Professionalization is an important but overlooked dimension in education politics, particularly the politics of accountability. To isolate the importance of professionalization, this article compares accountability movements in K-12 education with similar movements in higher education. I draw on three pairs of reports that have sought to impose accountability between 1983 and 2006, in each case comparing a report on K-12 with a similar report on higher education. I find that calls for accountability in both sectors have intensified over the period under study, but that higher education has been much more protected from accountability pressures by its greater degree of professionalization, its reputation, its greater share in the private sector, and its decentralized professional autonomy. In conclusion, I connect the findings to broader debates about professionalism and the future of accountability in the two sectors.
AbbottA. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AronsonJ. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. Qualitative Report, 2(1), 4.
3.
BellD. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society. New York, NY: Basic Books.
4.
BokD. (2005). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BourdieuP.WacquantL. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
8.
BrintS. (1994). In an age of experts: The changing role of professionals in politics and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
BurkeJ. C., & Associates (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10.
BushG. W. (2001). A report for the nationwide education reform entitled “No Child Left Behind.”Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11.
Business Higher Education Forum. (2004). Public accountability for student learning in higher education: Issues and options. Washington, DC: American Council of Education.
12.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Forum.
13.
CarpenterD. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
ChaitR. (2002). The “academic revolution” revisited. In BrintS. (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect (pp. 293-321). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15.
EtzioniA. (1969). The semi-professions and their organization: Teachers, nurses and social workers. New York, NY: Free Press.
16.
EwellP. (2005). Can assessment serve accountability? It depends on the question. In BurkeJ. C. & Associates (Eds.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands (pp. 104-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
EwellP.JonesD. (2006). State-level accountability for higher education: On the edge of a transformation. New Directions for Higher Education, 135, 9-16.
FirestoneW. A. (1990). Continuity and incrementalism after all: State responses to the excellence movement. In MurphyJ. (Ed.), The educational reform movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases (pp. 143-166). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
20.
FreidsonE. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
21.
FuhrmanS. H. (1999). The new accountability (CPRE Policy Brief). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
22.
FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.). (2001). From the Capitol to the classroom. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
23.
GordonD. T. (Ed.). (2003). A nation reformed? American education 20 years after a nation at risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
24.
GrantG.MurrayC. (1999). Teaching in America: A slow revolution?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
GuthrieJ. W.SpringerM. G. (2004). A Nation at Risk revisited: Did “wrong” reasoning result in “right” results? At what cost?Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 7-35.
27.
IngersollR. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
JencksC.RiesmanD. (1968). The academic revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
29.
KrauseE. (1996). Death of the guilds: Professions, states, and the advance of capitalism, 1930 to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
LarsonM. (1977). The rise of professionalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
LightD. (1995). Countervailing powers: A framework for professions in transition. In JohnsonT.LarkinG.SaksM. (Eds.), Health professions and the state in Europe (pp. 25-44). London, UK: Routledge.
32.
LightD. (2000). The medical profession and organizational change: From professional dominance to countervailing power. In BirdC.ConradP.FremontA. (Eds.), Handbook of medical sociology (5th ed, pp. 201-216). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33.
LipsetS. M.SchneiderW. (1986). The confidence gap: Business, labor and government in the public mind. New York, NY: Free Press.
34.
LockeT. (2001). Curriculum, assessment and the erosion of professionalism. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 36(1), 5-23.
35.
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
MacIntyreA. (1981/1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
37.
MannaP. (2006). Schools in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
38.
MawhinneyH. B.LuggC. A. (2001, January). Introduction: Interest groups in United States education. Educational Policy, 15, 3-11.
39.
McGuinnP. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1965-2005. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
40.
McNeilL. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and local knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
McNeilL. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
MehtaJ. (2013a). How Paradigms Create Politics: The Transformation of American Educational Policy, 1980-2001. American Educational Research Journal50(2): 285-325.
43.
MehtaJ. (2013b). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
MehtaJ.WinshipC. (2010). Moral power. In HitlinS.VaiseyS. (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of morality (pp. 425-438). New York, NY: Springer.
45.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
46.
MoeT. (2011). Special interest: Teachers unions and America’s public schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
47.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2006). Measuring Up 2006. San Jose; National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
48.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: The Commission. Retrieved from http://www.mat.uc.pt/~emsa/PMEnsino/ANationatRisk.pdf
49.
National Governors’ Association. (1986). Time for results: The Governors’ 1991 Report on Education. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.
50.
National Institute of Education Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
51.
ParsonsT. (1939/1954). The professions and social structure. In Essays in sociological theory (pp. 34-49). New York, NY: Free Press.
52.
PetersonP.WestM. R. (2003). No Child Left Behind? The politics and practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
53.
RotherhamA.MeadS. (2004). Back to the future: The history and politics of state teacher licensure and certification. In HessF.RotherhamA.WalshK. (Eds.), A qualified teacher in every classroom? (pp. 11-47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
54.
RowanB. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public education. In MeyerH.-D.RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 87-102). Albany: State University of New York Press.
55.
SkrentnyJ. (1996). The ironies of affirmative action. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56.
SpringJ. (2002). Political agendas for education: From the religious right to the Green Party. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
State Higher Education Executive Officers. (2005). Accountability for better results. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
58.
The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
59.
TochT. (1991). In the name of excellence: The struggle to reform the nation’s schools, Why it’s failing, and What should be done. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
60.
TochT. (2006). Margins of error: The testing industry in the era of No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
61.
TuchmanG. (2009). Wannabe U: Inside the corporate university. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62.
TyackD. (1974). The one best system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
VesceyL. (1965). The emergence of the American University. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
64.
WilenskyH. (1964). The professionalization of everyone?American Journal of Sociology, 70, 137-158.
