This study uses Lipsky's concept of the street-level bureaucrat to identify how English teachers in two Chicago public high schools respond to student failure within the context of a district accountability agenda. Analyses of interview and classroom observation data indicate that teachers' responses to district policies related to the degree to which teachers perceived the policies as threats to their professional autonomy. Teachers responded to testing policies by allocating significant classroom time to “teaching to the tests” but employed several defensive strategies in response to policies aimed at lowering course failure rates. These strategies may have reduced failure rates but did not remedy student failure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anagnostopoulos, D. (2000). Raising standards, failing students: A case study of merit promotion in two Chicago high schools. Unpublished dissertation, Department of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago.
2.
Chicago Public Schools. (1997, March). Design for high schools. Chicago: Chicago Public Schools.
3.
Chicago Public Schools. (1999). Memo to principals, 11/29/99. Chicago: Office of High School Development, Chicago Public Schools.
4.
Cohen, D. K. (1989). Teaching practice: Plus ca change. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
5.
Cohen, D. K. (1996). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice and performance. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 99-127). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6.
Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207-239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Consortium on Chicago School Research. (1999). Ending social promotion: Results from the first two years. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
8.
Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. (1991). Two state minimum competency testing programs and their effects on curriculum and instruction. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Vol. 1. Effects of mandated assessment on teaching (pp. 7-40). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
9.
Elmore, R. (1999). Building new structures for school leadership. American Educator, 23, 6-13.
10.
Elmore, R., & McLaughlin, M. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice and reeducational dissemination and change. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
11.
Elmore, R., Abelmann, C., & Fuhrman, S. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65-97). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
12.
Firestone, W., Fitz, J., & Broadfoot, P. (1999). Power, learning, and legitimation: Assessment implementation across levels in the United States and the United Kingdom. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 759-796.
13.
Firestone, W., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 95-113.
14.
Franklin, B. (1998). When children don't learn: Student failure and the culture of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
Grant, S. G. (2001). Anuncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103, 398-426.
16.
Haberman, M. (1995). Starteachers of children in poverty. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
17.
Hillocks, G. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
Johnson, G. (1997). Teachers in the inner-city: Experience-based ratings of factors that place students at risk. Preventing School Failure, 42, 19-26.
19.
Keddie, N. (1971). Classroom knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education (pp. 133-150). London: Collier-Macmillan.
20.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Teacher development in professional practice schools. In M. Levine (Ed.), Professional practice schools: Building a model. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
21.
Little, J. W. (1993). Professional development in comprehensive high schools: The two worlds of academic and vocational teachers. In J. Little & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' work. New York: Teachers College Press.
22.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
McDonnell, L., & McLaughlin, W. (1982). Education policy and the role of the states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
25.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). How the world of students and teachers challenges policy coherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 220-249). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
27.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Moll, L. C., Amantim, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132-141.
29.
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
30.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261-290.
31.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
Page, R. (1991). Lower-track classrooms: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.
33.
Payne, C. (1984). Getting what we ask for: The ambiguity of success and failure in urban education. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
34.
Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20, 8-11.
35.
Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and mathematics teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 1-28.
36.
Wong, K., & Anagnostopoulos, D. (1998). Can integrated governance reconstruct teaching? Lessons learned from two low-performing Chicago high schools. Educational Policy, 12, 19-30.
37.
Wong, K., Anagnostopoulos, D., & Rutledge, S. (2000, April). The challenge of improving instruction in urban high schools: Case studies of the implementation of the Chicago Academic Standards. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
38.
Wong, K., Dreeben, R., Lynn, L., & Sunderman, G. (1997). Integrated governance as a reform strategy in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Education.
39.
Wong, K., Anagnostopoulos, D., Rutledge, S., Lynn, L., & Dreeben, R. (1999). Implementation of an educational accountability agenda: Integrated governance in the Chicago Public Schools enters its fourth year. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Education.
