Chile has followed the international trend of implementing a standards-based reform, with the particularity of encompassing both academic and non-academic outcomes. Drawing on interview data from four school cases in Santiago, Chile, this study examines the role of attitudes in reform enactment, analyzing whether and how school actors’ attitudes toward academic and non-academic performance indicators influence practice change. Alignment between attitudes toward academic standards and practice change is often disrupted by subjective norms, whereas attitudes toward non-academic indicators consistently drive behavior. This research sheds light on the complex interplay between attitudes and policy enactment, offering valuable insights.
AjzenI. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Open University Press.
2.
BaakM.MillerE.SullivanA.HeughK. (2021). Tensions between policy aspirations and enactment: Assessment and inclusion for refugee background students. Journal of Education Policy, 36(6), 760–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1739339
3.
BallS. J. (Ed.). (2017). The education debate (third ed.). Policy Press.
4.
BallS. J.MaguireM.BraunA. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.
5.
Barrett-TatumJ.AshworthK. (2021). Moving educational policy to educators’ lived reality: One state’s trickle-down, bottom-up pathway to literacy intervention reform. Journal of Educational Change, 22(3), 355–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09392-1
6.
BasseyM. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Open University Press.
7.
BelleiC.MunozG. (2023). Models of regulation, education policies, and changes in the education system: A long-term analysis of the Chilean case. Journal of Educational Change, 24(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09435-1
8.
BraunA.MaguireM. (2020). Doing without believing – Enacting policy in the English primary school. Critical Studies in Education, 61(4), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2018.1500384
9.
CamphuijsenM.LevatinoA.MentiniL.ParcerisaL. (2022). Teaching as affective labour in a datafied world: A scoping review of the relationship between performance-based accountability and teachers’ emotions. Foro de Educación, 20(2), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.14516/fde.1023
10.
CamphuijsenM. K.ParcerisaL. (2023). Teachers’ beliefs about standardised testing and test-based accountability: Comparing the perceptions and experiences of teachers in Chile and Norway. European Journal of Education, 58(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12540
11.
CarrascoA.FrommG. (2016). How local market pressures shape leadership practices: Evidence from Chile. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(4), 290–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2016.1210584
12.
CarrawayJ. H.YoungT. (2015). Implementation of a districtwide policy to improve principals’ instructional leadership: Principals’ sensemaking of the skillful observation and coaching laboratory. Educational Policy, 29(1), 230–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814564216
CoburnC. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276143
15.
CreswellJ. W. (Ed.). (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
16.
DunnA. H.MooreA. E.NevilleM. L. (2020). “There isn’t an easy way for me to talk about this”: A historical and contemporary examination of emotional rules for teachers. Teachers College Record, 122(9), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200915
17.
FalabellaA. (2020). The ethics of competition: Accountability policy enactment in Chilean schools’ everyday life. Journal of Education Policy, 35(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1635272
18.
FalabellaA. (2021). The seduction of hyper-surveillance: Standards, testing, and accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(1), 113–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x20912299
FazioR. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In SorrentinoM. R.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition. Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204–243). Guilford Press.
21.
Ganon-ShilonS.SchechterC. (2017). Making sense of school leaders’ sense-making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 682–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216628536
22.
Guzman FacundoF. R.García SalasB. A.Rodríguez AguilarL.Alonso CastilloM. M. (2014). Attitude, subjective norm, and behavioral control as predictors of drug use among youth in marginal urban area of Northern Mexico. Frontera Norte, 26(51), 53–74.
23.
HargreavesA. (2020). Large-scale assessments and their effects: The case of mid-stakes tests in Ontario. Journal of Educational Change, 21(3), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09380-5
24.
HernándezL. E.CastilloE. (2022). Citizenship development and the market’s impact: Examining democratic learning in charter schools in two regions. Educational Policy, 36(2), 440–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820901482
25.
HollowayJ.BrassJ. (2018). Making accountable teachers: The terrors and pleasures of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 33(3), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1372636
26.
LevatinoA.ParcerisaL.VergerA. (2024). Understanding the stakes: The influence of accountability policy options on teachers’ responses. Educational Policy, 38(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221142048
27.
MaguireM.BallS. J.BraunA. (2013). What ever happened to . . .? ‘Personalised learning’ as a case of policy dissipation. Journal of Education Policy, 28(3), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.724714
28.
MaguireM.GewirtzS.TowersE.NeumannE. (2020). Contextualising policy work: Policy enactment and the specificities of English secondary schools. Research Papers in Education, 35(4), 488–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1601758
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
31.
MoosL. (2009). Hard and soft governance: The journey from transnational agencies to school leadership. European Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.3.397
32.
Ortiz CáceresI. (2012). En torno a la validez del Sistema de Medición de la Calidad de la Educación en Chile. Estudios pedagógicos, 38(2), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-07052012000200022
33.
ParcerisaL. (2021). To align or not to align: The enactment of accountability and data-use in disadvantaged school contexts. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 33(3), 455–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09341-9
34.
PratkanisA. R.GreenwaldA. G. (1989). A sociocognitive model of attitude structure and function. In L. Bercowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 245–285). Elsevier.
35.
SahlbergP. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In MundyK.GreenA.LingardB.VergerA. (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (pp. 128–144). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
36.
SpillaneJ. P.PariseL. M.ShererJ. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210385102
37.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387
38.
ThruppM. (1998). The art of the possible: Organizing and managing high and low socioeconomic schools. Journal of Education Policy, 13(2), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093980130203
39.
TsangK. K.KwongT. L. (2017). Teachers’ emotions in the context of education reform: Labor process theory and social constructionism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(6), 841–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1182007
40.
UbillosS.MayordomoS.PáezD. (2004). Actitudes: Definición y medición. Componentes de la actitud. Modelo de acción razonada y acción planificada. In FernándezI.UbillosS. (Eds.), Psicología social, cultura y educación (pp. 301–326). Pearson.
41.
WeinsteinJ.MarfánJ.HornA.MuñozG. (2016). Chile: School leadership challenged by double accountability towards schools. In EasleyJ.TulowizkiP. (Eds.), Educational accountability international perspectives on challenges and possibilities for school leadership (1st ed., pp. 54–72). Routledge.
42.
WestA.MatteiP.RobertsJ. (2011). Accountability and sanctions in English schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2010.529416
ZembylasM. (2022). Affective ideology and education policy: Implications for critical policy research and practice. Journal of Education Policy, 37(4), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1861339
45.
ZembylasM. (2023). Theorizing ‘affective infrastructure’ in education policy: Articulating new political imaginaries for a more equitable future. Journal of Education Policy, 38(6), 944–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2022.2157048
