School sanctioning policies that allow for external intervention into and closure of low-performing schools have become central components of the current educational accountability movement. Recent studies indicate that these policies compel principals and teachers to alter school and classroom practices in ways that target resources toward efforts to improve schoolwide test scores.
Focus of Study
The present study extends this research by examining whether and how school sanctioning policies compel principals and teachers in urban high schools to address the failure that students experience in academic courses and on standardized tests.
Research Design
Using qualitative case study methods, we followed principals and teachers in two urban high schools placed under district sanctions as they sought to make sense of and respond to both their schools’ failure, as measured by standardized test scores, and high rates of academic course failure. The study employs a cultural sociological perspective to trace the explanations of school and course failure that the principals and teachers constructed as they interpreted the sanctioning policy, and to document the extent to which these interpretations became entrenched in school and classroom practices.
Findings
Analyses of interview and observation data indicate that faculty in both schools enacted numerous changes in response to district sanctions. Whether these changes become institutionalized as part of school or classroom practice depended on the principals’ and teachers’ abilities to mobilize schemas, material resources, and legitimacy. The changes that sanctioning prompted, however, had little impact on faculty efforts to address course failure. Course failure remained bound to a moral causality that located its cause in students’ moral deficiencies and that justified the attenuation of the schools’ responsibility for it.
Conclusions
The study's findings highlight the limits of school sanctioning policies to improve schooling for students in urban high schools and raise fundamental questions about to whom and for what such policies ultimately hold schools accountable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbelmannC., and ElmoreR. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer? (CPRE Research Report Series RR-42). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
2.
AnagnostopoulosD. (2003a). The new accountability, student failure and teachers’ work in urban high schools. Educational Policy, 17, 291—316.
3.
AnagnostopoulosD. (2003b). Testing texts: External testing and student engagement with literature in urban classrooms, Research in the Teaching of English, 38, 177—212.
4.
AnagnostopoulosD. (2005). Testing, tests, and classroom texts. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 35—63.
5.
ArchibaldD., and PorterA. (1994). Curriculum control and teachers’ perception of autonomy and satisfaction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 21—39.
6.
BallS. J., and BoweR. (1992). Subject departments and the ‘implementation’ of National Curriculum policy: An overview of the issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 97—115.
7.
BellahR., MadsenR., SullivanW., SwidlerA., and TiptonS. (1996). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and symbolic power. John B. Thompson (Ed). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
BremnerR. (1956). From the depths: The discovery of poverty in the United States. New York: New York University Press.
10.
CarnoyM., ElmoreR., and SiskinL. S. (2003). The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing. New York: Routledge Falmer.
11.
Chicago Public Schools. (1997). Design for high schools: Draft. Chicago: Author.
12.
Chicago Public Schools. (2000). High school failure. Chicago: Author.
13.
CibulkaJ. (1999). Moving toward an accountable system of K–12 education: Alternative approaches and challenges. In and and CizekGregory (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp. 184—210). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14.
CoburnC. (2001). Collective sense-making about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145—170.
15.
CoburnC. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211—244.
16.
CoburnC. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 343—379.
17.
DiMaggioP. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263—287.
ElmoreR. (1999). Building new structures for school leadership. American Educator, 23, 6—13.
20.
FaircloughN. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
21.
FineG. A. (1984). Negotiated orders and organizational cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 239—262.
22.
FirestoneW., MayrowetzD., and 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.
FligsteinN. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19, 105—125.
24.
GansH. (1995). The war against the poor: The underclass and antipoverty policy. New York: Basic Books.
25.
GoertzM. E., and MassellD. (2005). Holding high hopes: How high schools respond to state accountability policies. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
26.
GrossmanP., and StodolskyS. (1998). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5—11.
27.
HabermanM. (1995). Start teachers of children in poverty. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
28.
HartleyJ. F. (1994). Case studies in organizational research. In CassellC., and SymonG. (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 208—229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
HillH. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 289—318.
30.
HochschildJ., and ScovronickN. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
HubermanM., and MilesM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
JencksC., and PhilipsM. (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
33.
JenningsN. (1996). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform and teacher practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
34.
JohnsonS. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic Books.
35.
KatzM. (1983). Policy and poverty in American history. New York: Academic Press.
36.
KelemanM. G. (2001). The practice of leadership under threat: The case of schools under probation. Dissertation submitted to Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
37.
LaddH. (2001). School-based educational accountability systems: The promise and pitfalls. National Tax Journal, 54, 385—400.
38.
LamontM. (1992). Money, morals and manners: The culture of the French and American upper-middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
LamontM. (2000). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class and immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
40.
LamontM., and MolnarV. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167—197.
41.
LipmanP. (1998). Race, class, and power in school restructuring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
42.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
43.
MalenB. (1994). The micropolitics of education: Mapping the multiple dimensions of power relations in school polities. Journal of Education Policy, 9, 147—167.
44.
MalenB., CroningerR., MunceyD., and Redmond-JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 113—132.
45.
McLaughlinM. W., TalbertJ. E., and BasicaN. (1990). The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers’ realities. New York: Teachers College Press.
46.
MetzM. (1989). Real school: A universal drama amid disparate experience. In MitchellD., and GoertzM. (Eds.), Education politics for the new century (pp. 75—91). London: Falmer.
47.
MeyerJ., and RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340—363.
48.
MintropH. (2003a). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work). New York: Teachers College Press.
49.
MintropH. (2003b). The limits of sanctions in low-performing schools: A study of Maryland and Kentucky schools on probation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(3). Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n3.html
50.
MintropH., and MacLellanA. (2002). School improvement plans in elementary and middle school response to probation. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 275—302.
51.
MintropH., and TrujilloT. (2004). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from state and district strategies in first-generation accountability systems. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE) National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California.
52.
NietoS. (1999). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
53.
OakesJ., WellsA. S., JonesM., and DatnowA. (1997). Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98, 482—510.
54.
PageR. (1991). Lower-track classrooms: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.
55.
RistR. C. (1973). The urban school: A factory for failure. A study of education in American society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56.
RistR. C. (2000). The enduring dilemmas of class and color in American education. Harvard Education Review, 3, 257—301.
57.
RoderickM., and CamburnE. (1999). Risk and recovery from course failure in the early years of high school. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 303—343.
58.
RothsteinR. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic and educational reform to close the Black-White achievement gap. New York: Teachers College Press.
59.
SewellW. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology98, 1—29.
60.
SiskinL. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic organizations in secondary schools. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
61.
SiskinL. S., and LittleJ. W. (1995). The subjects in question: Departmental organization and the high school. New York: Teachers College Press.
62.
SkrlaL., and ScheurichJ. J. (2001). Displacing deficit thinking in school district leadership. Education and Urban Society, 33, 235—259.
63.
SmithM. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8—11.
64.
SmylieM., and PerryG. (1998). Restructuring schools for improving teaching. In HargreavesA., LiebermanA., FullanM., and HopkinsD. (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 976—1005). London: Kluwer.
65.
SpillaneJ., DiamondJ., BurchP., HallettT., JitaL., and ZoltnersJ. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Education Policy, 16, 731—762.
66.
SpillaneJ., HalversonB., and DiamondJ. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23—28.
67.
SpillaneJ., and JenningsN. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449—481.
68.
SpillaneJ., ReiserB., and ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387—431.
69.
SpillmanL. (2002). Introduction: Culture and cultural sociology. In and and SpillmanLynn (Ed.), Cultural sociology (pp. 1—16). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
70.
StraussA., and CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
71.
StrykerR. (1994). Rules, resources, and legitimacy processes: Some implications for social conflict, order, and change. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 847—910.
72.
SwidlerA. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273—286.
73.
VarenneH., and McDermottR. (1999). Successful failure: The school American builds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
74.
VaughanD. (2002). Signals and interpretive work: The role of culture in a theory of practical action. In and and CeruloKaren (Ed.), Culture in mind: Toward a sociology of culture and cognition (pp. 28—56). New York: Routledge.
75.
WellsA. S., and SernaI. (1996). The politics of culture: Understanding local political resistance to detracking in racially mixed schools. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 93—118.
76.
WellsA. S., and CrainR. L. (1997). Stepping over the color line: African-American students in White suburban schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
77.
WongK., AnagnostopoulosD., RutledgeS., and EdwardsC. (2003). The challenge of improving teaching in urban high schools: Case studies of the implementation of the Chicago Academic Standards, Peabody Journal of Education, 78, 39—87.
78.
WongK., AnagnostopoulosD., RutledgeS., LynnL., and DreebenR. (2003). Implementing an educational accountability agenda: Integrated governance in its fourth year. In CibulkaJames G., and BoydWilliam L. (Eds.), A race against time: The crisis in urban schooling (pp. 129—166.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
79.
YinR. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
