This article examines how SEAs in three states designed, installed, and operated statewide, longitudinal student information systems (SLSIS). SLSIS track individual students’ progress in K-12 schools, college, and beyond and link it to individual schools and teachers. They are key components of the information infrastructure of test-based accountability. Drawing on science and technology studies, this study documents the strategies SEAs use to assemble and coordinate the vast amounts of technology and people across and beyond the educational system needed to collect, process, and disseminate test-based accountability data through SLSIS. We find that while SLSIS expand state power through what we refer to as informatic power, SEA control over these systems and the data they produce depends on whether SEA staff can manage the competing interests of federal, state, district, and external actors. SLSIS are thus sites of the ongoing contestation of state power within and beyond the educational system.
AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS.JacobsenR. (in press). Introduction: Mapping the infrastructure of accountability. In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. A.JacobsenR. (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
2.
AmreinA.BerlinerD. (March28, 2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/297/423
3.
BallS. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18, 215-228.
BruniA. (2005). Shadowing software and clinical records: On the ethnography of non-humans and heterogeneous contexts. Organization, 12, 357-378.
6.
CallonM. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196-233). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
7.
CarnoyM.LoebS. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
8.
ClarkeA. E.FujimuraJ. H. (1992). What tools? Which jobs? Why right? In ClarkA. E.FujimaraJ. H. (Eds.), The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences (pp. 3-46). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
DesimoneL.SmithT.HayesS.FrisvoldD. (2005). Beyond accountability and average mathematics scores: Relating state education policy attributes to cognitive achievement domains. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 24(4), 5-18.
EpsteinS. (2008). Culture and science/technology: Rethinking knowledge, power, materiality and nature. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 619, 165-182.
14.
FirestoneW.MayrowetzD.FairmanJ. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
15.
FusarelliB.CooperS. (Eds.). (2009). The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
16.
HanushekE.RaymondM. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297-327.
17.
LamplandM.StarS. L. (2009). Standards and their stories: How quantifying, classifying, and formalizing practices shape everyday life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
18.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
LatourB. (1993). The Pastuerization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
LawJ. (1986). On the methods of long-distance control: Vessels, navigation, and the Portugese route to India. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 234-263). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
22.
LawJ. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice and Action Research, 5, 379-393.
23.
LawJ. (2002). Aircraft stories: Decentering the object in technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
24.
McDermottK. (2003). What causes variation in states’ accountability policies?Peabody Journal of Education, 78, 153-176.
25.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
MinniciA.HillD. (2007). NCLB Year 5: Educational Architects: Do state education agencies have the tools necessary to implement NCLB?Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
28.
MintropH.SundermanG. (in press). The paradoxes of data-driven accountability: How centralized management fails education. In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. A.JacobsenR. (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
29.
MintropH.TrujiloT. (2005). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/153/279
30.
MukerjiC. (2010). The territorial state as a figured world of power: Strategies, logistics, and impersonal rule. Sociological Theory, 28, 402-424.
Regional Educational Laboratory. (2007). Getting the evidence for evidence-based initiatives: How the Midwest states use data systems to improve education processes and outcomes. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?id=29
33.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (in press). Money and measures: The role of foundations in knowledge production. In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. A.JacobsenR. (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
34.
StarS. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 377-391.
35.
StarS. L.RuhlederK. (1996). Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111-134.
36.
SundermanG.OrfieldG. (2006). Domesticating a revolution: No Child Left Behind reforms and state administrative response. Harvard Educational Review76, 526-563.
37.
SwansonC.StevensonD. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1-27.
38.
ThornC.HarrisD. N. (in press). The accidental revolution: Teacher accountability, value-added, and the shifting balance of power in the American school system. In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. A.JacobsenR. (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
39.
TimarT. (1999). The institutional role of state education departments: A historical perspective. American Journal of Education, 105, 231-260.
40.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top Program Preamble and Major Changes. Washington, DC: Author.
41.
WeissJ.GruberJ. (1984). Using knowledge for control in fragmented policy arenas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3, 225-247.
42.
YinR. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (Applied social research methods series, Vol.5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
