How data use for accountability undermines equitable science education
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0099 |
| Pages | 427-446 |
| Published date | 03 July 2017 |
| Date | 03 July 2017 |
| Author | Melissa Braaten,Chris Bradford,Kathryn L. Kirchgasler,Sadie Fox Barocas |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
How data use for
accountability undermines
equitable science education
Melissa Braaten
School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA, and
Chris Bradford, Kathryn L. Kirchgasler and Sadie Fox Barocas
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Abstract
Purpose –When school leaders advance strategic plans focused on improving educational equity through
data-driven decision making, how do policies-as-practiced unfold in the daily work of science teachers?
The paper aims to discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach –This ethnographic study examines how data-centric accountability and
improvement efforts surface as practices for 36 science teachers in three secondary schools. For two years,
researchers were embedded in schools alongside teachers moving through daily classroom practice, meetings
with colleagues and leaders, data-centric meetings, and professional development days.
Findings –Bundled initiatives created consequences for science educators including missed opportunities to
capitalize on student-generated ideas, to foster science sensemaking, and to pursue meaningful and equitable
science learning. Problematic policy-practice intersections arose, in part, because of school leaders’framing of
district and school initiatives in ways that undermined equity in science education.
Practical implications –From the perspective of science education, this paper raises an alarming problem
for equitable science teaching. Lessons learned from missteps seen in this study have practical implications
for others attempting similar work. The paper suggests alternatives for supporting meaningful and equitable
science education.
Originality/value –Seeing leaders’framing of policy initiatives, their bundling of performance goals, equity
and accountability efforts, and their instructional coaching activities from the point of view of teachers
affords unique insight into how leadership activities mediate policies in schools.
Keywords Sensemaking, Equity, Accountability, Data use, Science education
Paper type Research paper
Data-centric education reforms promise to address inequities using data-driven approaches
to improvement (e.g. Mandinach and Honey, 2008). Typical efforts emphasize
student performance in mathematics and literacy as education reforms trend toward
increased data use, accountability, and performance management (e.g. Apple, 2006).
Science educators are concerned about potential negative consequences to students’
learning experiences stemming from such efforts. Concerns include sacrificing science in
exchange for exclusive focus on mathematics and literacy (e.g. Rivera Maulucci, 2010) and
narrowing curriculum and pedagogy to limited knowledge and skills (e.g. Anderson, 2012;
Settlage and Meadows, 2002). These concerns may be warranted because data-centric
education reforms do not focus on science education directly, nor explicitly include
meaningful science experiences in the equity agenda.
This ethnographic study traceshow data-centric education reformsunfolded in a mid-sized
school district in the USA from the perspective of the science classroom. We pursued the
following questions by embedding researchers alongside science teachers for two years:
(1) What happens to science education opportunities during data-centric reform initiatives?
(2) How do science educators make sense of data-centric reform initiatives?
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 55 No. 4, 2017
pp. 427-446
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0099
Received 15 September 2016
Revised 4 April 2017
Accepted 7 April 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
427
Data use for
accountability
Findings raise questions about how framing of data-centric reforms might compromise
opportunities for meaningful science learning, limit pedagogical innovations, and foreclose
on expansive definitions for equitable classrooms. This study contributes to scholarship
focused on understanding how contexts, school leaders, and teachers mediate and broker
connections between policies and practice. These findings may be particularly important for
efforts connected to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States (2013) and
to broader questions about consequences of managerial and accountability-based school
reforms (e.g. Apple, 2006; Horn, 2016).
Conceptual framework
Our central concern is understanding how data-centric reforms unfold in day-to-day practice
with particular attention to how equity-oriented goals, problems, and solutions are
presented. Different definitions of educational equity prioritize different disparities and
solutions. For example, if disparity is defined as a gap in achievement between student
groups, then equity means eliminating that gap –common when discussing “achievement
gaps”(Ladson-Billings, 2006). Alternatively, inequity could be defined as disparate qualities
of learning experiences where only a few students enjoy full participation as knowledgeable
sensemakers (e.g. Carlone et al., 2011; Gutiérrez, 2009; Horn, 2016; Rodriguez, 2001;
Thompson et al., 2016). Equity, when defined expansively, is not just a matter of inputs or
outcomes but a matter of qualities of sense-making and self-making experiences in schools.
Data-centric reforms present certain equity goals, identify problems, and propose
solutions. Data-centric efforts include initiatives such as using interim assessments, or
classroom walkthrough observations to generate data sets used to identify and target a
disparity. For this study, we focus on how data-centric initiatives unfolded from science
teachers’point of view. This perspective offers insight into how teachers made sense of
equity-oriented goals and activities consequential for teaching.
Framing Delimits what “counts”as equity-oriented work
When leaders and teachers enact initiatives rooted in data-centric policies, a host of
messages, tools, goals, and strategies are bundled together. Bundles are sites fo r framing
and sensemaking in organizations (Coburn and Stein, 2006). Framing is interactive work
communicating “What is going on here?”(Goffman, 1974) allowing leaders to define
priorities about “What should be going on here?”(Schön and Rein, 1994). Framing
includes both personal and collective interpretations of a situation (e.g. Goffman, 1974;
Schön and Rein, 1994). Looking at how groups build and rebuild frames offers one in-road
into understanding how people negotiate meaning. As such, framing is deeply intertwined
with sensemaking –the processes of naming, categorizing, highlighting, prioritizing,
contesting, and negotiating meaning in contexts of organizations, policies, and workplaces
(Weick, 1995).
Framing happens as people pin down answers to: “What is going on here?”and “What
should be going on here?”Boundaries are established by naming and prioritizing the
problem and highlighting potential solutions thereby defining which problem “count”as
worthy of attention (Weick, 1995).
Boundary-setting relocates other problems out-of-bounds. In schools, framing and
sensemaking often take place in the context of organizational routines where school
leaders and teachers come together to communicate, deliberate, and argue about goals,
problems, priorities, and practices of teaching and learning (Sherer and Spillane, 2011).
Because disparities in education are so pervasive, it can be difficult to define what it means
to work toward equity for marginalized students, which is why framing and sensemaking
merit attention as central processes used to define and coordinate educators’work.
428
JEA
55,4
To continue reading
Request your trial