Today, educational evaluation theory and practice face a critical juncture with the kind of educational accountability evaluation legislated by No Child Left Behind. While the goal of this kind of educational accountability is to improve education, it is characterized by a hierarchical, top-down approach to improving educational achievement reflecting a climate of control and efficiency. Democratic evaluation is intended for contexts in which there are concerns about top-down control of management and education (MacDonald, B. & Kushner, S. (2004). Democratic evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), The encyclopedia of evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). This paper examines democratic evaluation approaches to see how these approaches might contribute to making educational accountability more democratic. Suggestions about how evaluators can serve public interests in developing a more democratic accountability are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bacon, B., Yuen, C., & Korza, P. (1999). Animating democracy: The artistic imagination as force in civic dialogue. Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts.
2.
Bait and switch on public education. (2003, October 21). The New York Times, p. A6.
3.
Brooks, M., Ryan, K. E., Miron, L. (2003). Making the grade: The educational experiences of high school seniors drifting towards graduation. Preliminary evaluation report. Champaign, IL: Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana.
4.
Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 1-14.
5.
Fraser, N. (1993). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In B. Robbins (Ed.), The phantom public sphere (pp. 1-32). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
6.
Greene, J. C. (2000). Voices in conversation? Struggling for inclusion. In K. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation. New directions for evaluation, No. 35: (pp. 13-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
7.
Guba, E. (1969). The failure of educational evaluation. Educational Technology, 9(5), 29-38.
8.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: University Press.
10.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1999). Democratic disagreement. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement (pp. 243-279). New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into the category of the bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Habermas, J. (1996). Three normative models of democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference (pp. 21-30). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
Heubert, J. P., & Hauer, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14.
House, E. (2005). Qualitative evaluation and changing social policy. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
House, E., & Howe, K. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16.
Howe, K. R., & Ashcraft, C. (in press). Deliberative democratic evaluation: Successes and limitations of an evaluation of school choice. Teachers College Record, 107(10).
17.
Imsen, G. (2003). Democratic evaluation and evaluation for learning. In P. Haug & T. A. Schwandt (Eds.), Evaluating educational reforms: Scandinavia perspectives (pp. 149-168). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
18.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567-606). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Kushner, S., Simons, H., Jones, K., & James, D. (2003). From evidence-based practice to practice-based evidence: The idea of situated generalization. Research Papers in Education, 18, 347-364.
21.
Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
MacDonald, B. (1976). Evaluation and the control of education. In D. Tawney (Ed.), Curriculum evaluation today: Trends and implications (pp. 125-134). London: Macmillan Education.
23.
MacDonald, B. (1999, November 11). Doctor honoris causa. Valladolid, Spain.
24.
MacDonald, B., & Kushner, S. (Eds.). (1982). Bread and dreams: A case study of bilingual schooling in the U.S.A. Norwich, UK: Centre for Applied Research in Education (CARE), University of East Anglia.
25.
MacDonald, B., & Kushner, S. (2004). Democratic evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), The encyclopedia of evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
MacDonald, B., & Walker, R. (1975). Case study and the social philosophy of educational research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 5, 2-11.
27.
MacDonald, B., & Walker, R. (1976). Changing the curriculum. London: Open Books Publishing.
28.
Mark, M. M., Henry, G., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
Mathsion, S. (2000). Deliberation, evaluation, democracy. In K. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Inclusion, dialogue and deliberation. New directions for evaluation, No. 85 (pp. 85-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
30.
McKee, A., & Stake, R. E. (2002). Making evaluation democratic in a climate of control. In L. Bresler & A. Ardichivili (Eds.), International research in education: Experience, theory and practice (pp. 121-137). New York: Peter Lang.
31.
Niemi, H., & Kemmis, S. (1999). Communicative evaluation. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 4, 55-64.
32.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107th Cong., 110 Cong. Rec. 1425. 115 Stat. (2002).
33.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
34.
Power, M. (1997). The audit society. New York: Oxford Press.
35.
Rizvi, F. (1990). Horizontal accountability. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp. 299-324). Hampshire: Falmer Press.
36.
Ryan, K. E. (2002). Shaping educational accountability systems. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 453-468.
37.
Ryan, K. E., & DeStefano, L. (2001). Dialogue as a democratizing evaluation method. Evaluation, 7, 195-210.
38.
Ryan, K., & Johnson, T. (2000). Democratizing evaluation: Meanings and methods from practice. In K. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Inclusion, dialogue and deliberation. New directions for evaluation, No. 85 (pp. 39-55). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
39.
Simons, H. (1981). Process evaluation in the schools. In C. Lacey & D. Lawton (Eds.), Issues in evaluation and accountability (pp. 114-146). London: Methuen.
40.
Simons, H. (1987). Getting to know schools in a democracy: The politics and process of Evaluation. New York: Falmer.
41.
Simons, H., Kushner, S., James, D., & Jones, D. K. (2003). Independent external evaluation of TTA school-based consortia. Southampton: University of Southampton and University of the West of England 1999-2001.
42.
Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
43.
Stake, R. E. (1984). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 287-310). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
44.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Stake, R. E. (2001). How modern democracies are shaping evaluation and the emerging challenges for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 349-354.
46.
Whitmore, E. (Ed.). (1998). Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. New directions for evaluation, No. 80. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
47.
Willinsky, J. (2003, April). The democratic responsibilities of scientific inquiry in education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
48.
Young, I. M. (1999). Justice, inclusion, and deliberative democracy. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement (pp. 151-158). New York: Oxford University Press.
