“Who are these for? Is this for the teacher?”: Understandings of expertise and evaluation in the era of ESSA

IF 0.6 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Education Policy Analysis Archives Pub Date : 2023-05-16 DOI:10.14507/epaa.31.7807
Madeline Good
{"title":"“Who are these for? Is this for the teacher?”: Understandings of expertise and evaluation in the era of ESSA","authors":"Madeline Good","doi":"10.14507/epaa.31.7807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understandings of teacher expertise in the US have transformed over the past 40 years, arguably being “narrowed” and “numericized” due to high-stakes accountability and neoliberal education reform movements. While this trend has been thoroughly studied under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and Race to the Top regimes, less consideration has been given since the Every Study Succeeds Act (ESSA) replaced NCLB in 2015, which notably pivoted away from some of the most stringent accountability practices of the previous era. This paper begins a new line of inquiry into teacher expertise in our current federal policy context, especially considering how understandings of expertise are constructed in school districts that never adopted the most high-stakes evaluation measures. By relying on Jessica Holloway’s (2021) technologies of risk management, this paper explores how teachers in one school understand expertise, focusing specifically on how evaluation and assessment technologies engage with and influence these understandings. Ultimately, it was found that teachers in fact held a plurality of understandings, yet complex and sometimes conflicting influences of assessment and evaluation practices also emerged. This paper argues that although risk management technologies have become commonplace, scholars and practitioners alike should continue to scrutinize their use under ESSA, particularly considering how they are being used, who they primarily benefit, and what consequences come from our reliance upon them.","PeriodicalId":11429,"journal":{"name":"Education Policy Analysis Archives","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Policy Analysis Archives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Understandings of teacher expertise in the US have transformed over the past 40 years, arguably being “narrowed” and “numericized” due to high-stakes accountability and neoliberal education reform movements. While this trend has been thoroughly studied under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and Race to the Top regimes, less consideration has been given since the Every Study Succeeds Act (ESSA) replaced NCLB in 2015, which notably pivoted away from some of the most stringent accountability practices of the previous era. This paper begins a new line of inquiry into teacher expertise in our current federal policy context, especially considering how understandings of expertise are constructed in school districts that never adopted the most high-stakes evaluation measures. By relying on Jessica Holloway’s (2021) technologies of risk management, this paper explores how teachers in one school understand expertise, focusing specifically on how evaluation and assessment technologies engage with and influence these understandings. Ultimately, it was found that teachers in fact held a plurality of understandings, yet complex and sometimes conflicting influences of assessment and evaluation practices also emerged. This paper argues that although risk management technologies have become commonplace, scholars and practitioners alike should continue to scrutinize their use under ESSA, particularly considering how they are being used, who they primarily benefit, and what consequences come from our reliance upon them.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“这些是给谁的?”这是给老师的吗?:对ESSA时代的专业知识和评估的理解
在过去的40年里,美国对教师专业知识的理解发生了变化,可以说,由于高风险的问责制和新自由主义的教育改革运动,这种理解被“缩小”和“数字化”了。尽管《不让一个孩子掉队法案》(NCLB)和《争顶法案》(Race to the Top)制度对这一趋势进行了深入研究,但自2015年《每项研究都成功法案》(ESSA)取代NCLB以来,人们很少考虑这一趋势,因为NCLB明显偏离了前一时代一些最严格的问责做法。本文开始对我们当前联邦政策背景下的教师专业知识进行新的调查,特别是考虑到从未采取最高风险评估措施的学区是如何构建对专业知识的理解的。通过依赖Jessica Holloway(2021)的风险管理技术,本文探讨了一所学校的教师如何理解专业知识,特别关注评估和评估技术如何参与和影响这些理解。最终发现,教师实际上持有多种理解,但评估和评价实践也产生了复杂且有时相互冲突的影响。本文认为,尽管风险管理技术已经变得司空见惯,但学者和从业者都应该继续仔细审查它们在ESSA下的使用,特别是考虑它们是如何使用的,它们主要受益于谁,以及我们对它们的依赖会带来什么后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Education Policy Analysis Archives
Education Policy Analysis Archives Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
164
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas/Arquivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas (EPAA/AAPE) is a peer-reviewed, open-access, international, multilingual, and multidisciplinary journal designed for researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and development analysts concerned with education policies. EPAA/AAPE accepts unpublished original manuscripts in English, Spanish and Portuguese without restriction as to conceptual and methodological perspectives, time or place. Accordingly, EPAA/AAPE does not have a pre-determined number of articles to be rejected and/or published. Rather, the editorial team believes that the quality of the journal should be assessed based on the articles that we publish and not the percentage of articles that we reject. For EPAA “inclusiveness” is a key criteria of manuscript quality. EPAA/AAPE publishes articles and special issues at roughly weekly intervals, all of which pertain to educational policy, with direct implications for educational policy. Priority is given to empirical articles. The Editorial Board may also consider other forms of educational policy-relevant articles such as: -methodological or theoretical articles -commentaries -systematic literature reviews
期刊最新文献
Tensiones en los discursos de las escuelas, la administración pública y las Big-Tech respecto al uso de plataformas digitales comerciales en el sistema educativo catalán Digital leap in the New Mexican school since the pandemic lockdown: Challenges for governance and pedagogical processes The critical study of digital platforms and infrastructures: Current issues and new agendas for education technology research Plataformas y digitalización de la educación pública: Explorando su adopción en Cataluña Plataformas digitales educativas y escolarización: Nuevos retos y alternativas hacia la equidad educativa y los derechos de la infancia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1