant pedagogy and school reform mandates. Journal for Educational Change, 13(2), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9178-6
27.
FisherT.AliceaM.MeyersB.BloxsonK.KavanahK.BlusteinC. (2013). “Just fill in the bubble and stop asking questions!”: Learning to teach amid a testing scandal. The annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
28.
FisherT. R. (2009). To stay and to change: Beginning social justice educators creating collaborative third space(s). (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University). https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/msit_diss/48.
29.
Fisher-AriT.AliceaM.MeyersB. (2017). Theorized pedagogies: revising clinical practices to foster dispositions of reflection in teach For america novice teachers. Professing Education, 16(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1247466
30.
Fisher-AriT.KavanaghK. M.MartinA. (2017a). Sisyphean neoliberal reforms: The intractable mythology of student growth and achievement master narratives within the testing and TFA era. Journal of Education Policy, 32(3), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1247466
31.
Fisher-AriT. R.KavanaghK. M.MartinA. (2017b). Urban teachers struggling within and against neoliberal, accountability-era policies. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 13(2), 2.
32.
FloresM. A. (2004). The impact of school culture and leadership on new teachers’ learning in the workplace. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(4), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360312042000226918
33.
FloresM. A.DayC. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.09.002
34.
FreireP. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition:. Bloomsbury Academic.
35.
GallagherC. (2003). Reconciling a tradition of testing with a new learning paradigm. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021323509290
HargreavesA. (1998). The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development: With implications for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(4), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360312980010401
38.
HillC. E.ThompsonB. J.HessS. A.KnoxS.Nutt WilliamsE.LadanayN. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196
39.
HittD. H.TuckerP. D. (2015). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911
40.
HopperE. B.RobinsonD.FitchettP. (2021). Early career African American teachers and the impact of administrative support. Urban Education, 57(3), 401–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920988335
41.
HowardC.MillerS. (2022). Pay-for-Performance reform programs: it’s more than the money!. Urban Education, 57(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918801436
42.
IngersollR.StrongM. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323
43.
KavanaghK. M.DunnA. H. (2013). Teach for america and the political spectacle of recruiting the “best and the brightest”. Critical Education, 4(11), 46–66. https://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v4i11.183941
44.
KavanaghK. M.Fisher-AriT. R. (2017). Constraints and negotiations: TFA, accountability, and scripted programs in urban schools. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 14(1), n1.
45.
KavanaghK. M.Fisher-AriT. R. (2020). Curricular and pedagogical oppression: contradictions within the juggernaut accountability trap. Educational Policy, 34(2), 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818755471
46.
KawaiR.SerriereS.MitraD. (2014). Contested spaces of a “failing” elementary school. Theory & Research in Social Education, 42(4), 486–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2014.966876
47.
KincheloeJ. (2008). Critical pedagogy (2nd ed.). Peter Lang Publishers.
48.
KingJ. E.AkuaC.RussellL. (2015). Liberating urban education for human freedom. In MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 24–49). New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
KorstjensI.MoserA. (2018). Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
50.
KoyamaJ. (2014). Principals as bricoleurs: making sense and making do in an era of accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13492796
51.
KoyamaJ. P. (2010). Framing failure: interrogating policy studies, policy theory, and NCLB. In Making failure pay: For-profit tutoring, high-stakes testing, and public schools (pp. 25–47). The University of Chicago Press.
52.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2013). Lack of achievement or loss of opportunity. In CarterP. L.WelnerK. G. (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: what america must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 11–22). Oxford University Press.
53.
LeonardoZ. (2007). The war on schools: NCLB, nation creation and the educational construction of whiteness. Race. Ethnicity & Education, 10(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320701503249
54.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
55.
LoveB. (2019). We want to do more than survive: abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon Press.
56.
MaloneyP. (2013). Personal responsibility: The effect of becoming a (teach for america) teacher. Critical Education, 4(12), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v4i12.183938
57.
MartinA. E.Fisher-AriT. R.KavanaghK. M. (2020). Our schools turned into literal police states.”: disciplinary power and novice teachers enduring a cheating scandal. Educational Studies, 56(3), 306–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2020.1745809
58.
MayesE.HowellA. (2017). The (hidden) injuries of NAPLAN : Two standardised test events and the making of ‘ at risk ’ student subjects. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1415383
59.
MeyersB.FisherT.AliceaM.BloxsonK. (2014). Unfinishedness: striving for a viable partnership between TFA and its university partner. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411601008
Milner I VH. R. (2014). Scripted and narrowed curriculum reform in urban schools. Urban Education, 49(7), 743–749.
63.
NicholsS. L.BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts america's schools. Harvard Education Press.
64.
OlsenB.SextonD. (2008). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work inside current education policy contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208320573
65.
PortzJ. (2021). “Next-generation” accountability? Evidence from three school districts. Urban Education, 56(8), 1297–1327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917741727
66.
RosenblattZ. (2004). Skill flexibility and school change: A multi-national study. Journal of Educational Change, 5(1), 1–30.
67.
ScottJ.TrujilloT.RiveraM. D. (2016). Reframing teach for america: A conceptual framework for the next generation of scholarship. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(12), 12. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2419
68.
StawB. M.SandelandsL. E.DuttonJ. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392337
69.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.
70.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2004). Trust matters: leadership for successful schools. Wiley.
71.
VeltriB. T. (2016). Teach for america’s socialization and manipulation. In HornJ. (Ed.), Work hard Be hard: journeys through “No excuses” teaching (pp. 143–152). Rowman and Littlefield.
72.
WeissE. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00040-2
73.
WelnerK. G.CarterP. L. (2013). Achievement gaps arise from opportunity gaps. In CarterP. L.WelnerK. G. (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: what america must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 1–10). Oxford University Press.
74.
WestD. L.PeckC.ReitzugU. C. (2010). Limited control and relentless accountability: examining historical changes in urban school principal pressure. Journal of School Leadership, 20(2), 238–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000206
75.
WhiteT. (2016). Teach for america’s paradoxical diversity initiative: race, policy, and black teacher displacement in urban public schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(16), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2100
76.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915618716
