Several social processes guide and shape how school actors engage with high stakes state and district policies relative to mandated curriculum and instruction. In this article, we use rhetorical argumentation analysis to explore how stakeholders mobilize resources through argumentation and rhetorical appeals (logical, emotional, and authoritative). However, their mobilization process creates opportunities and constraints for the interpretation and implementation of mandated curriculum. Findings show that school actors use state policy as a resource to make logical and authoritative claims in their attempts to clarify conflicts between new curriculum ideas and their implicit schemas.
AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. (2007). Making sense of school sanctioning policies in urban high schools. Teacher College Records, 109, 1261-1302.
2.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267.
3.
ChiangH. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1045-1057.
4.
CoburnC. E.TouréJ.YamashitaM. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111, 1115-1161.
5.
CoburnC. E.WoulfinS. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 5-30.
6.
CohenD. K.MoffittS. L.GoldinC. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113, 515-548.
7.
ColdrenA. (2006). From sensemaking to knowledge creation: A comparison of teacher learning across two school subjects (Doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
8.
CrusiusT.ChannellC. (2010). The aims of argument: Text and reader. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
9.
GiddensA. (1986). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.
10.
HallJ. N.RyanK. E. (2011). Educational accountability: A qualitatively driven mixed-methods approach. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 105-115.
11.
HeracleousL.BarrettM. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755-778.
12.
HonigM.HatchT. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.
13.
JacobB. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796.
14.
JacobsS. (2006). Nonfallacious rhetorical design in argumentation. In van EemerenF. H.GarssenB. (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation twenty essays on theoretical Issues (pp. 55-78).Netherlands: Springer.
15.
KockC. (2008). Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation, 23, 61-80.
16.
LoebS.StrunkK. (2007). Accountability and local control: Response to incentives with and without authority over resource generation and allocation. American Education Finance Association, 2(1), 10-39.
17.
LowenhauptR. (2014). The language of leadership: Principal rhetoric in everyday practice. Journal of Educational Administration, 52, 446-468.
18.
LowenhauptR.SpillaneJ. P.HallettT. (in press). Changing education policy in school practice: “Accountability talk” inside schools. Journal of School Leadership
19.
McNeilL. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
20.
MelvilleW.KajanderA.KerrD.HolmJ. (2013). Uncertainty and the reform of elementary math education. ISRN Education. Hindawi Publishing Corporation
21.
Quality Counts. (2013, January10). Code of conduct: Safety, discipline, and school climate. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2013/01/10/
22.
RouseC. E.HannawayJ.GoldhaberD.FiglioD. (2007). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, v5(2), p.251-81
23.
SewellW. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1-29.
24.
SpillaneJ.P.AndersonL. (2013). School Administration in the Government Standards and High-Stakes Accountability Era: Changing Policy, Changing Schoolhouse Practice in the U.S. Éducation et Sociétés, 2(32), p.53-73.
25.
SpillaneJ. P. (2002). Challenging instruction for “all students”: Policy, practitioners and practice, national society for the study of education yearbook. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
SpillaneJ. P.DiamondJ. B.BurchP.HallettT.LoyisoJ.ZoltnersJ. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16, 731-762.
27.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Van EemerenF. H.van JacksonS.JacobsS. (2011). Argumentation. In van DijkT. A. (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 85-106). London, England: Sage.
29.
Van der MarenJ.-M. (1996). Research Methods in Education(2nd ed.). Montréal, Québec, Canada: PUM et de Boeck.
30.
Weitz WhiteK.RosenbaumJ. E. (2008). Inside the black box of accountability: How high-stakes accountability alters school culture and the classification and treatment of students and teachers. In SadovnikA.O’DayJ. A.BohrnstedtG. W.BormanK. M. (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap (pp. 97-114). New York, NY: Routledge.
