Drawing upon research on federalism, localism, and professional autonomy, this article explores how educational stakeholders used social media to discuss and organize against the implementation of Differentiated Accountability in a large Florida school district. The results showed that the stakeholders used social media to engage in sense making and organizing against district policy changes. The authors also find that opposition stemmed from a sense among the commenters that aspects of the policy violated broadly accepted norms of professional autonomy. Strain across the groups ultimately detracted from the fundamental objective of raising student achievement.
AuW. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25-45.
2.
BerryK.HerringtonC. (2011). States and their struggles with NCLB: Does the Obama Blueprint get it right?Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 272-290.
3.
BormanG.StringfieldS.SlavinR. (Eds.). (2001). Title I: Compensatory education at the crossroads. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
CoburnC. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211-244.
5.
CoburnC. (2005). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23-52.
6.
Cohen-VogelL. (2011). Staffing to the test: Are today’s school personnel policies evidence based?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 483-505.
7.
Cohen-VogelL.RutledgeS. (2009). The pushes and pulls of new localism: School-level instructional arrangements, institutional resources, and family-community partnerships. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 108(1), 84-125.
8.
CrossC. (2004). Political education: National policy comes of age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
9.
DavisB.BrewerJ. (1997). Electronic discourse: Linguistic individuals in virtual space. New York: State University of New York Press.
10.
DayC. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Education Research, 37, 677-692.
11.
DennenV.MyersJ.SuggsC. (2011). Researching community in distributed environments: Approaches for studying cross-blog interactions. In DanielB. (Ed.), Handbook of research on methods and techniques for studying virtual communities: Paradigms and phenomena (pp. 509-529). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
12.
DennenV.PashnyakT. (2008). Finding community in the comments: The role of reader and blogger responses in a weblog community of practice. International Journal of Web-Based Communities, 4(3), 272-283.
13.
FiglioD.KennyL. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 901-914.
14.
FiglioD.LucasM. (2004). What’s in a grade? School report cards and the housing market. The American Economic Review, 94(3), 591-604.
15.
FitzgeraldT. (2008). The continuing politics of mistrust: Performance management and the erosion of professional work. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40(2), 113-128.
16.
Florida Department of Education. (2005). Assistance plus. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
17.
Florida Department of Education. (2008). Differentiated Accountability pilot program: Florida’s proposal. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.flbsi.org
18.
Florida Department of Education. (2009a). 2009-2010 matrix of Differentiated Accountability school categories. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.flbsi.org
19.
Florida Department of Education. (2009b). Free/reduced price lunch eligibility. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/
20.
Florida Department of Education. (2009c). Strategies and support for Differentiated Accountability. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.flbsi.org
21.
Florida Department of Education. (2010). Growth of minority student populations in Florida’s public schools. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/
HacsiT. (2002). Children as pawns: The politics of educational reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
HerringS. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In SchiffrinD.TannenD.HamiltonH. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 612-634). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
25.
HersbergerJ.MurrayA.RiouxK. (2007). Examining virtual information exchange and virtual communities: An emergent framework. Online Information Review, 31(2), 135-147.
26.
HonigM.CoburnC. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578-608.
27.
JenningsJ. (2001a). A brief history of the federal role in education: Why it began and why it’s still needed. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
28.
JenningsJ. (2001b). Title 1: Its legislative history and its promises. In BormanG.StringfieldS.SlavinR. (Eds.), Title 1: Compensatory education at the crossroads. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
KantorH.LoweR. (1995). Class, race, and the emergence of federal education policy: From the new deal to the great society. Educational Research, 24(3), 4-11.
30.
LeeJ. (2010). Trick or treat: New ecology of education accountability system in the USA. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), 73-93.
31.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32.
MayP.BurbyR. (1996). Coercive versus cooperative policies: Comparing intergovernmental mandate performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(2), 171-201.
33.
McDermottK. (2007). Expanding the moral community or blaming the victim? The politics of state educational accountability policy. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 77-111.
34.
McDonnellL. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the federal role in education: Evolution or revolution?Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.
35.
MilesM.HubermanA. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36.
MintropH.SundermanG. (2009). Predictable failure of sanctions driven accountability—and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38, 353-365.
PophamW. (2005). America’s “failing” schools: How parents and teachers can cope with No Child Left Behind. New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
RouseC.HannawayJ.GoldhaberD.FiglioD. (2007). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. Washington, DC: Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research and the Urban Institute.
40.
SchmidtJ. (2007). Blogging practices: An analytical framework. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1409-1427.
SpillaneJ.ReiserB.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
43.
SundermanG.TraceyC.KimJ.OrfieldG. (2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and No Child Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
44.
TyackD.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008, July). Secretary Spellings approves six states’ Differentiated Accountability proposals. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov
46.
van den BergR. (2002). Teachers’ meaning regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 577-625.
47.
WillsJ.SandholtzJ. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065-1114.
48.
WirtF.KirstM. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
