Side Effects as a Matter of High Stakes or a Matter of Enactment of Accountability?

• In Event: The Enactment of Accountability, Learning Standards, and Data Use Policies in Education: Global Perspectives

Abstract

Objectives
The aim of the paper is to discuss the potential of research focusing on the enactment of accountability to understand the occurrence of side effects.

Perspectives
Side effects are usually associated with the existence of high stakes (e.g. Abrams, Pedulla & Madaus, 2003; Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Madaus & Rusell, 2010; 2011). This view is challenged by research showing that side effects are not bound to high-stakes contexts but can also be found in low-stakes contexts (Author(s), 2017). This puts the status of high stakes as the driving factor for the occurrence of side effects into question. The paper suggests focusing on the interpretation and enactment of accountability measures at different levels of the school system to explain side effects (Fend, 2011).

Methods
The paper presents results of a comparative case study examining side effects of accountability in the low-stakes contexts of the two German federal states Berlin and Thuringia. Although both states introduced similar accountability measures, the degree to which side effects occur differs significantly. To understand the processes that lead to these differences, the way accountability is enacted at federal state level as well as how teachers understand and deal with accountability measures in both states is compared.

Data Sources
The paper draws on findings of a study on side effects of accountability in education in four German federal states. In addition, results of a study on (de-)professionalizing effects of accountability are presented. The paper refers to analyses of the following data sources:
• Survey Study: Descriptive analyses and group difference tests were conducted on a representative survey study with 2637 responding teachers and principals.
• Policy Documents: A content analysis of a variety of policy documents e.g. state legislation, publicly accessible information about accountability measures, circular letters was undertaken.
• Group Discussions: A documentary analysis (Bohnsack, 2010) of five group discussions with teachers was carried out.

Findings
The study shows substantial differences in how accountability is enacted in both states. Berlin facilitates quality in education by communicating evaluation results as “truth” and requesting teachers to tackle shortcomings revealed by evaluation measures. Thuringia promotes quality by stimulating development initiatives of teachers. As part of this wider strategy, evaluation results ought to stimulate teachers to think about possibilities to develop quality. These differences are associated with different ways teachers deal with accountability measures. Teachers in Berlin collectively oppose to accountability demands. Teachers in Thuringia discuss accountability measures as development opportunities which can be taken if it fits their situation.

Significance
The paper contributes to the discussion on side effects of accountability by illustrating how differences in the degree to which side effects occur can be understood as effects of specific ways of the enactment of accountability at state and teacher level. The paper can be seen as a response to the demand to understand accountability as context-specific and to look at the specific responses and effects that accountability policies produce in different regulatory settings.

Author

• Corrie Thiel, University of Münster