This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Ryan, K. E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

Department of Educational Psychology, 230 Education, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA, k-ryan6{at}uiuc.edu

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.

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 25, No. 4, 443-460 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/109821400402500403


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Brooks-LaRaviere, K. Ryan, L. Miron, and M. Samuels Broadening the Educational Evaluation Lens With Communicative Evaluation Qualitative Inquiry, February 1, 2009; 15(2): 372 - 396. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. M. Benjamin Evaluator's Role in Accountability Relationships: Measurement Technician, Capacity Builder or Risk Manager? Evaluation, July 1, 2008; 14(3): 323 - 343. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Lehtonen Deliberative Democracy, Participation, and OECD Peer Reviews of Environmental Policies American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2006; 27(2): 185 - 200. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Hanberger Evaluation of and for Democracy Evaluation, January 1, 2006; 12(1): 17 - 37. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. E. Ryan Making Educational Accountability More Democratic American Journal of Evaluation, December 1, 2005; 26(4): 532 - 543. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Rebolloso, B. Fernandez-Ramirez, and P. Canton The Influence of Evaluation on Changing Management Systems in Educational Institutions Evaluation, October 1, 2005; 11(4): 463 - 479. [Abstract] [PDF]