National Testing: Gains or Strains? School Leaders’ Responses to Policy Demands

References

• Abelman, C., Elmore, R., Even, J., Kenyon, S., & Marshall, J. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer? Philadelphia, PA: CPRE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Abu-Alhija, F. N. (2007). Large-scale testing: Benefits and pitfalls. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(1), 50–68. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2007.01.005
   Google Scholar
• Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2011). The classroom assessment of reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. IV, pp. 487–514). New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Allerup, S., Kovac, V., Kvåle, G., Langfeldt, G., & Skov, P. (2009). Evaluering av det nasjonale kvalitetsvurderingssystemet for grunnopplæringen [Evaluation of the national quality assessment system for primary and secondary education]. (Fou-rapport 8/2009). Kristiansand, Norway: Agderforskning.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(3), 292–327. doi:10.1080/15700761003731492
   Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. (2013). The education debate. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. doi:10.3102/01623737023002145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X032006003
   Google Scholar
• Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. doi:10.1177/003804070407700302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, J., & Spillane, J. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? The Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176. doi:10.1111/tcre.2004.106.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134–142. doi:10.1080/00131720508984677
   Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. (1990). The adoption of corporate forms for government business undertakings: Critical issues and implications. In J. Guthrie, L. D. Parker, & D. Shand (Eds.), The public sector: Contemporary readings in accounting and auditing (pp. 209–221). Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, D. (2013). Drawing a veil over managerialism: Leadership and the discursive disguise of the new public management. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(3), 267–282. doi:10.1080/00220620.2013.771154
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, I. (2014). A logic of appropriation: Enacting national testing (NAPLAN) in Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/02680939.2013.782425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatch, T. (2013). Beneath the surface of accountability: Answerability, responsibility and capacity-building in recent education reforms in Norway. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 113–138. doi:10.1007/s10833-012-9206-1
   Google Scholar
• Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456. doi:10.1080/00220270801989818
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership for large‐scale reform: The case of England’s national literacy and numeracy strategy. School Leadership & Management, 24(1), 57–79. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172822
   Google Scholar
• Mausethagen, S. (2013). A research review of the impact of accountability policies on teachers’ workplace relations. Educational Research Review, 9, 16–33. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. doi:10.1086/226550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Møller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10(1), 37–46. doi:10.1007/s10833-008-9078-6
   Google Scholar
• Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2013). Norway: Centralisation and decentralisation as twin reform strategies. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership (pp. 61–72). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2013). Nasjonale prøver. [National tests]. Retrieved from http://www.udir.no/vurdering/nasjonale-prover/
   Google Scholar
• Ottesen, E. (2013). Grunnleggende ferdigheter og individuell vurdering-mellom regulering og profesjonsmakt. [Basic skills and individual assessment-between regulation and professional empowerment]. In B. Karseth, J. Møller, & P. Aasen (Eds.), Reformtakter-om fornyelse og stabilitet i grunnopplæringen [Reforming and reforming. Continuity and change in primary and secondary schools] (pp. 119–132). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, K., & Winton, S. (2015). Juggling multiple accountability systems: How three principals manage these tensions in Ontario, Canada. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 1–23. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11092-015-9224-7
   Google Scholar
• Porter, S. (2007). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Reasserting realism in qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(1), 79–86. doi:10.1111/jan.2007.60.issue-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranson, S. (2003). Public accountability in the age of neoliberal governance. Journal of Education Policy, 18(5), 459–480. doi:10.1080/0268093032000124848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175. doi:10.1080/002202799183205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., & Burch, P. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public education. In H.-D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 87–101). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. The Teachers College Record, 98(3), 449–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. doi:10.3102/00346543072003387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumbera, M. J., Pazey, B. L., & Lashley, C. (2014). How building principals made sense of free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(3), 297–333. doi:10.1080/15700763.2014.922995
   Google Scholar
• Timperley, H. (2011). Knowledge and the leadership of learning. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(2), 145–170. doi:10.1080/15700763.2011.557519
   Google Scholar
• Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. doi:10.2307/2391875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar