This case study of an urban school board’s experiences under high-stakes accountability demonstrates how the district leaders eschewed democratic governance processes in favor of autocratic behaviors. They possessed narrowly defined goals for teaching and learning that emphasized competitive, individualized means of achievement. Their decision making was private; opportunities for local input were missing. They promoted centrally determined, standardized instructional and administrative practices, not locally driven ones. It concludes that accountability policies that are framed in terms of their potential to further democratic aims by granting greater liberty in exchange for results, and by holding all districts to the same high standards, may disproportionately reduce democratic control in urban settings.
AlsburyT. (2008). School board politics and student achievement. In AlsburyT. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 247-272). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
2.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
3.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
4.
BoydW. (1976). The public, the professionals, and educational policy: Who governs?Teachers College Record, 77, 539-578.
5.
California Department of Education. (2007). Accountability Progress Reporting (APR). Sacramento, CA: Author.
6.
CallahanR. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
8.
DanzenbergerJ. (1987). School boards: Forgotten players on the educational team. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 53-59.
9.
DoyleD.FinnC. (1984). American schools and the future of local control. Public Interest, 77, 77-95.
10.
ElmoreR.BurneyD. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
11.
FeuersteinA.DietrichJ. A. (2003). State standards in the local context: A survey of school board members and superintendents. Education Policy, 17, 237-256.
12.
FirestoneW.ManginM.MartinezM.PolovskyT. (2004). Content and coherence in district professional development. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University.
13.
FragaL.ElisR. (2009). Interests and representation: Ethnic advocacy on California school boards. Teachers College Record, 111, 659-682.
14.
FullerB. (2008). Overview: Liberal learning in centralizing states. In FullerB.HenneM.HannumE. (Eds.), Strong states, weak schools: The benefits and dilemmas of centralized accountability (Vol. 16, pp. 1-29). London, UK: Emerald Group.
15.
GlickmanC. (1993). Renewing America’s schools: A guide to school-based action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
HessF. (2008). Money, interest groups, and school board elections. In AlsburyT. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 137-154). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
17.
HillP. (1999). Supplying effective public schools in big cities, Brookings Papers on Education Policy 1999. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
18.
HowellW. (2005). Introduction. In HowellW. (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp 1-23). Washington, DC: Brookings.
19.
IannacconeL.LutzF. (1994). The crucible of democracy: The local arena. Politics of Education Association Yearbook, 9, 39-52.
20.
KirstM. (1984). Who controls our schools? American values in conflict. New York, NY: Freeman.
21.
KirstM. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 378-381.
22.
KirstM. (2004). Turning points: A history of American school governance. In EpsteinN. (Ed.), Who’s in charge here? The tangled web of school governance and policy (pp. 14-41). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
23.
LabareeD. (2007). Education, markets, and the public good: Selected works of David F. Labaree (in series: Routledge World Library of Educationalists). London, UK: Routledge.
24.
LandD. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72, 229-278.
25.
LipmanP. (2004a). Education accountability and repression of democracy post-9/11. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 2(1), 52-72.
26.
LipmanP. (2004b). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and school reform. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
27.
MaeroffG. (2010). School boards in America: A flawed exercise in democracy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
MalenB. (2011). An enduring issue: The relationship between political democracy and educational effectiveness. In MitchellD.CrowsonR.ShippsD. (Eds.), Shaping education policy: Power and process (pp. 23-60). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
MarshJ. (2007). Democratic dilemmas: Joint work, education politics, and community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
30.
MassellD.GoertzM. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In HightowerA.KnappM.MarshJ.McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 173-192). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
MathisW. (2009). NCLB’s ultimate restructuring alternatives: Do they improve the quality of education?Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center.
32.
McDonnellL. (2000). Defining democratic purposes. In McDonnellL.TimpaneP.BenjaminR. (Eds.), Rediscovering the democratic purposes of education (pp. 1-20). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
33.
McDonnellL.WeatherfordM. (2000). Seeking a new politics of education. In McDonnellL.TimpaneP.BenjaminR. (Eds.), Rediscovering the democratic purposes of education (pp. 174-206). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
34.
McNeilL. (2002). Private asset or public good: Education and democracy at the crossroads: Editor’s note. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 243-248.
35.
MeierK. (2005). Electoral structure and the quality of representation: The policy consequences of school board elections. In HowellW. (Ed.), Beseiged: School boards and the future of education (pp. 199-227). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
36.
MerriamS. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
37.
MilesM.HubermanA. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MintromM. (2009). Promoting local democracy in education: Challenges and prospects. Educational Policy, 23, 329-354.
40.
MintropH.SundermanG. (2009). Predictable failure of federal aanctions—Driven accountability of school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38, 353-364.
41.
MintropH.TrujilloT. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319-352.
42.
MountfordM. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 704-741.
43.
MurphyJ.HallingerP. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective districts. Journal of educational research, 81, 175-181.
44.
National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
45.
National School Boards Foundation. (1999). Leadership matters: Transforming urban school boards. Alexandria, VA: Author.
46.
NygrenB. (1992). Two-party tune up. American School Board Journal, 179(7), 35.
47.
OpferV. (2005). Personalism of interest groups and the resulting policy nonsense: The Cobb County school board’s evolution debate. In PetersonG.FusarelliL. (Eds.), Politics of leadership: Superintendents and school boards in changing times (pp. 73-93). Westport, CT: Information Age.
48.
OuchiW. (2003). Making schools work: A revolutionary plan to get your children the education they need. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
49.
OuchiW. (2009). The secret of TSL: The revolutionary discovery that raises school performance. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
50.
PerlsteinD. (2002). Minds stayed on freedom: Politics and pedagogy in the African-American freedom struggle. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 249-277.
51.
PetersenG.ShortP. (2001). The school board president’s perception of the district superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social style. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 533-570.
52.
PetersenG.WilliamsB. (2005). The board president and superintendent: An examination of influence through the eyes of the decision makers. In PetersonG.FusarelliL. (Eds.), Politics of leadership: Superintendents and school boards in changing times (pp. 23-49). Westport, CT: Information Age.
53.
PlankD.BoydW. (1994). Antipolitics, education, and institutional choice: The flight from democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 263-281.
54.
SheltonT.StringfieldS. (2012, April). The effects of school system superintendents, school boards, and their interactions on longitudinal measures of districts’ student mathematics achievements. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver. British Columbia, Canada.
55.
StakeR. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
56.
TallericoM. (1989). The dynamics of superintendent-school board relationships: A continuing challenge. Urban Education, 24, 215-232.
57.
TrujilloT. (2012). Urban principals under centralized district instructional policies: Instructional leadership or performativity? Manuscript under review.
58.
TrujilloT. (in press). The politics of district instructional policy formation: Compromising equity and rigor. Educational Policy.
59.
TrujilloT. (in press). The reincarnation of the effective schools research: Rethinking the literature on district effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4).
TyackD. (2002). Forgotten players: How local school districts shaped American education. In HightowerA.KnappM.MarshJ.McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 9-24). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
ValenzuelaA. (2004). Leaving children behind: How “Texas-Style” accountability fails Latino youth. Albany: State University of New York Press.
65.
WeilerH. (1990). Comparative perspectives on educational decentralization. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 433-448.
66.
WellsA.SlaytonJ.ScottJ. (2002). Defining democracy in the neoliberal age: Charter school reform and educational consumption. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 337-361.
67.
WongK.ShenF.AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. (2007). The education mayor: Improving America’s schools. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
