Signifying Improvement: Reform Symbols as Discursive Practice in School Improvement Plans

Abstract

School Improvement Plans (SIPs) have been shown to be generally of poor quality and written more as acts of compliance than efforts at genuine reform. This raises the question: if SIPs are ineffective at improving schools, what is their larger purpose? In this conceptual paper, we argue that SIPs are discursive sites where schools can signal their adherence to ostensibly proven and acceptable models of reform. They do so through the use of reform symbols, discursive markers that signal legitimized organizational change through the adoption of accepted modes of improvement. We illustrate this concept by showing how a variety of SIPs use reform symbols that point to the work of no-excuses Charter Management Organizations. Such organizations, emblems of an era of accountability and narrow models of school improvement, are used as symbols of legitimacy that help schools secure their survival without engaging in the difficult work of change. The examples we use show clearly how reform symbols might take a variety of forms, appearing as important signifiers in a range of policy artifacts across the landscape of school improvement. We further argue that such reform symbols reduce the complexities of educational change, thus reinforcing an ideological field that constructs underperformance as normative and “school improvement” as both urgent and possible.