Serving Public Interests in Educational Accountability: Alternative Approaches to Democratic Evaluation

Today, educational evaluation theory and practice face a critical juncture with the kind of educational accountability evaluation legislated by No Child Left Behind. While the goal of this kind of educational accountability is to improve education, it is characterized by a hierarchical, top-down approach to improving educational achievement reflecting a climate of control and efficiency. Democratic evaluation is intended for contexts in which there are concerns about top-down control of management and education (MacDonald, B. & Kushner, S. (2004). Democratic evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), The encyclopedia of evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). This paper examines democratic evaluation approaches to see how these approaches might contribute to making educational accountability more democratic. Suggestions about how evaluators can serve public interests in developing a more democratic accountability are presented. SERVING PUBLIC INTERESTS IN EDUCATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY Audit cultures continue to intensify nationally and globally (Power, 1997)—reflections of New Public Management.1 The U.S. educational accountability context reflects this audit intensification, particularly since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This legislation essentially institutionalizes the reliance on performance indicators as a key mechanism for improving student achievement. On the one hand, the audit culture’s performance indicators serve stakeholders and public interests through monitoring. At the same time, Katherine E. Ryan •Department of Educational Psychology, 230 Education, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA; Tel: (1) 217-333-0719; Fax: (1) 217-244-7620.; Email: [email protected] (K.E. RYAN) An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2003 American Evaluation Association Meeting, 4 November. American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2004, pp. 443–460. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1098-2140 © 2004 American Evaluation Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.