We bring together education research on factors shaping teacher learning with institutional research on policy shifts and conflicts to explore an instructional policy shift in one school district. Specifically, we compare mathematics teacher learning opportunities in three elementary schools over a three-year period during which a district policy shift toward English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction diverted attention from mathematics curriculum reform efforts. Findings demonstrate that while the policy shift led to significant decreases in mathematics teacher learning opportunities across the district and in two of the case study schools, mathematics teacher learning opportunities were sustained in one case study school due to two school-level strategies: a common, articulated vision for mathematics instruction and a high number of mathematics-focused teachers in the school. Together, these two strategies supported the creation of coherence between mathematics and ESL policies in the school, which encouraged the maintenance of mathematics teacher learning opportunities.
Ball, D. ( 1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 500-508.
2.
Borasi, R., & Fonzi, J. ( 2002). Foundations, Volume 3: Professional development that supports school mathematics reform. Washington, DC: Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education, National Science Foundation.
3.
Burt, R.S. ( 1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
Coburn, C. ( 2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
5.
Coburn, C. ( 2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211-244.
6.
Coburn, C. ( 2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509.
7.
Coburn, C., & Russell, J.L. ( 2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.
8.
Coburn, C., & Stein, M.K. ( 2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional development community in policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New direction in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 25-46). Albany : State University of New York Press.
9.
Cohen, D.K. ( 1982). Policy and organization: The impact of state and federal educational policy on school governance. Harvard Educational Review, 52(4), 474-499.
10.
Cohen, D.K. ( 1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
11.
Cohen, D.K. ( 1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11-17.
12.
Cohen, D., & Hill, H. ( 2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
D’Aunno, T., Sutton, R.I., & Price, R.H. ( 1991). Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 636-661.
14.
Darling-Hammond, L. ( 1990). Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bottom over the top. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 12(3), 339-347.
15.
Denzin, N.K. ( 1971). The logic of naturalistic inquiry. Social Forces, 50(2), 166-82.
16.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. ( 1991a). Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality . In P. DiMaggio & W. Powell (Ed.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63-82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. ( 1991b). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63-82). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
18.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. (1990). 12(3), 233-353.
19.
Elmore, R.F. ( 2007). Education: A "profession" in search of a practice. Teaching in Educational Administration: AERA "Division A" Newsletter, 15(1), 1-4.
20.
Fuhrman, S.H. ( 1993). The politics of coherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 1-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Fuhrman, S.H., & Elmore, R.F. ( 1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.
22.
Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. ( 2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
23.
Goodrick, E., & Salancik, G.R. (1996). Organizational discretion in responding to institutional practices: Hospitals and cesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 1-28.
24.
Goodrow, A.M. ( 1998). Children’s construction of number sense in traditional, constructivist, and mixed classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tufts University, Medford, MA.
25.
Hamilton, L.S., McCaffrey, D.F., Stecher, B.M., Klein, S.P., Robyn, A., Bugliari, D., et al. (2003). Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practices: An example from mathematics and science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 1-29.
26.
Hatch, T. ( 2001). Incoherence in the system: Three perspectives on the implementation of multiple initiatives in one district. American Journal of Education, 109, 407-437.
27.
Hoaglin, D. C., Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. (Eds.). (1983). Understanding robust and exploratory data analysis . New York: Wiley.
28.
Honig, M. ( 2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-24). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M.K. ( 2006). Reform as learning. New York: Routledge.
31.
Klein, D., Braams, B.J., Parker, T., Quirk, W., Schmid, W., & Wilson, W.F. ( 2005). The state of state math standards 2005. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
32.
Knapp, M. ( 1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning . Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227-266.
Little, J.W. ( 1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 15(2), 129-151.
35.
Marsden, P., & Campbell, K. ( 1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces , 63(2), 482-501.
36.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. ( 2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. ( 1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. W. Meyer (Ed.), Environments and organizations (pp. 71-109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. ( 1991). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 41-62). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
Newmann, F.M. ( 1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
41.
Newmann, F.M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A.S. ( 2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-321.
42.
O’Day, J., Goertz, M.E., & Floden, R.E. ( 1995). Building capacity for education reform, RB-18-December . Rutgers, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rb18.pdf )
43.
O’Day, J.A., & Smith, M.S. ( 1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
44.
Odden, A.R. ( 1991). The evolution of education policy implementation. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 1-12). Albany: State University of New York Press.
45.
Ogawa, R.T., Crain, R., Loomis, M., & Ball, T. ( 2008). CHAT-IT: Toward conceptualizing learning in the context of formal organizations. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 83-95.
46.
Oliver, C. ( 1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179.
47.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (2003). The external control of organizations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48.
Purkey, S.C., & Smith, M.S. ( 1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 426-452.
49.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. ( 2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267.
50.
Resnick, L., & Zurawsky, C. ( 2005). Standards-based reform and accountability: Getting back on course. American Educator, Spring, 1-13.
51.
Rowan, B. ( 1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly , 27(2), 259-279.
52.
Rowan, B., & Miskel, C. ( 1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational organizations . In J. Murphy & K. Lewis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 359-383). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Smylie, M.A. ( 1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9-11.
55.
Spillane, J.P. ( 1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
56.
Spillane, J.P. ( 1999). State and local government relations in the era of standards-based reform: Standards, state policy instruments, and local instructional policy making. Educational Policy, 13(4), 546-572.
57.
Spillane, J., Diamond, J.B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. ( 2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731-762.
58.
Spillane, J.P., & Zeuli, J.S. ( 1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
59.
Stein, M.K., & Coburn, C. ( 2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education , 114(4), 583-626.
60.
Stein, M.K., & D’Amico, L. (2002). Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: A study of a district-wide literacy initiative. Teacher College Record, 104(7), 1313-1344.
61.
Stein, M.K., Grover, B.W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building students capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal , 33(2), 455-488.
62.
Stein, M.K., Kaufman, J., & Sutherland, S. (2008, March). Examining the relationship between teacher human capital, curriculum use and quality of implementation over time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York .
63.
Stein, M.K., & Kim, G. (in press). The role of mathematics curriculum in large-scale urban reform: An analysis of demands and opportunities for teacher learning. In J. Remillard, G. Lloyd , & B. Herbel-Eisenmann (Eds.), Teachers’ use of mathematics curriculum materials: Research perspectives on relationships between teachers and curriculum. New York : Routledge.
Stokes, L. ( 1997). Short-term policy support for long-term school change: A dilemma for reform-minded practitioners. Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 371-384.
66.
Stotsky, S., & Finn, C.E. ( 2005). The state of state English standards 2005. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
67.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J.M. ( 1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.
68.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. ( 1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69.
Tolbert, P.S., & Zucker, L.G. ( 1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22-39.
70.
Uzzi, B. ( 1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42(1), 35-67.
71.
Wilson, S., & Ball, D. ( 1996). Helping teachers meet the standards: New challenges for teacher educators. The Elementary School Journal, 97(2), 121-138.
72.
Yin, R.K. ( 1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
