Medienklatsch

Lessinger, Eva-Maria

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-24639-6

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It would make much more sense if we moved from the concept of per-pupil cost to the concept of learning-unit cost, and focused on the cost of skill acquisition rather the cost of maintaining children in schools." 25 This model of change shared Taylorist assumptions of schools as primarily organizational entities that could be engineered for higher productivity. Thomas James, an astute critic of the 1960/1970s accountability reforms, wrote in 1968 that a "new cult of efficiency" was emerging, paralleling the Progressive Era reforms.…”

Section: The 1960s and 1970s: The Nascent State Accountability Movement; The Bridge To The Presentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Penetration of Technocratic Logic into the Educational Field: Rationalizing Schooling from the Progressives to the Present

Mehta

2013

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context No Child Left Behind is only the most recent manifestation of a longstanding American impulse to reform schools through accountability systems created from afar. While research has explored the causes and consequences of No Child Left Behind, this study puts the modern accountability movement in longer historical perspective, seeking to identify broader underlying patterns that shape this approach to reform. Purpose and Research Design The study explores the question of the short and longer-term causes of the movement to “rationalize” schools by comparing three major movements demanding accountability in American education across the 20th century: the efficiency reforms of the Progressive Era; the now almost forgotten movement toward accountability in the late 1960s and early 1970s; and the modern standards and accountability movement, culminating in No Child Left Behind. This paper considers the three movements as cases of school “rationalization” in the Weberian sense, in that each sought to reduce variation and discretion across schools in favor of increasingly formal systems of standardized top-down control. Findings This impulse to rationalize schools cannot be explained by interest group or partisan explanations since the reformers defy easy ideological categorization.. Instead, the reforms can be understood as a penetration of “technocratic logic” into the educational sphere. In each movement, this process exhibited a similar pattern: (1) the identification of a crisis of quality which destabilized the existing educational status quo; (2) the elevation of a technocratic logic, backed by the knowledge base of a high-high status epistemic community; (3) the rallying of ideologically diverse powerful actors external to the schools behind a commensurating logic that promised control over and improvement of an unwieldy school system; and (4) the inability of education to resist this technocratic logic (and often to be co-opted by it) due to teaching's historical institutionalization as a feminized, weak, bureau-cratically-administered field lacking its own set of widely respected countervailing professional standards. Conclusions/Implications This history suggests that unless teachers are able to develop and organize a stronger field, they will remain at the whim of external actors. It also suggests that top-down accountability-centered approaches are limited if the goal is to consistently produce teaching that can help students engage in higher level academic work. Rather than continuing to pursue these rationalizing strategies, this analysis and emerging international evidence suggest that a more promising approach would be to work towards professionalizing the educational field.

show abstract

Section: The 1960s and 1970s: The Nascent State Accountability Movement; The Bridge To The Presentmentioning

confidence: 99%