Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background/Context

School districts are responsible for helping schools improve learning for students. However, many district initiatives conflict with each other or with existing instructional practices in schools. Recent research on urban school reform points to the value of program coherence in sustaining school change. Our paper addresses an urban district's efforts to design for instructional program coherence in its schools.

Purpose

This study explores the design process of how one urban school district developed and deployed a series of reports designed to communicate the results of student achievement testing across the district. The focus of this research is to understand the district's efforts to design new programs that would fit coherently into existing initiatives in local schools. We attempt to measure and characterize coherence within the district design team as a means to discern how district leaders can assist local actors in implementation of reform initiatives and foster local program coherence within schools.

Research Design

This paper presents a qualitative case study of how a district-level nine-member design team built and implemented a reform program to make student performance data reports accessible throughout their district. We used a policy-artifact-based perspective as our methodological framework to access the “program theories” in use by the designers in making the artifact. Our methods allowed us to contrast the differences in the designers’ perspectives on the fit between the designed artifacts and the local school environments.

Conclusions

The findings from this study revealed how designers developed a stakeholder-based process that helped them come to an agreement on common goals for the design. Their perceptions of the goals, actions, and resources that would drive these initiatives appeared to be aligned, but the actions suggested for local school leaders and teachers varied among designers. This incoherence at the level of design details and artifact implementation would come to threaten the successful implementation of the reform effort at a local level. The results of this work suggest that attention towards coherence throughout the design process can aid district leaders in facilitating instructional program coherence in schools.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abelmann

, and Elmore

R. M.

(with Even, J., Kenyon, S., & Marshall, J.) (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer? (CPRE Research Report Series RR-42). Retrieved on July 17, 2003, from Consortium for Policy Research in Education at http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr42.pdf

Black

, and Wiliam

(1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7—74.

Chen

, and Rossi

P. H.

(Eds.) (1992). Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations. New York: Greenwood Press.

Cohen

D. K.

, and Hill

(2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cuban

(1990). Reforming again and again. Educational Researcher, 19, 3—13.

Elmore

(2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore

, and Burney

(1998, December). Continuous improvement in Community School District #2, New York City [A report to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement]. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.

Engeström

(1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: Analyzing the work of general practitioners. In Chaiklin

, and Lave

(Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fullan

(1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.

10.

Gong

(2002). Designing school accountability systems: Towards a framework and process. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

11.

Halverson

(2002). Representing phronesis: Supporting instructional leadership practice in schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Northwestern University: Evanston, IL.

12.

Halverson

(2004). Accessing, documenting and communicating the phronesis of school leadership practice. American Journal of Education, 111(1), 90—122.

13.

Hess

F. M.

(1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

14.

Knapp

M. S.

, Copland

M. A.

, and Talbert

J. A.

(2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and district leaders. Retrieved September 14, 2003, from Stanford University, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy at http://www.ctpweb.org/

15.

Light

, Heinze

, and Wexler

(2004, April). How practitioners interpret data and link data to instruction: Research findings on New York City Schools’ implementation of the Grow Network. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

16.

McLaughlin

, and Talbert

(2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform. Retrieved November 3, 2003, from Stanford University, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy at http://www.ctpweb.org/

17.

Newmann

F. M.

, Smith

, Allensworth

, and Bryk

A. S.

(2001). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges. Retrieved September 27, 2002, from the Consortium on Chicago School Research at http://www.consortium-chicago.org/publications/p0d02.html

18.

Norman

D. A.

(1991). Cognitive artifacts. In and and Carroll

J.M.

(Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface, Cambridge University Press.

19.

Rogers

P. J.

, Hacsi

T. A

, Petrosino

, and Huebner

T. A.

(2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 5—13.

20.

Schon

D. A.

(1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York.

21.

Schon

D. A.

(1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

22.

Spillane

J. P.

, and Thompson

C. L.

(1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185—203.

23.

Spillane

(1998). A cognitive perspective on the LEA's role in implementing instructional policy: Accounting for local variability. Education Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 31—35.

24.

Spillane

(2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141—179

25.

Spillane

J. P.

, Halverson

, and Diamond

J. B.

(2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23—28.

26.

Thorn

C. A.

(2001, November 19). Knowledge management for educational information systems: What is the state of the field? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(47). Retrieved on August 4, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n47/.>http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n47/

27.

Weiss

C. H.

(1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. Connell

J.P.

, Kubisch

A.C.

, Schorr

L.B.

, and Weiss

C.H.

(Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives; Concepts, methods, and context. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

Exploring Coherence as an Organizational Resource for Carrying Out Reform Initiatives

Abstract

Background/Context

Purpose

Research Design

Conclusions

Get full access to this article

References