Performing Parent Dialogues on High-Stakes Testing: Consent and Resistance to the Hegemony of Accountability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment-driven accountability has altered the way schools deliver their services to children, and their relations with parents. Listening to how parents talk about their experiences with testing fosters an understanding of the discursive power found in the state's accountability rhetoric about learning, achievement, and assessment and how this discourse is accepted or rejected by parents. Focus groups with parents were conducted as part of a naturalistic study examining state-mandated testing and teaching and learning in two New York State school districts: one suburban and one urban. In four dialogic acts, we bring to life the questions, concerns, and understandings parents have of the impact state testing has on their children's educational experience. These acts represent areas of struggle for parents as they make sense of the new accountability discourse. They can be thought of as a performed critique of this discourse and its exemplification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.111 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".