Accountability Policies, Control, and Teachers' Work in American Schools

• In Event: The Politics and Practice of Teacher Evaluation Policy

Abstract

Few educational issues have received more attention in recent times than the problem of ensuring that elementary and secondary classrooms are staffed with quality teachers. Seemingly endless streams of commissions and national reports have targeted improving teacher quality as one of the central challenges facing schools. Critics have blamed the performance of teachers for myriad social ills: the erosion of American economic competitiveness, the decline in student academic achievement, teenage pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, a decline in morals, gender and racial stereotyping and discrimination, and on and on (e.g., Goldstein, 2015; Levin, 1998; Moulthrop, Calegari, & Eggers, 2005; Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Santoro, 2011). As a result, in recent decades a host of initiatives seeking to upgrade teacher quality have been pushed by reformers.
Although ensuring that classrooms are all staffed with quality teachers is a perennially important issue in schools, in our view it is also among the least understood. This misunderstanding centers on the reasons behind the purportedly low quality of teachers and teaching in schools, and it has undermined the success of reform efforts. Behind the criticism and reforms are a variety of differing perspectives as to the sources of the problems plaguing the teaching occupation.
One of the most popular perspectives relates to the accountability and control of teachers in schools. Schools, this view claims, are marked by low standards, poor management, and little effort to ensure adequate supervision, especially in regard to their primary activity—the work of teachers with students. Given the nature of teachers’ work, such concern is understandable. Not only do schools instruct students in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but they are also a major mechanism for the socialization of children, a process captured in the concept of social capital (Coleman, 1988). The task of deciding which behavior and values are proper and best for the young is not trivial, neutral, or value-free. Hence, it is no surprise that those who do this work—teachers—and how they go about it, are matters of intense concern. Indeed, underlying the accountability perspective is the understandable assumption that education is too important to be left to educators solely. From the teacher accountability perspective, the concern is that teachers are too often not held accountable and simply do what they want behind the closed classroom doors. The predictable result, this view holds, is low-quality performance on the part of teachers and students (Elmore, 2000; Finn, Kanstoroom, & Petrilli,1999; Thomas, 2010).
Utilizing a sociology of organizations, occupations, and work perspective, we offer a critique of the teacher accountability movement. We draw from a series of empirical research projects on the levels, distribution, and effects of accountability and control in American schools. We conclude that the teacher accountability movement overlooks some of the most important sources and forms of organizational accountability and control that exist in schools, including teacher leaders, educational leaders, and the positive effect that they have on student achievement. Overlooking these important stakeholders contribute to the teacher quality problem.

Authors

• Richard Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania

• Gregory J. Collins, University of Pennsylvania