How data use for accountability undermines equitable science education

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.

Classroom Assessment to Support Teaching and Learning

“…Most present-day examples of such assessments are not coherently aligned with ambitious content goals and disciplinary practices. As a result, thoughtful classroom practices most often need to manage the dissonance rather than presume coherence (see, e.g., Braaten et al 2017).…”

When Data Teams Struggle: Learning from Less Successful Data Use Efforts

“…Finally, the focus in these teams is not on data use for accountability purposes, but on data use for school improvement. Accountability-driven data use focusses on complying with external pressure and demands, whereas data use for improvement purposes focusses on improving teaching and learning in the school (Braaten, Bradford, Kirchgasler, & Baracos, 2017;Datnow & Park, 2018;Firestone & González, 2007). A strong focus on accountability can lead to 'misuse' of data, where teachers, for example, teach to the test, or even 'abuse' of data, or where data are used to improve test scores by focusing only on students on the cusp of meeting the mark (Booher-Jennings, 2005).…”

How Do Teachers Make Sense of Data in the Context of High-Stakes Decision Making?

“…On a related note, this reconceptualization acknowledges that teachers may use data in nonnormative ways.' Moreover, disparities in education are often deeply rooted in teachers' daily classroom activities and beliefs about what it means to work toward equitable educational trajectories, which is why sensemaking needs more attention as a central process in teacher judgment (Braaten, Bradford, Kirchgasler, & Barocas, 2017). Therefore, in order to critically examine teachers' sensemaking, the following research questions are put forward:…”