“They’re So Little and Yet They’re Being Expected to Know So Much”

A Kindergarten Teacher’s Narrative of Teaching in an Accountability Era

  • Chloe S. Bolyard Missouri State University
Keywords: accountability, kindergarten, early childhood, currere

Abstract

Accountability policies (i.e., No Child Left Behindand Race to the Top) in education over the last two decades have produced a culture of fear and anxiety, undermined teacher autonomy over curriculum and instruction, and pressured teachers to focus on raising student test scores, resulting in a narrowing of the curriculum.  The purpose of this study was to seek a clearer understanding a veteran teacher narrates what it means to her to be a kindergarten teacher in the midst of various accountability reforms.  Situated within an interpretivist discourse of research in general and Deweyan pragmatism in particular, this qualitative study employed an adaptation of Pinar’s (1976) theory and method of currere to make sense of the participant’s narrative. Data collection involved interviews and classroom observations.  Findings suggest an increase in external forms of control, an increase in academic rigor, a change in teacher-student relationships, and a decrease in teacher morale.

 

References

Amrein-Beardsley, A. & Collins, C. (2012). The SAS education value-added assessment system (SAS ® EVAAS ®) in the Houston Independent School District (HISD): Intended and unintended consequences. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(12).
Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A. (2016). Is kindergarten the new first grade? AERA Open, 1(4), 1-31.
Benton, T. & Craib, I. (2010). Philosophy of social science (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave.
Berryhll, J., Linney, J., & Fromewick, J. (2009). The effects of education accountability on teachers: Are policies too stress provoking for their own good? International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 4(5).
Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham, Mass.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of Psychology, 35, 61-79.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 677-692.
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience & education. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Eisner, E. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Random House, Inc. (Original work published 1975).
Gunzenhauser, M. (2012). The active/ethical professional: A framework for responsible educators. London: Continuum.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Accountability shovedown: Resisting the standards movement in early childhood education. Phi Delta Kappa, 83(6), 457-462.
Kagan, S. L., & Kauerz, K. (2007). Reaching for the whole: Integration and alignment in early education policy. In R. C. Pianta, M. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 11-30). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 995-1006.
Koca, F. (2016). Motivation to learn and teacher-student relationship. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 6(2), 1-20.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 899-916.
Leavy, P. (2008). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Lortie, D. (1975). School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Martin, D., Overholt, G., & Urban, W. (1976). Accountability in American education: A critique. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Book Company.
McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Noddings, N. (2007). When school reform goes wrong. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children’s classroom adjustment. Development and Pschopathology, 7, 295-312.
Pinar, W. F. (1976). The method. In W. Pinar & M. Grumet (Eds.), Toward a poor curriculum (pp. 51-65). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pinar, W., & Grumet, M. (1976). Toward a poor curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Quantz, R. (2014). Written lecture #3: On interpretive discourses [PDF document].
Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Schubert, W., Schubert, A., Thomas, T., & Carroll, W. (2002). Curriculum books: The first hundred years (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Sirotnik, K. (2004). Holding accountability accountable – Hope for the future? In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.), Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education (pp. 82-99). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Tienken, C., & Orlich, D. (2013). The school reform landscape: Fraud, myth, and lies. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
United States Department of Education (USDOE). (2002, January 07). No Child Left Behind: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/NCLB/overview/intro/execsumm.html
United States Department of Education (USDOE). (2009, November). Race to the Top: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
Wood, G. (2004). A view from the field: NCLB’s effects on classrooms and schools. In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 33-50). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Published
2019-05-30