State educational agency content coordinators commonly experience tensions in their professional roles related to distinct sets of beliefs, or logics, about who “should” control what students learn: the state bureaucracy, the local community, or the broader profession. Using an institutional logics frame and drawing on interviews with coordinators for English/language arts representing about a third of U.S. states, we illustrate how individuals navigate these competing traditions of decision-making. Multiple logics shaped coordinators’ perceptions of their job responsibilities and goals, as well as the actions they felt were possible for them to take in creating and providing resources, communicating those resources to local stakeholders, and providing professional development. More consistent messaging to coordinators about the types of outreach the state views as acceptable would better support high-quality literacy instruction.
AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS.BaliV. (2013). State education agencies, information systems, and the expansion of state power in the era of test-based accountability. Educational Policy, 27(2), 217–247. http://epx.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0895904813475713
2.
AuW. (2016). Techies, the tea party, and the race to the top: The rise of the new upper-middle class and tensions in the rightist politics of federal education reform. The Educational Forum, 80(2), 208–224.
3.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177151
4.
BenkoS. L.HodgeE. M.SalloumS. J. (2020). Policy into practice: Understanding state writing resources. Journal of Literacy Research, 52(2), 136–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x20915538
5.
Bridwell-MitchellE. N. (2012). The rationalizing logics of public school reform: How cultural institutions matter for classroom instruction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812468792
6.
Bridwell-MitchellE. N.ShererD. G. (2017). Institutional complexity and policy implementation: How underlying logics drive teacher interpretations of reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716677567
7.
BrownC. G.HessF. M.LautzenheiserD. K.OwenI. (2011). State education agencies as agents of change: What it will take for the states to step up on education reform (Issue July). Center for American Progress, American Enterprise Institute.
8.
CalderheadJ. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211–217.
9.
CantorL. M. (1980). The growing role of the states in American education. Comparative Education, 16(1), 25–31.
10.
CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Rowman & Littlefield.
11.
CoburnC. E.WoulfinS. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.008
12.
CohenD. K.SpillaneJ. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 18(1), 3–49. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X018001003
13.
DavisE. A.KrajcikJ. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
14.
DeterdingN. M.WatersM. C. (2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739.
15.
DrakeC.LandT. J.TyminskiA. M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528039
16.
FriedlandR.AlfordR. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In PowellW.DiMaggioP. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press.
17.
GlazerJ. L.MassellD.MaloneM. (2019). Charter schools in turnaround: Competing institutional logics in the Tennessee Achievement School District. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718795051
18.
HaverlyC.LyleA.SpillaneJ. P.DavisE. A.PeurachD. J. (2022). Leading instructional improvement in elementary science: State science coordinators’ sense-making about the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(9), 1575–1606. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21767
19.
HodgeE. M. (2019). “Common” instruction? Logics of ability and teacher decision-making across tracks in the era of common standards. American Educational Research Journal, 56(3), 638–675.
20.
HodgeE. M.BenkoS. L.SalloumS. J. (2020). Tracing states’ messages about Common Core instruction: An analysis of English/language arts and close reading resources. Teachers College Record, 122(3), 1–42. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=23019
21.
HodgeE. M.SalloumS. J.BenkoS. L. (2016). (Un)Commonly connected: A social network analysis of state standards resource for English/language arts. AERA Open, 2(4), 1–19.
22.
HopkinsM. (2016). Findings from a survey of state science leaders. National Center for Research in Policy and Practice.
23.
HopkinsM.WeddleH.CastilloM.CostaJ.EdwardsK.ElliotS.GautschL.LowenhauptR.SalasV. (2022). Upholding multilingual learners’ civil rights under ESSA: State education agency leaders and the contextual factors shaping their work. American Journal of Education, 128(4), 591–616. https://doi.org/10.1086/720362
24.
HopkinsM.WeddleH.GluckmanM.GautschL. (2019). Boundary crossing in a professional association: The dynamics of research use among state leaders and researchers in a research-practice partnership. AERA Open, 5(4), 2332858419891964. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419891964
25.
HopkinsM.WileyK. E.PenuelW. R.FarrellC. C. (2018). Brokering research in science education policy implementation: The case of a professional association. Evidence & Policy, 14(3), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418X15299595170910
26.
KaneT. J.OwensA. M.MarinellW. H.ThalD. R. C.StaigerD. O. (2016). Teaching higher: Educators’ perspectives on Common Core implementation (Issue February). Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University.
KornhaberM. L.GriffithK. M.TylerA. (2014). It’s not education by zip code anymore—but what is it? Conceptions of equity under the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(4), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n4.2014
29.
LyleJ. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878.
30.
MarshJ. A.WohlstetterP. (2013). Recent trends in intergovernmental relations: The resurgence of local actors in education policy. Educational Researcher, 42(5), 276–283. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13492193
31.
McGuinnP. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965–2005. University Press of Kansas.
32.
McGuinnP. (2015). Schooling the state: ESEA and the evolution of the U.S. Department of Education. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2015.1.3.04
33.
MehtaJ. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.
34.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
35.
OpferV. D.KaufmanJ. H.ThompsonL. E. (2016). Implementation of K–12 state standards for mathematics and English language arts and literacy: Findings from the American Teacher Panel. RAND Corporation.
36.
PakK.DesimoneL. M. (2019). How do states implement college- and career-readiness standards? A distributed leadership analysis of standards-based reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(3), 447–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18799463
37.
ParkV.DatnowA. (2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 281–306.
38.
PollockM.RogersJ.KwakoA.MatschinerA.KendallR.BingenerC.ReeceE.KennedyB.HowardJ. (2022). The conflict campaign: Exploring local experiences of the campaign to ban “Critical Race Theory” in public K–12 education in the U.S., 2020–2021 (Issue January). UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.
39.
RemillardJ. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350.
40.
ReysB.LappanG. (2007). Consensus or confusion? The intended math curriculum in state-level standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9), 676–680.
41.
RigbyJ. G. (2014). Three logics of instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 610–644.
42.
RothmanR. (2011). Something in common: The Common Core Standards and the next chapter in American education. Harvard Education Press.
43.
RussellJ. L. (2011). From child’s garden to academic press: The role of shifting institutional logics in redefining Kindergarten education. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 236–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210372135
44.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.
45.
Seashore LouisK.ThomasE.GordonM. F.FebeyK. S. (2008). State leadership for school improvement: An analysis of three states. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 562–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08323858
46.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. (1990). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS. H.MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233–267). Taylor & Francis.
47.
SpradleyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
48.
SupovitzJ.DalyA. J.del FresnoM. (2015). #CommonCore: How social media is changing the politics of education. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
49.
SupovitzJ.DalyA. J.del FresnoM. (2018). The Common Core debate on Twitter and the rise of the activist public. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 419–440.
50.
SupovitzJ.McGuinnP. (2019). Interest group activity in the context of Common Core implementation. Educational Policy, 33(3), 452–485.
51.
SwanK.LeeJ.GrantS. G. (2016). A study of state social studies coordinators’ views of the Common Core. Journal of Social Studies Research, 40(4), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2015.07.002
52.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.
53.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW. (2008). Institutional logics. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SahlinK.SuddabyR. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). SAGE.
54.
VanGronigenB. A.MeyersC. V. (2019). How state education agencies are administering school turnaround efforts. Educational Policy, 33(3), 423–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817691846
55.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.2307/2391875
56.
WoulfinS. L. (2016). Duet or duel? A portrait of two logics of reading instruction in an urban school district. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 337–365.
57.
WoulfinS. L.LambA.CyrD. (2022, August11). Animating the logics perspective to understand dilemmas of reform: A review of the pre-K to 12 education and social sector literature. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/cytmd
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
