How State Educational Agency Coordinators Navigate Logics of Local Control in Standards Implementation

Abstract

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.

Keywords

state educational agencies standards curriculum professional development institutional logics educational policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anagnostopoulos

Rutledge

Bali

(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

(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.

Ball

D. L.

Cohen

D. 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

Benko

S. L.

Hodge

E. M.

Salloum

S. J.

(2020). Policy into practice: Understanding state writing resources. Journal of Literacy Research, 52(2), 136–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x20915538

Bridwell-Mitchell

E. 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

Bridwell-Mitchell

E. N.

Sherer

D. 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

Brown

C. G.

Hess

F. M.

Lautzenheiser

D. K.

Owen

(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.

Calderhead

(1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211–217.

Cantor

L. M.

(1980). The growing role of the states in American education. Comparative Education, 16(1), 25–31.

10.

Coburn

C. E.

Stein

M. K.

(2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Rowman & Littlefield.

11.

Coburn

C. E.

Woulfin

S. 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.

Cohen

D. K.

Spillane

J. 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.

Davis

E. A.

Krajcik

J. S.

(2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

14.

Deterding

N. M.

Waters

M. C.

(2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739.

15.

Drake

Land

T. J.

Tyminski

A. 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.

Friedland

Alford

R. R.

(1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In Powell

DiMaggio

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press.

17.

Glazer

J. L.

Massell

Malone

(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.

Haverly

Lyle

Spillane

J. P.

Davis

E. A.

Peurach

D. 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.

Hodge

E. 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.

Hodge

E. M.

Benko

S. L.

Salloum

S. 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.

Hodge

E. M.

Salloum

S. J.

Benko

S. L.

(2016). (Un)Commonly connected: A social network analysis of state standards resource for English/language arts. AERA Open, 2(4), 1–19.

22.

Hopkins

(2016). Findings from a survey of state science leaders. National Center for Research in Policy and Practice.

23.

Hopkins

Weddle

Castillo

Costa

Edwards

Elliot

Gautsch

Lowenhaupt

Salas

(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.

Hopkins

Weddle

Gluckman

Gautsch

(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.

Hopkins

Wiley

K. E.

Penuel

W. R.

Farrell

C. 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.

Kane

T. J.

Owens

A. M.

Marinell

W. H.

Thal

D. R. C.

Staiger

D. O.

(2016). Teaching higher: Educators’ perspectives on Common Core implementation (Issue February). Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University.

27.

Korn

Gamboa

Polikoff

(2016, November 3). Just how common are the standards in Common Core states? C-SAIL Blog. http://c-sail.org/resources/blog/just-how-common-are-standards-common-core-states

28.

Kornhaber

M. L.

Griffith

K. M.

Tyler

(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.

Lyle

(2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878.

30.

Marsh

J. A.

Wohlstetter

(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.

McGuinn

(2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965–2005. University Press of Kansas.

32.

McGuinn

(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.

Mehta

(2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.

34.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.

35.

Opfer

V. D.

Kaufman

J. H.

Thompson

L. 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.

Pak

Desimone

L. 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.

Park

Datnow

(2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 281–306.

38.

Pollock

Rogers

Kwako

Matschiner

Kendall

Bingener

Reece

Kennedy

Howard

(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.

Remillard

J. 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.

Reys

Lappan

(2007). Consensus or confusion? The intended math curriculum in state-level standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9), 676–680.

41.

Rigby

J. G.

(2014). Three logics of instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 610–644.

42.

Rothman

(2011). Something in common: The Common Core Standards and the next chapter in American education. Harvard Education Press.

43.

Russell

J. 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.

Saldaña

(2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.

45.

Seashore Louis

Thomas

Gordon

M. F.

Febey

K. 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.

Smith

M. S.

O’Day

(1990). Systemic school reform. In Fuhrman

S. H.

Malen

(Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233–267). Taylor & Francis.

47.

Spradley

J. P.

(1979). The ethnographic interview. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

48.

Supovitz

Daly

A. J.

del Fresno

(2015). #CommonCore: How social media is changing the politics of education. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

49.

Supovitz

Daly

A. J.

del Fresno

(2018). The Common Core debate on Twitter and the rise of the activist public. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 419–440.

50.

Supovitz

McGuinn

(2019). Interest group activity in the context of Common Core implementation. Educational Policy, 33(3), 452–485.

51.

Swan

Lee

Grant

S. 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.

Thornton

P. H.

Ocasio

(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.

Thornton

P. H.

Ocasio

(2008). Institutional logics. In Greenwood

Oliver

Sahlin

Suddaby

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). SAGE.

54.

VanGronigen

B. A.

Meyers

C. V.

(2019). How state education agencies are administering school turnaround efforts. Educational Policy, 33(3), 423–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817691846

55.

Weick

K. E.

(1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.2307/2391875

56.

Woulfin

S. 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.

Woulfin

S. L.

Lamb

Cyr

(2022, August 11). 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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB