Data, democracy and school accountability: Controversy over school evaluation in the case of DeVasco High School

Debate over the closure of DeVasco High School shows that data-driven accountability was a methodological and administrative processes that produced both transparency and opacity. Data, when applied to a system of accountability, produced new capabilities and powers, and as such were political. It c...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: John West
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2017-05-01
Series:Big Data & Society
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717702408
id doaj-98b1020835ac4287aa53a76596ea1424
record_format Article
spelling doaj-98b1020835ac4287aa53a76596ea14242020-11-25T03:39:28ZengSAGE PublishingBig Data & Society2053-95172017-05-01410.1177/205395171770240810.1177_2053951717702408Data, democracy and school accountability: Controversy over school evaluation in the case of DeVasco High SchoolJohn WestDebate over the closure of DeVasco High School shows that data-driven accountability was a methodological and administrative processes that produced both transparency and opacity. Data, when applied to a system of accountability, produced new capabilities and powers, and as such were political. It created second-hand representations of important objects of analysis. Using these representations administrators spoke on behalf of the school, the student and the classroom, without having to rely on the first-person accounts of students, teachers or principals. They empowered one group—central city administrators—over another—teachers and principals. After analyzing the form these policies took, this article concludes that it is necessary to rethink the processes that create visibility and invisibility. Public data obscured the voices, experiences and collective traumas of students and faculty within the school. A narrow focus on activities within the schools rendered invisible the structural decisions made by the Department of Education in New York City—to favor small schools over large, comprehensive ones. In order to create understanding, and a sense of common purpose, those who are spoken for in simplified data must also be given the opportunity to debate the representations of their performance and quality.https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717702408
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author John West
spellingShingle John West
Data, democracy and school accountability: Controversy over school evaluation in the case of DeVasco High School
Big Data & Society
author_facet John West
author_sort John West
title Data, democracy and school accountability: Controversy over school evaluation in the case of DeVasco High School
title_short Data, democracy and school accountability: Controversy over school evaluation in the case of DeVasco High School
title_full Data, democracy and school accountability: Controversy over school evaluation in the case of DeVasco High School
title_fullStr Data, democracy and school accountability: Controversy over school evaluation in the case of DeVasco High School
title_full_unstemmed Data, democracy and school accountability: Controversy over school evaluation in the case of DeVasco High School
title_sort data, democracy and school accountability: controversy over school evaluation in the case of devasco high school
publisher SAGE Publishing
series Big Data & Society
issn 2053-9517
publishDate 2017-05-01
description Debate over the closure of DeVasco High School shows that data-driven accountability was a methodological and administrative processes that produced both transparency and opacity. Data, when applied to a system of accountability, produced new capabilities and powers, and as such were political. It created second-hand representations of important objects of analysis. Using these representations administrators spoke on behalf of the school, the student and the classroom, without having to rely on the first-person accounts of students, teachers or principals. They empowered one group—central city administrators—over another—teachers and principals. After analyzing the form these policies took, this article concludes that it is necessary to rethink the processes that create visibility and invisibility. Public data obscured the voices, experiences and collective traumas of students and faculty within the school. A narrow focus on activities within the schools rendered invisible the structural decisions made by the Department of Education in New York City—to favor small schools over large, comprehensive ones. In order to create understanding, and a sense of common purpose, those who are spoken for in simplified data must also be given the opportunity to debate the representations of their performance and quality.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717702408
work_keys_str_mv AT johnwest datademocracyandschoolaccountabilitycontroversyoverschoolevaluationinthecaseofdevascohighschool
_version_ 1724538625213857792