The will to accountability: Reforming education through standardized literacy testing (Ontario)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I utilize analytic concepts of governmentality (Foucault, 1991a) and methodological approaches of genealogy (Foucault, 1984a) and critical ethnography (Britzman, 2000; Tamboukou Ball, 2003) to attend to the following questions: How has accountability become a rationality for reforming education, and how is it operationalized through the technologies of the OSSLT? How are those who inhabit schools governed---organized, classified, or normalized---by the arrangements, processes, and performances of the OSSLT? How are subjectivities produced under the conditions of this reform, and how do individuals come to understand or 'know' themselves and others in the terms of the test?This study explores how accountability policy has operated discursively to shape the understandings, practices, and social relations of public education in Ontario over the past decade. Specifically, it examines the lived effects of accountability reform by focusing on the school-level practices of the large-scale, standardized Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT). Through an analysis of Ontario policy documents, I examine how the notion of accountability emerged intertextually, how it was solidified in a certain problem-solution formulation, and how it ascended as a rationality for education in Ontario. I detail the ways in which the abstract concept of accountability was realized through multifarious technologies for assembling and implementing Ontario's program for literacy testing. Through a micro-narrative account of how accountability 'worked' in one urban high school, I then focus on the effects of the reform. I show how the OSSLT installed a knowledge-practice cycle of preparation and remediation where certain performances were enacted and certain modes of subjectification were introduced. I argue that subjectivities were both made available and 'made up' through the work of accountability, and I trace how students, teachers, and administrators found it possible, or not, to think and talk about themselves and others in the terms and categories that were provided by the OSSLT. Finally, I argue that the work of the self on the self and others (Foucault, 1988, 1990) involved complicated ways of becoming and 'being' and produced paradoxical inclusion/exclusion effects (Popkewitz, 1998) that contribute to the uneven and inequitable conditions of Ontario's school system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".