This qualitative case study extends the literature on urban district instructional policymaking by analyzing the ways in which normative and political pressures shaped district leaders’ instructional policy decisions. Drawing on concepts from the politics of education, it shows how teachers and principals repeatedly nullified policies that aimed for equity-oriented, rigorous changes in one urban district when leaders opted to pacify constituents, rather than uphold controversial policies. It complements present explanations of how district instructional policies come to be by comparing the consistency between the values and ideologies of district leaders, principals, and teachers and those implicit in district policies.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
BoydW. (1976). The public, the professionals, and educational policy making: Who governs?Teachers College Record, 77, 539-577.
3.
BoydW. (1979). The changing politics of curriculum policy making for American schools. In SchaffarzikJ.SykesG. (Eds.), Value conflicts and curriculum issues: Lessons from research and experience (pp. 73-138). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
4.
BurchP.SpillaneJ. (2005). How subjects matter in district office practice: Instructionally relevant policy in urban school district redesign. Journal of Educational Change, 6(1), 51-76.
5.
California Department of Education (2007). Accountability progress reporting (APR). Sacramento, CA: Author.
6.
CallahanR. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
CaweltiG.ProtheroeN. (2001). High student achievement: How six school districts changed into high-performance systems. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
8.
CoburnC.ToureJ.YamashitaM. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making in the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111, 1115-1161.
9.
CohenD.MarchJ.OlsenJ. (1972). A garbage can theory of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.
10.
CubanL. (2004). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can’t be businesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
ElmoreR.BurneyD. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in community school district #2, New York City. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
12.
FirestoneW.ManginM.MartinezM.PolovskyT. (2004). Content and coherence in district professional development. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University.
13.
GándaraP.GómezM. (2009). Language policy in education. In SykesG.ScheiderB.PlankD. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 581-595). New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
HessF. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.
15.
HonigM. (2009). “External” organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: The case of new small autonomous schools initiatives. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 394-413.
16.
KingdonJ. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
17.
KirstM. (1984). Who controls our schools? American values in conflict. New York, NY: Freeman.
18.
KumashiroK. (2008). The seduction of common sense: How the right has framed the debate on America’s schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19.
LamphereL. (1992). Introduction: The shaping of diversity. In LamphereL. (Ed.), Structuring diversity: Ethnographic perspectives on the new immigration (pp. 1-34). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
MassellD.GoertzM. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In HightowerA.KnappM.MarshJ.McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 173-192). New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
McGivneyJ.MoynihanW. (1972). School and community. Teachers College Record, 74, 317-356.
22.
MerriamS. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
23.
MilesM.HubermanA. (1994). Qualitative data analysis : An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
MintropH.TrujilloT. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319-352.
25.
MurphyJ.HallingerP. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective districts. Journal of educational research, 81, 175-181.
26.
OakesJ. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 12-21.
27.
OakesJ.WelnerK.YonezawaS.AllenR. L. (1998). Norms and politics of equity-minded change: Researching the “zone of mediation.” In HargreavesA.LiebermannA.FullanM.HopkinsD. (Eds.), The international handbook of educational change (pp. 952-975). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
28.
SchoenfeldA.PearsonP. (2009). The reading and math wars. In SykesG.ScheiderB.PlankD. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 560-580). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
SpillaneJ. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 33-63.
30.
SpillaneJ. (2000a). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141-179.
31.
SpillaneJ. (2000b). District leaders’ perceptions of teacher learning. Philadelphia, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.
32.
StakeR. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford.
33.
StoneD. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Revised ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
34.
TogneriW.AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington DC: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
35.
TyackD. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
TyackD. (2002). Forgotten players: How local school districts shaped American education. In HightowerA.KnappM.MarshJ.McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 9-24). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
