Advertisement

Redefining or reinforcing accountability? An examination of meeting routines in schools

  • Amanda DatnowEmail author
  • Marie Lockton
  • Hayley Weddle
Article
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

Accountability has been a major feature of educational policy making across the globe, including in the US where there is a persistent focus on student achievement results. This paper examines how accountability influences organizational routines in US schools, paying particular attention to meeting routines. We draw upon in-depth qualitative data gathered in four urban middle schools in which approximately 40 math teachers were engaged in collaboration and data use in order to improve instruction. Over a period of 3 years, we conducted extensive observations of teacher team meetings and interviews with teachers and administrators. An analysis of data reveals that many meetings were dominated by organizational routines that reflected state accountability systems, regardless of whether the topic was assessment, curricular pacing, or planning. At times, teachers and administrators made attempts to shift meeting routines from test-based accountability to a focus on instruction and professional accountability; however, existing routines endured. The findings from this study have important implications for thinking through whether and how the field may move towards more intelligent forms of accountability in the presence of external demands and deeply embedded patterns.

Keywords

Accountability Teacher collaboration Leadership Educational change Data use 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305H150028 to University of California, San Diego. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. We wish to sincerely thank the participants of this study who gave generously of their time to share their experiences with us and welcomed us into their work settings. We also wish to thank Enikö Zala-Mezö, Sølvi Lillejord, the participants of the Oxford Symposium on Intelligent Accountability, and anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braaten, M., Bradford, C., Kirchgasler, K. L., & Barocas, S. F. (2017). How data use for accountability undermines equitable science education. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(4), 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Christman, J. B., Neild, R. C., Bulkley, K., Blanc, S., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., et al. (2009). Making the most of interim assessment data. Lessons from Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.Google Scholar
  5. Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 9(4), 173–206.Google Scholar
  6. Conway, P. F., & Murphy, R. (2013). A rising tide meets a perfect storm: New accountabilities in teaching and teacher education in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 32(1), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daly, A. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 86.Google Scholar
  10. Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2015). Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data use: A review of international research. Journal of Educational Change, 17, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2019). Professional collaboration with purpose: Teacher learning for equitable and excellent schools. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Diamond, J. B. (2012). Accountability policy, school organization, and classroom practice: Partial recoupling and educational opportunity. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond, J. B., & Cooper, K. (2007). The uses of testing data in urban elementary schools: Some lessons from Chicago. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 106(1), 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillabough, J. A. (1999). Gender politics and conceptions of the modern teacher: Women, identity and professionalism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(3), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farley-Ripple, E., & Buttram, J. (2015). The development of capacity for data use: The role of teacher networks in an elementary school. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 1–34.Google Scholar
  16. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Firestone, W. A., & González, R. A. (2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in school districts. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 132–154). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hatch, T. (2013). Beneath the surface of accountability: Answerability, responsibility and capacity-building in recent education reforms in Norway. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Honig, M. I., & Venkateswaran, N. (2012). School–central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horn, I., Kane, B., & Wilson, B. (2015). Making sense of student performance data: Data use logics and mathematics teachers’ learning opportunities. American Educational Research Journal, 52(2), 208–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions. A review. Zeitschrift fur padagogik, 52(2), 220.Google Scholar
  24. Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York: Routledge Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.Google Scholar
  26. Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practices among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.Google Scholar
  28. Mausethagen, S., Prøitz, T., & Skedsmo, G. (2018). Teachers’ use of knowledge sources in ‘result meetings’: Thin data and thick data use. Teachers and Teaching, 24(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Means, B., Padilla, C., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.Google Scholar
  30. O’Neill, O. (2013). Intelligent accountability in education. Oxford Review of Education, 39(1), 4–16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.764761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schildkamp, K., & Poortman, C. (2015). Factors influencing the functioning of data teams. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 1–42.Google Scholar
  33. Spillane, J. (2014). The practice of instructional improvement: Improvement, (infra)structure, & instruction. Presentation at the International Congress of School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Yoygakarta, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  34. Spillane, J. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 113–141.  https://doi.org/10.1086/663283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yin, R. (2013). Case study research (5th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education StudiesUniversity of California San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations