In the current accountability environment, many school districts have mandated test preparation courses, canned programs, and otherwise limited teacher risk-taking in all but very high-performing schools. This article further suggests that extant literature on risk-taking as part of educational change is no longer sufficient for understanding risk-taking in the current political environment. The author uses findings from a multicase study that investigated what happens in school districts that makes educators willing to take risks and resist the pressures of current accountability policies to redefine risk-taking as a political act. Through the use of interview data, field notes, and literature, the study describes four conditions that support political risk-taking in the current accountability context.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamR., & QuinnT. (1996). The change process journey.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2.
AllingtonR. (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
3.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). (2003). No Child Left Behind brief. Retrieved October 5, 2003, from www.ascd.org/cms.
4.
BarthP., HaycockK., JacksonH., MoraK., RuizP., RobinsonS. et al. (1999). Dispelling the myth: High poverty schools exceeding expectations. Retrieved January 5, 1999, from www.edtrust.org/.
5.
BermanP., & McLaughlinM. W. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: Volume 7. Factors affecting implementation and communication.Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
6.
BrunnerC. C. (1998). Can power support an ethic of care? An examination of the professional practices of women superintendents. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 4(2),142–175.
7.
BrunnerC. C. (1999). Taking risks: A requirement of the new superintendencyJournal of School Leadership, 9, 290–310.
8.
BrykA (Ed.). (1998). Charting Chicago school reform.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
9.
ChinR., & BenneK. (1969). General strategies for affecting change in human systems.New York: Holt, Reinhardt, and Winston.
10.
ConradC. (2001). Grounded theory: An alternative approach to research in higher education. In ConradC., HaworthJ. Grant, & LattucaL. (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher education: Experiencing alternative perspectives and approaches (2nd ed., pp. 255–262). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
11.
CunninghamP. (2001). The teacher's guide to the four blocks: A multimethod, multilevel framework.Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa.
12.
DanielsonM. N., & HochschildJ. (1998). Changing urban education: Lessons, cautions, prospects. In StoneC. N. (Ed.), Changing urban education (pp. 277–295). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
13.
ElmoreR., & BurneyE. (1998). School variation and systemic instructional component in community school district # 2.New York: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
FountasI., & PinnellG. S. (2001). Matching books to readers: Using leveled books in guided reading K-3.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16.
FullanM. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.New York: Routledge-Falmer.
17.
FullanM. (1999). Change forces: The sequel.Philadelphia: Buchanon.
18.
FullanM. (2001). Leading in a culture of change.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
GaranE. (2002). Resisting reading mandates: How to triumph with the truth.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
20.
GlaserB., & StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.Chicago: Aldine.
21.
HallG., & HordS. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process.Albany: State University of New York Press.
22.
KliebardH. (2002). Changing course: American curriculum in the 20th century.New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
LeithwoodK., & MontgomeryD. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational research, 52, 309–339.
24.
LightfootS. L. (1986). On the goodness of schools: Themes of empowerment. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(3),9–28.
25.
LippittR. (1967). The teacher as innovator, seeker, and sharer of new practices. In LippittR. (Ed.), Perspectives on educational change (pp. 27–30). New York: Meredith.
26.
Moore JohnsonS. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27.
National Reading Panel Report. (2002). Teaching children to read. Retrieved October 5, 2003, from www.nationaheadingpanel.org.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. (2002). Stronger accountability for stronger results. Retrieved September 28, 2003, from www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml.
30.
NoddingsN. (2002). Starting at home: Caring and social policy.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
31.
PatersonF. (2002). The politics of phonics. In AllingtonR. (Author/Ed.), Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence (pp. 157–194). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
QuellmalzE., ShieldsP. M., & KnappM. S. (1995). School-based reform: Lessons from national standards. Retrieved September 8, 2000, from www.ed.gov/pubs/Reform.
34.
RoutmanR. (2003). Reading essentials: The specifics you need to teach reading well.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
35.
SeeleyN. (2000, September 30). Schools under fire: New tests raise expectations. New York Times, pp. A4–A5.
36.
ShannonP. (2001). Becoming political too.Portsmouth, NH: Helnemann.
37.
ShortK., & BurkeC. (1991). Creating curriculum: Teachers and students as a community of learners.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
38.
ShortP., & GreerJ. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative efforts.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
39.
ShortP., Miller-WoodD., & JohnsonS. (1991). Risk-taking and teacher involvement in decision making. Education, 112(1), 843–889.
40.
SullivanS., & ShulmanV. (2002, April). Leading systemic reforms in large urban districts: How one superintendent learned from another. Paper presented at the 2002 meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
