Through case studies of two school districts, this article examines local variability in the implementation of state policy. In adopting a cognitive perspective on the role of the local educational agency in policy implementation, the author argues that the diVerse ideas about reforming instruction that different local policy makers come to know and understand from state reform initiatives help account for the variation in the local educational agency's response to external policy. Diverse local interpretations of reform proposals contribute to substantial local variability in policy implementation. The author suggests that local policy makers' diverse understanding of reform proposals were affected by the interaction of (a) their beliefs about reading instruction, (b) the situations in which they apprehend the reforms, and (c) the particular sources of infomation pertaining to the reforms to which they attend.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, C. , & Smith, E. (1987).Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators' handbook: A research perspective. New York: Longman.
2.
Ball, D. L. , & Wilson, S. M. (1997). Helping teachers meet the standards: New challenges for teacher educators.Elementary School Journal, 97(2), 121-138.
3.
Bennan, P. , & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 7. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
4.
Brown, J. , Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
5.
Braner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
California State Department of Education . (1987). Language arts framework. Sacramento, CA: Author.
7.
Cohen, D. K. , & Ball, D. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331-338.
8.
Cohen, D. K. , & Barnes, C. A. (1993a).Conclusion: Anew pedagogy for policy? In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207-239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Cohen, D. K. , & Barnes, C. A. (1993b).Pedagogy and policy. In D. K Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 240-275). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Cohen, D. K. , Spillane, J., Jennings, N., & Grant, S. G. (1997). Reading policy. Manuscript in preparation.
11.
Confrey, J. (1990).A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
12.
Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction.Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.
Elmore, R. F. , & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice and the reeducational dissemination and change. Santa-Monica, CA: RAND.
15.
Firestone, W. A. (1989a). Educational policy as an ecology of games.Educational Researcher, 18(7), 18-24.
16.
Firestone, W. A. (1989b). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151-164.
17.
Fullan, M. (1991). Productive educational change. East Sussex, UK: Falmer Press.
18.
Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York: Basic Books.
19.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
20.
Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
21.
Goertz, M. E. , Floden, R. E., & O'Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Policy Research in Education.
22.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
Gross, N. , Giacquinta, J., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New York: Basic Books.
24.
Hallinger, R , Leithwood, K., & Murphy, J. (1993). Cognitive perspectives on educational leadership. New York: Teachers College Press
25.
Huberman, M. , & Miles, M. (1984). Innovation up close. New York: Plenum.
26.
Jennings. N. (1996). Teachers learning from policy: Cases from the Michigan reading reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
Jennings, N. , & Spillane, J. (1996). State reform and local capacity: Encouraging ambitious instruction for all and local decision-making.Journal of Education Policy, 1(4), 465-482.
28.
Lambert, L. , Walker, D., Zimmerman, D., Cooper, J., Lambert M., Gardner, M., & Slack, P. J. (1995). The constructivist leader. New York: Teachers College Press.
29.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
Louis, K. (1989). The role of the school district in school improvement. In M. Holmes, K. Leithwood, D. Musella (Eds.), Educational policy for effective schools. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.
31.
Majone, G. , & Wildavsky, A. (1978).Implementation as evolution. In H. Freeman (Ed.), Policy studies annual review (Vol. 2, pp. 103-117). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
March, J. , & Olsen, J. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget
33.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
34.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The RAND Change Agent Study revisited: Macros perspectives and micro realities.Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
35.
Michigan Department of Education . 1987. Reading at a glance for Michigan administrators.Paper prepared for the Michigan Reading Association, Curriculum Review Committee, and Michigan State Board of Education, Lansing, MI.
36.
Miles, M. , & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
38.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
39.
Porter, A. , Floden, R., Freeman, D., Schmidt, W., & Schwille, J. (1988).Content determninants in elementary school mathematics. In D. A. Grouws, T. J. Cooney, & D. Jones (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching (pp. 96-113). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
40.
Pressman, J. L. , & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
41.
Price, J. N. , & Ball, D. L. (in press). There's always another agenda: Marshalling resources for mathematics reform.Journal of Curriculum Studies.
42.
Resnick, L. (1991).Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: APA.
43.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
44.
Spillane, J. (1996). Districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy.Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.
45.
Spillane, J. (1997). The progress of standards-based reforms and the non-monolithic nature of the school district: Organizational and professional consideration. Manuscript submitted for publication.
46.
Spillane, J. , Thompson, C., Lubienski, C., Jita, L., & Reimann, C. (1995). The local government policy system affecting mathematics and science education in Michigan: Lessons from nine school districts. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
47.
Weatherley, R. (1979). Reforming special education: Policy implementation from state level to street level. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48.
Wilson, S. M. , Peterson, P. L., Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Learning by all.Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 468-476.
