Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 423–444 | Cite as

Accountable for what and to whom? Changing representations and new legitimation discourses among teachers under increased external control

  • Sølvi Mausethagen
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article discusses how teachers construct new representations about accountability and professionalism in the context of increased external control. Over the last decade in particular, concerns about the quality of schooling and the quality of teachers has been raised by both politicians and the public alike, while prominent policy responses have seen an increased emphasis on student performance and the external control of professional work. Based on a 1 year long fieldwork in a Norwegian municipality, the findings imply how forms of external accountability are accepted by many teachers as a necessary and desirable development, but also one that is resisted as the policies are seen to downplay the broader aims of education. In this tension of external and internal accountability, however, alternative discourses have developed. In particular, an emphasis on scientific knowledge and research-informed practice becomes an important representation for enhancing professional legitimacy and trust. By opening up the concept of accountability, it is possible to investigate how teachers’ representations of being accountable may take new forms when teacher professionalism is reconstructed in policy.

Keywords

Accountability Education policy Legitimation strategies Teacher professionalism 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abelmann, C., & Elmore, R. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer?. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  2. Allerup, S., Kovac, V., Kvåle, G., Langfeldt, G., & Skov, S. (2009). Evaluering av det Nasjonale kvalitetsvurderingssystemet for grunnopplæringen. FoU-rapport no. 8/2009. Kristiansand: Agderforskning.Google Scholar
  3. Arfwedson, G. (1994). Nyare forskning om lärare: presentation och kritisk analys av huvudlinjer i de senaste decenniernas engelskspråkiga lärarforskning. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.Google Scholar
  4. Bergesen, H. O. (2006). Kampen om kunnskapsskolen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  5. Biesta, G. J. J. (2004). Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained? Educational Theory, 54(3), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement. Ethics, politics, democracy. Colorado: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Blumer, H. (1956). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 8p.Google Scholar
  8. Buzzelli, C., & Johnston, B. (2001). Authority, power, and morality in classroom discourage. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 873–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlgren, I., & Klette, K. (2008). Reconstructions of Nordic teachers: Reform policies and teachers’ work during the 1990s. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(2), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charlton, B. G. (2002). Audit, accountability, quality and all that: The growth of managerial technologies in UK Universities. In S. Prickett & P. Erskine-Hill (Eds.), Education! Education! Education! Managerial Ethics and the Law of Unintended Consequences. England: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D. (1990). Key issues facing state policymakers. In R. Elmore (Ed.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. L. (2008). “That’s not treating you as a professional”: Teachers constructing complex professional identities through talk. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C. (2009). The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change. 10(2–3), 159–171.Google Scholar
  15. Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elstad, E., & Sivesind, K. (2010). PISA: sannheten om skolen?. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  18. Evetts, J. (2003). The sociological analysis of professionalism: Occupational change in the modern world. International Sociology, 18, 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evetts, J. (2008). The management of professionalism: A contemporary paradox. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism/international trends, challenges and ways forward. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Fuller, B. (2008). Liberal learning in centralizing states. In Strong states, weak schools: The benefits and dilemmas of centralized accountability (Vol. 16, pp. 1–29). Emerald: Research in Sociology of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C., & Whitty, G. (2000). Teacher education in transition: Re-forming teaching professionalism. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Gewirtz, S. (2002). The managerial school post-welfarism and social justice in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (1990). The Moral Dimensions of teaching. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2004). Discourse and Power. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Heggen, K., Karseth, B., & Kyvik, S. (2010). The relevance of research for the improvement of education and professional practice. In S. Kyvik, & B. Lepori (Eds.), The research mission of higher education institutions outside the university sector striving for differentiation. Dortrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  28. Helgoy, I., & Homme, A. (2007). Towards a new professionalism in school? A comparative study of teacher autonomy in Norway and Sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howarth, D. R. (2000). Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jeffrey, B. (2002). Performativity and primary teacher relations. Journal of Education Policy, 17(5), 531–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jensen, K. (2008). Profesjonslæring i endring (Prolearn). Populærvitenskapelig rapport til forskningsrådets KUL-program 2008.Google Scholar
  33. Jensen, R., & Møller, J. (2012). School data as mediators in professional development. Journal of Educational Change,. doi: 10.1007/s10833-012-9197-y.Google Scholar
  34. Joram, E. (2007). Clashing epistemologies: Aspiring teachers’, practicing teachers’, and professors’ beliefs about knowledge and research in education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 23(2), 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karseth, B., & Sivesind, K. (2010). Conceptualising curriculum knowledge within and beyond the national context. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 103–120.Google Scholar
  36. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311, 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews. Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  38. LaBoskey, V. K. (2006). ‘Reality check’: Teachers’ lives as policy critique. Teachers & Teaching, 12(2), 12.Google Scholar
  39. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching & Teacher Education, 21(8), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & T. B. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  41. Levinson, B. A. U., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education Policy as a Practice of ower: Theoretical Tools, Ethnographic Methods, Democratic Options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 29p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practices among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.Google Scholar
  43. Locke, T., Vulliamy, G., Webb, R., & Hill, M. (2005). Being a “professional” primary school teacher at the beginning of the 21st century: A comparative analysis of primary teacher professionalism in New Zealand and England. Journal of Education Policy, 20(5), 555–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. MacLure, M. (2003). Discourse in educational and social research. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mausethagen, S. (2013). A research review of the impact of accountability policies on teachers’ workplace relations. Educational Research Review, 9, 16–33.Google Scholar
  47. Mausethagen, S., & Granlund, L. (2012). Contested discourses of teacher professionalism: Current tensions between education policy and teachers’ union. Journal of Education Policy, 27(6), 815–833.Google Scholar
  48. Ministry of Education. (2004). White Paper 30 (2003–2004). Kultur for læring. [A culture for Learning]. Oslo: The Ministry.Google Scholar
  49. Molander, A., Grimen, H., & Eriksen, E. O. (2012). Professional discretion and accountability in the welfare state. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(3), 214–230.Google Scholar
  50. Moos, L., Krejsler, J., & Kofod, K. K. (2008). Successful principals: Telling or selling? On the importance of context for school leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(4), 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Müller, J., & Hernández, F. (2010). On the geography of accountability: Comparative analysis of teachers’ experiences across seven European countries. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Munthe, E., Malmo, K.-A., & Rogne, M. (2011). Teacher education reform and challenges in Norway. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(4), s. 441–s. 450.Google Scholar
  54. Ng, J. (2006). Understanding the impact of accountability on preservice teachers’ decisions about where to teach. Urban Review, 38(5), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Poulson, L. (1994). Accountability: A key-word in the discourse of educational reform. Journal of Education Policy, 11(5), 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  57. Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Education Policy, 16(2), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simons, M., & Kelchtermans, G. (2008). Teacher professionalism in Flemish policy on teacher education: A critical analysis of the decree on teacher education (2006) in Flanders, Belgium. Teachers & Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 12.Google Scholar
  60. Skedsmo, G. (2009). School governing in transition: Perspectives, purposes and perceptions of evaluation policy. Doctoral thesis, Department of Teacher Education and School Development, Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  61. Slagstad, R. (1998). De nasjonale strateger. Oslo: Pax Forlag.Google Scholar
  62. Stronach, I., Corbin, B., McNamara, O., Stark, S., & Warne, T. (2002). Towards an uncertain politics of professionalism: Teacher and nurse identities in flux. Journal of Education Policy, 17(1), 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sugrue, C., & Solbrekke, T. D. (2011). Professional responsibility: New horizons of praxis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Svensson, L. G. (2006). New professionalism, trust and competence: Some conceptual remarks and empirical data. Current Sociology, 54(4), 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Svensson, L. G., & Karlsson, A. (2008). Profesjoner, kontroll og ansvar. In A. Molander & L. I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  66. Trent, J. (2010). From rigid dichotomy to measured contingency. Hong Kong preservice teachers’ discursive construction of identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 906–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Trent, J. (2011). “Four years on, I’m ready to teach”: Teacher education and the construction of teacher identities. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(5), 529–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Troman, G. (2008). Primary teacher identity, commitment and career in performative school cultures. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Dijk, T. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Hamalainen, S., Sarja, A., Kimonen, E., & Nevalainen, R. (2004). A comparative analysis of primary teacher professionalism in England and Finland. Comparative Education, 40(1), 83–107.Google Scholar
  72. Wilkins, C. (2011). Professionalism and the post-performative teacher: New teachers reflect on autonomy and accountability in the English school system. Professional Development in Education, 37(3), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Winther Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (1999). Diskursanalyse som teori og metode. Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of ProfessionsOslo and Akershus University CollegeOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options