The paradigm of test-based accountability has been a dominant force for decades, yet some argue that we have recently witnessed a dramatic change in the key beliefs influencing educational policy. To understand the extent of this transformation, we investigated the policy narrative supporting the adoption of a multiple measure accountability system in California’s CORE Districts. Our data revealed a narrative integrating key beliefs about knowledge, accountability, and social-emotional learning. This narrative continues the major themes of the previous accountability paradigm, but with two notable differences regarding the use of measurement data and role of social-emotional learning.
AggarwalU. (2016). The ideological architecture of whiteness as property in educational policy. Educational Policy, 30(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815616486
BakerE. L.BartonP. E.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.LaddH. F.LinnR. L.. . . ShepardL. A. (2010, August29). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers (Issue brief No. 278). http://www.epi.org/files/page/-/pdf/bp278.pdf
4.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D.MortensenP. B. (2014). Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 59–103). Routledge.
5.
BladE. (2015, September29). Measuring grit, character draw new investments. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/
6.
BladE. (2016, January5). ESSA law broadens definition of school success. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/
CannC. N. (2013). What school movies and TFA teach us about who should teach urban youth: Dominant narratives as public pedagogy. Urban Education, 50(3), 288–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913507458
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools: Brookings Institution Press.
14.
CORE Districts. (2014). CORE SEL pilot: Background information and research base.
15.
CraigC. J. (2009). The contested classroom space: A decade of lived educational policy in Texas schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1034–1059. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209334843
16.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Standards of validation and evaluation. In CreswellJ. W. (Ed.), Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (pp. 243–268). SAGE.
17.
CrowD. A.LawlorA. (2016). Media in the policy process: Using framing and narratives to understand policy influences. Review of Policy Research, 33(5), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12187
18.
DaiuteC. (2014). Narrative inquiry: A dynamic approach. SAGE.
19.
Darling-HammondL.AscherC. (1991). Urban diversity series No. 102: Creating accountability in big city school systems. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
20.
DavidsonE.RebackR.RockoffJ.SchwartzH. L. (2015). Fifty ways to leave a child behind: Idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in states’ implementation of NCLB. Educational Researcher, 44(6), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15601426
21.
DeeT. S.JacobB. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20586
22.
DeeT. S.JacobB.SchwartzN. L. (2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 252–279. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712467080
23.
del Carmen SalazarM. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: Reinventing the principles and practice of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12464032
24.
DuckworthA. (2016, March26). Don’t grade schools on grit. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/
25.
DuckworthA. L.YeagerD. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15584327
26.
DusenburyL.DermodyC.WeissbergR. P. (2018). 2018 state scorecard scan. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
27.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114, 1177 Stat. (2015).
28.
FinniganK. S.GrossB. (2007). Do accountabiiity policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s lowest performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 594–629.
29.
FirestoneW. A.ShippsD. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to improve student learning. In FirestoneW. A.ReihlC. (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 81–100). Teachers College Press.
30.
FreireP. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (RamosM. B., Trans., 30th Anniversary ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
31.
FriedmanM. (1962). The role of government in education. In FriedmanM. (Ed.), Capitalism and freedom (pp. 85–107). The University of Chicago Press.
32.
GabrieliC.AnselD.KrachmanS. B. (2015). Ready to be counted: The research case for education policy action on non-cognitive skills. Transforming Education.
33.
GoldbergB.MorrisonD. M. (2003). Co-nect: Purpose, accountability, and school leadership. In MurphyJ.DatnowA. (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms (pp. 57–82). Corwin Press.
34.
GrayG.JonesM. D. (2016). A qualitative narrative policy framework? Examining the policy narratives of US campaign finance regulatory reform. Public Policy and Administration, 31(3), 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076715623356
GutmannA. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton University Press.
37.
HallP. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 29, 275–296.
38.
HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.MarshJ. A.McCombsJ. S.RobynA. (2007). Standards-Based Accountability Under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators in Three States. RAND Corporation.
39.
HamiltonL.StecherB.YuanK. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions. RAND Corporation.
HollingworthL.DudeD. J.ShepherdJ. K. (2010). Pizza parties, pep rallies, and practice tests: Strategies used by high school principals to raise percent proficient. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 462–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760903342376
42.
HoughH.ByunE.MulfingerL. (2018). Using data for improvement: Learning from the CORE Data Collaborative. Policy Analysis for California Education.
HuettemanE.RichM. (2015, December2). House restores local education control in revising No Child Left Behind. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/
45.
ItkonenT. (2009). Stories of hope and decline: Interest group effectiveness in national special education policy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328526
46.
JacobB. A.LevittS. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 843–877.
47.
JaianiV.WhitfordA. B. (2011). Policy windows, public opinion, and policy ideas: The evolution of No Child Left Behind. Quality Assurance in Education, 19(1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881111107735
48.
Jenkins-SmithH. C.NohrstedtD.WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (2014). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In SabatierP. A.WeibleC. M. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 183–224). Westview Press.
49.
JenningsJ.RentnerD. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608800206
50.
JonesM. D. (2014). Cultural characters and climate change: How heroes shape our perception of climate science. Social Science Quarterly, 95(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12043
JonesM. D.SongG. (2014). Making sense of climate change: How story frames shape cognition. Political Psychology, 35(4), 447–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12057
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
59.
LabareeD. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034001039
60.
LauenD. L.GaddisS. M. (2012). Shining a light or fumbling in the dark? The effects of NCLB’s subgroup-specific accountability on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711429989
61.
LeeJ. (2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 608–644.
62.
LewisC. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education?Educational Researcher, 44(1), 54–61.
63.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
64.
LybeckerD. L.McBethM. K.HusmannM. A.PelikanN. (2015). Do new media support new policy narratives? The social construction of the US-Mexico border on YouTube. Policy & Internet, 7(4), 497–525.
65.
MarshJ. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.
66.
MarshJ. A.Bush-MecenasS.HoughH. (2017). Learning from early adopters in the new accountability era: Insights from California’s CORE waiver districts. Educational Administration Quarterly: EAQ, 53(3), 327–364.
67.
MarshJ. A.Bush-MecenasS.HoughH.ParkV.AllbrightT.HallM.GloverH. (2016). At the forefront of the new accountability era: Early implementation findings from the CORE waiver districts. Policy Analysis for California Education.
68.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE.
69.
McBethM. K.JonesM. D.ShanahanE. A. (2014). The narrative policy framework. In SabatierP. A.WeibleC. M. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 225–266). Westview Press.
70.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordM. S. (2016). Recognizing the political in implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16649945
71.
McGoughD. J.BedellC.TinklerB. (2018). Building a dangerous outpost in the Green Mountain State: A case study of educator preparation policymaking. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(37), 1–32.
72.
McNeilM. (2013, August6). U.S. Department of Education grants California districts’ CORE waiver. Education Week. http://blogs.edweek.org/
73.
MehtaJ. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980-2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212471417
74.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
75.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. SAGE.
76.
MintropH.SundermanG. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339055
77.
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707309219
78.
MurnaneR. J.PapayJ. P. (2010). Teachers’ views on No Child Left Behind: Support for the principles, concerns about the practices. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 151–166.
79.
NolanK. (2018). The lived experience of market-based school reform: An ethnographic portrait of teachers’ policy enactments in an urban school. Educational Policy, 32(6), 797–822. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816673742
80.
O’DayJ. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293–329.
81.
O’DayJ. A.SmithM. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the System (pp. 250–312). Jossey-Bass.
82.
PriceH. E. (2010). Does No Child Left Behind really capture school quality? Evidence from an urban school district. Educational Policy, 24, 779–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810376564
83.
RebackR.RockoffJ.SchwartzH. L. (2011). Under pressure: Job security, resource allocation, and productivity in schools under NCLB. https://doi.org/10.3386/w16745
84.
RoeE. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Duke University Press.
85.
RothP. A. (1989). How narratives explain. Social Research, 56(2), 449–478.
86.
RouseC. E.HannawayJ.GoldhaberD.FiglioD. (2013). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 251–281.
ShanahanE. A.JonesM. D.McBethM. K.LaneR. R. (2013). An angel on the wind: How heroic policy narratives shape policy realities. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 453–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12025
SolórzanoD. G.YossoT. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9, 2–8.
95.
StakeR. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–462). SAGE.
96.
StecherB. M.EpsteinS.HamiltonL. S.MarshJ. A.RobynA.McCombsJ. S.RussellJ.NaftelS. (2008). Pain and gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, 2004 to 2006. RAND Corporation.
97.
StecherB. M.HamiltonL. S. (2014). Measuring hard-to-measure student competencies. RAND Corporation.
98.
StecherB. M.KirbyS. N.BarneyH.PearsonM. L.ChowM. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors. RAND Corporation.
99.
SteinbergM. P.LacoeJ. (2017). What do we know about school discipline reform?Education Next, 171(1), 44–52. https://www.educationnext.org/
100.
StoneD. (2011). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton.
van HulstM.YanowD. (2014). From policy “frames” to “framing.”The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014533142
103.
Vasquez HeiligJ.Darling-HammondL. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75–110. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708317689
WestM. R.BuckleyK.KrachmanS. B.BookmanN. (2018). Development and implementation of student social-emotional surveys in the CORE Districts. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 55, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.06.001
106.
WohlstetterP.DatnowA.ParkV. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 239–259.
107.
YinR. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE.
108.
ZirkelS.PollackT. M. (2016). “Just let the worst students go”: A critical case analysis of public discourse about race, merit, and worth. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1522–1555. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216676568
