A growing body of research has emphasized the social processes by which teachers adapt and transform policy as they enact it in their classrooms. Yet little attention has been paid to the role of school leaders in this process. Drawing on sociological theories of sensemaking, this article investigates how principals in two California elementary schools influenced teacher learning about and enactment of changing reading policy. It argues that principals influence teachers’ enactment by shaping access to policy ideas, participating in the social process of interpretation and adaptation, and creating substantively different conditions for teacher learning in schools. These actions, in turn, are influenced by principals’ understandings about reading instruction and teacher learning.
Barley, S. R. (1990). Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organizational Science, 1(3), 220-247.
2.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VIII. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
3.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really good principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
4.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administrational Quarterly, 35, 349-378.
5.
Blase, J., & Kirby, P. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
6.
Burch, P. E., & Spillane, J. P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 519-535.
7.
California State Board of Education. (1999). Guide to the California Reading Initiative 1996-1999. Sacramento: California Reading Initiative Center.
8.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan.
9.
Coburn, C. E. (2001a). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
10.
Coburn, C. E. (2001b). Making sense of reading: Logics of reading in the institutional environment and the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
11.
Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211-244.
12.
Cohen, D., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331-338.
13.
Cohen, D., & Hill, H. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London: Routledge Falmer.
15.
Guthrie, J. W.. (1990). [Special issue]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 233-353.
16.
Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 643-681). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17.
Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook on research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147-164). New York: Macmillan.
18.
Firestone, W. A. (1985). The study of loose coupling: Problems, progress, and prospects. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 5, 3-30.
19.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, MA: Heinemann.
20.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
Gamoran, A., & Dreeben, R. (1985). Coupling and control in educational organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 612-632.
22.
Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999, November). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108, 1-29.
23.
Hall, G. E. (1998). The principal as leader of the change facilitating team. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22(1), 49-59.
24.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York Press.
25.
Hartley, J. F. (1994). Case studies in organizational research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 208-229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318.
27.
Jennings, N. E. (1996). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform and teacher practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
28.
Kamii, C., Manning, M., & Manning, G. (Eds.). (1991). Early literacy: A constructivist foundation for whole language. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
29.
Kennedy, M. M. (1982). Working knowledge and other essays. Cambridge, MA: The Huron Institute.
30.
Lin, A. C. (2000). Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
32.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
33.
Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
34.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998).Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 532-575.
35.
Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
36.
Marsh, D. D., & Odden, A. R. (1990). Implementation of California mathematics and science curriculum frameworks. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 219-240). Albany: State University of New York Press.
37.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
38.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers’ workplace context? In J. W. Little & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 79-103). New York: Teachers College Press.
39.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Muncey, D., & McQuillan, P. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
Murphy, J. (1994). Transformational change and the evolving role of the principal: Early empirical evidence. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts (pp. 20-53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
43.
Nelson, B. S. (1998). Lenses on learning: Administrators’ views on reform and the professional development of teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 191-215.
44.
Nelson, B. S. (1999). Building new knowledge by thinking: How administrators can learn what they need to know about mathematics education reform. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
45.
Nelson, B. S., & Sassi, A. (2000). Shifting approaches to supervision: The case of math supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 553-584.
46.
Nelson, B. S., Sassi, A., & Driscoll, M. (1999). Developing a new eye for mathematics classrooms: Classroom observation and teacher supervision. Journal of Mathematics Leadership, 2(4), 4-12.
47.
Nelson, B. S., Sassi, A., & Grant, C. M. (2001, April). The role of educational leaders in instructional reform: Striking a balance between cognitive and organizational perspectives. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Seattle, WA.
48.
Newell, G. E., Gingrich, R. S., & Johnson, A. B. (2001, February). Considering the contexts for appropriating theoretical and practical tools for teaching middle and secondary English. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 302-343.
49.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., Secada, W. G., Marks, H. M., Gamoran, A., King, M. B., et al. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50.
Odden, A. R. (1991). Education policy implementation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
51.
Pearson, P. D. (2000). Reading in the twentieth century. In T. L. Good (Ed.), American education: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Ninety-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 152-208). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 397-416.
53.
Rallis, S. F., & Goldring, E. B. (2000). Principals of dynamic schools: Taking charge of change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
54.
Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1994). Teacher change and the staff development process: The case of reading instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.
55.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905-950). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
56.
Shifter, D., & Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers meeting the challenge of reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
57.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 1-22.
58.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
59.
Siskin, L. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. Washington, DC: Falmer.
60.
Smith, M. S. (2000). Balancing old and new: An experienced middle school teacher’s learning in the context of mathematics instructional reform. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 351-375.
61.
Spillane, J. P. (1998). A cognitive perspective on the role of the local educational agency in implementing instructional policy: Accounting for local variability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 31-57.
62.
Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 1-33.
63.
Spillane, J. P. (2000a). District leaders’ perceptions of teacher learning (CPRE Occasional Paper Series, OP-05). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
64.
Spillane, J. P. (2000b). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141-179.
65.
Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 401-425.
66.
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002b). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16, 731-762.
67.
Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 439-481.
68.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002a). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
69.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
70.
Stahl, S. A. (1998). Understanding shifts in reading and its instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3-4), 31-67.
71.
Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2004). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.
72.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
73.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook on research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146). New York: Macmillan.
74.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
76.
Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
77.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
78.
Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
79.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
