Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This comparative case study explores how 18 state education agencies (SEAs) support school districts in advancing standards-based elementary science reform. We identify how SEAs understand their work in advancing elementary science reform and describe how SEAs sought to engage districts in bridging from standards to classroom practice. Based on our analysis, we argue that the school subject is a critical explanatory variable in understanding SEA efforts to support standards implementation and SEAs lean on a resource-based approach for instructional policy implementation. This study contributes to the growing research base on the role of state policy in supporting standards implementation.

Keywords

instructional reform standards implementation state education agency NGSS system-building

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achieve. (2017a). Leveraging ESSA to Promote Science and STEM Education in States. https://www.achieve.org/science-and-stem-in-essa

Achieve. (2017b). NGSS district implementation indicators. https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/NGSS%20District%20Implementation%20Indicators%20-%20FINAL_0.pdf

Achieve. (2019). The state of state science education policy: Achieve’s 2018 science policy survey. https://www.achieve.org/2018-science-policy-survey

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. AAAS.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform: Science, mathematics and technology education. Oxford University Press.

Austin

J. E.

Grossman

A. S.

Schwartz

R. B.

Suesse

J. M.

(2006). Long Beach Unified School District (A): Change that leads to improvement (1992-2002). Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University.

Ball

S. J.

(1981). Beachside comprehensive: A case-study of secondary schooling. Cambridge University Press.

Ball

S. J.

Lacey

(2012). Subject disciplines as the opportunity for group action: A measured critique of subject sub-cultures. In Woods

(Eds.), Teacher Strategies, (pp. 149–177). New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Banilower

E. R.

Smither

P. S.

Malzahn

K. A.

Plumley

C. L.

Gordon

E. M.

Hayes

M. L.

(2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research Inc.

11.

Banilower

E. R.

Smith

P. S.

Weiss

I. R.

Malzahn

K. A.

Campbell

K. M.

Weis

A. M.

(2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Horizon Research, Inc. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED541798

12.

Bardach

(1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. MIT Press. https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/775241

13.

Becker

H. S.

(1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In Jesser

Colby

Shweder

R. A.

(Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 53–71). University of Chicago Press.

14.

Berman

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1979). Federal programs supporting educational change (Vol. 8). Rand.

15.

Beyer

C. J.

Davis

E. A.

(2008). Fostering second graders’ scientific explanations: A beginning elementary teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 381–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802222917

16.

Blank

R. K.

(2013). Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: What are the implications for student achievement and closing the gap? Bioscience Education, 97(6), 830–847.

17.

Blumenfeld

Fishman

B. J.

Krajcik

Marx

R. W.

Soloway

(2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.

18.

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. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522627

19.

Burch

(2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. Routledge.

20.

Burch

Spillane

J. P.

(2005). How subjects matter in district office practice: Instructionally relevant policy in urban school district redesign. Journal of Educational Change, 6(1), 51–76.

21.

Cherbow

McKinley

M. T.

McNeill

K. L.

Lowenhaupt

(2020). An analysis of science instruction for the science practices: Examining coherence across system levels and components in current systems of science education in K-8 schools. Bioscience Education, 104(3), 446–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21573

22.

Coburn

C. E.

Stein

M. K.

(2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional community in policy implementation. In Honig

M. I.

(Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 25–46). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

23.

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.

24.

Cohen

D. K.

Ball

D. L.

(2007). Educational innovation and the problem of scale. In Schneider

B. L.

McDonald

S.K.

(Eds.), Scale-up in education: Ideas in principle (Vol. 1, pp. 19–36). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.

25.

Cohen

D. K.

Hill

H. C.

(2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. Yale University Press.

26.

Cohen

D. K.

Mehta

J. D.

(2017). Why reform sometimes succeeds: Understanding the conditions that produce reforms that last. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 644–690. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217700078

27.

Cohen

D. K.

Moffitt

Goldin

(2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113(4), 515–548. https://doi.org/10.1086/518487

28.

Cohen

D. K.

Spillane

J. P.

(1992). Chapter 1: Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 18(1), 3–49. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X018001003

29.

Cohen

D. K.

Spillane

J. P.

Peurach

D. J.

(2018). The dilemmas of educational reform. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17743488

30.

Committee on STEM Education. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. National Science & Technology Council.

31.

Davis

E. A.

Haverly

(2022). Well-started beginners: Preparing elementary teachers for rigorous, consequential, just, and equitable science teaching. In Luft

J. A.

Janes (Eds.), Handbook on research on science teacher education. Routledge.

32.

DeBray-Pelot

McGuinn

(2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328524

33.

Duke

N. K.

(2000). For the rich it’s richer: Print experiences and environments offered to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status first-grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 441–478.

34.

Eshach

Fried

M.N.

(2005). Should science be taught in early childhood?. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 315–336.

35.

Finn

C. E.

Jr Porter-McGee

(2012). Foreword. In Lerner

L.S.

Goodenough

Lynch

Schwartz

(Eds.) The state of state science standards (pp. 3–8). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

36.

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.

37.

Halverson

Feinstein

Meshoulam

(2011). School leadership for science education. In DeBoer

(Ed.), The role of public policy in K-12 science education (pp. 397–430). Information Age Publishing.

38.

Haverly

Lyle

Spillane

J. P.

Davis

E. A.

Peurach

D. J.

(2022). Leading instructional improvement in elementary science: State science coordinators’ snse-making about the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21767

39.

Herrington

Fowler

(2003). Rethinking the role of states and educational governance. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 102(1), 271–290.

40.

Hill

H. C.

(2006). Language matters: How characteristics of language complicate policy implementation. In Honig

M. I.

(Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 65–82). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

41.

Honig

M. I.

Hatch

T. C.

(2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033008016

42.

Hopkins

(2016). Findings from a survey of state science leaders. National Center for Research in Policy and Practice. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED599937

43.

Hopkins

Gates

(2019). Findings from a survey of state science leaders: Year 2. National Center for Research in Policy and Practice. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED599942

44.

Jochim

Murphy

(2013). The capacity challenge: What it takes for state education agencies to support school improvement. Center on Reinventing Public Education. https://crpe.org/the-capacity-challenge-what-it-takes-for-state-education-agencies-to-support-school-improvement/

45.

Johnson

S. M.

Marietta

Higgins

Mapp

K. L.

Grossman

A. S.

(2014). Achieving coherence in district improvement: Managing the relationship between the central office and schools. Harvard Education Press.

46.

Kahle

J. B.

(2007). Systemic reform: Research, vision, and politics. In Abell

S. K.

Lederman

N. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 911–941). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

47.

Lehrer

Carpenter

Schauble

Putz

(2000). Designing classrooms that support inquiry. In Minstrell

Van Zee

(Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 80–99). American Association for the Advancement of Science.

48.

Lin

A. C.

(2000). Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in prison. Princeton University Press.

49.

Lindblom

C. E.

(1982). Politics and markets. Ethics, 92(4), 720–732.

50.

Lipsky

(1983). Street-level bureaucracy: The Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell SAGE Foundation.

51.

Lyle

A. M.

Peurach

D. J.

(2022). Changing notions of teacher autonomy: The intersection of teacher autonomy and instructional improvement in the US. Research in Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/00345237211055843

52.

Marsh

J. A.

Kerr

K. A.

Ikemoto

G. S.

Darilek

Sultorp

Zimmer

Barney

(2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. RAND Corp.

53.

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

54.

Marx

Harris

(2006). No child left behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467–478.

55.

Massell

Kirst

Hoppe

(1997). Persistence and change: Standards-based systemic reform in nine states. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

56.

McDonnell

L. M.

(2009). Politics, persuasion, and educational testing. Harvard University Press.

57.

McDonnell

L. M.

Elmore

R. F.

(1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737009002133

58.

McDonnell

L. M.

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1982). Education policy and the role of the states. The Rand Corporation. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED218742

59.

McDonnell

L. M.

Weatherford

M. S.

(2016). Recognizing the political in implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 233–242.

60.

McNeill

K. L.

Lowenhaupt

Cherbow

Lowell

B. R.

(2022). Professional development to support principals’ vision of science instruction: Building from their prior experiences to support the science practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21719

61.

McNeill

K. L.

Lowenhaupt

R. J.

Katsh-Singer

(2018). Instructional leadership in the era of the NGSS: Principals’ understandings of science practices. Bioscience Education, 102(3), 452–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21336

62.

Mehta

(2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212471417

63.

Metz

M. H.

(1898). Real school: A universal drama amid disparate experience. In Mitchell

Goertz

M. E.

(Eds.), Education politics for the new century: The twentieth anniversary yearbook of the politics of education association (Vol. 5, pp. 75–91). The Farmer Press.

64.

Meyer

J. W.

Rowan

(1978). The structure of educational organizations. In Meyer

M. W.

(Ed.), Environments and organizations (pp. 78–109). Jossey-Bass, Inc.

65.

NASEM. (2021a). Call to action for science education: Building opportunity for the future. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26152

66.

NASEM. (2021b). Science and engineering in preschool through elementary grades: The brilliance of children and the strengths of educators. The National Academies Press.

67.

National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21836

68.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

69.

National Research Council. (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. Committee on Guidance on Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press.

70.

National Science Teachers Association. (2018). NSTA position statement: Elementary science education. https://static.nsta.org/pdfs/PositionStatement_Elementary.pdf

71.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.

72.

Penuel

W. R.

Bell

Neill

Shaw

Hopkins

Farrell

(2018). Building a networked improvement community to promote equitable, coherent systems of science education: How a state-level team can support district-level change efforts. Editorial Review Board, 13(1), 30–38.

73.

Peurach

D. J.

Cohen

D. K.

Yurkofsky

M. M.

Spillane

J. P.

(2019). From mass schooling to education systems: Changing patterns in the organization and management of instruction. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 32–67. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821131

74.

Peurach

D. J.

Foster

A. T.

Lyle

A. M.

Seeber

E. R.

(2022). Democratizing educational innovation and improvement: The policy contexts of improvement research in education. In Peurach

D.J.

Russell

J. L.

Cohen-Vogel

Penuel

W. R.

(Eds.), The foundational handbook on improvement research in education (pp. 211–240). Rowman & Littlefield.

75.

Plumley

C. L.

(2019). 2018 NSSME+: Status of elementary school science. Horizon Research Inc.

76.

Rentner

D. S.

Kober

Frizzell

Ferguson

(2016). Listen to us: Teacher views and voices. Center on Education Policy.

77.

Rowan

(2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283–314.

78.

Siskin

L. S.

(1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 134–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x91027002003

79.

Siskin

L. S.

(2014). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. Routledge.

80.

Small

M. L.

(2009). `how many cases do I need?’: On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586

81.

Smith

M. S.

O’Day

(1990). Systemic school reform. Journal of Education Policy, 5(5), 233–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939008549074

82.

Smith

P. S.

(2020). 2018 NSSME+: Trends in U.S. science education from 2012 to 2018. Horizon Research, Inc. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED611301

83.

Spillane

J. P.

(2000). A fifth-grade teacher’s reconstruction of mathematics and literacy teaching: Exploring interactions among identity, learning, and subject matter. The Elementary School Journal. 100(4), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1086/499644

84.

Spillane

J. P.

(2005). Primary school leadership: How the subject matters. School Leadership & Management, 25(4), 383–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13634230500197231

85.

Spillane

J. P.

(2009). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

86.

Spillane

J. P.

Hopkins

(2013). Organizing for instruction in education systems and achool organizations: How the subject matters. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(6), 721–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.810783

87.

Spillane

J. P.

Hopkins

Sweet

(2018). School district educational infrastructure and change at scale: Teacher peer interactions and their beliefs about mathematics instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 532–571.

88.

Spillane

J. P.

Peurach

D. J.

Cohen

D. K.

(2019). Comparatively studying educational system (re)building cross-nationally: Another agenda for cross-national educational research? Educational Researcher, 33(6), 916–945.

89.

Spillane

J. P.

Shirrell

Sweet

T. M.

(2016). Designing and deploying. aprofessional learning community (PLC) organizational routine: Bureaucratic and collegial structure in tandem. Les Dossiers Des Sciences de l’Education, 35, 97–122.

90.

Spillane

J. P.

Zeuli

J. S.

(1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1–27.

91.

Stodolsky

S. S.

(1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. University of Chicago Press.

92.

Sunderman

G. L.

(2010). Evidence of the impact of school reform on systems governance and educational bureaucracies in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 226–253. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x09349796

93.

Sunderman

G. L.

Orfield

(2007). Do states have the capacity to meet the NCLB mandates? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 137–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708900209

94.

Timar

T. B.

(1997). The institutional role of state education departments: A historical perspective. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 231–260. https://doi.org/10.1086/444156

95.

VanGronigen

B. A.

Meyers

C. V.

Scott

Fantz

Dunn

L. D.

(2022). Soliciting, vetting, monitoring, and evaluating: A study of state education agencies’ use of external providers for school improvement efforts. Journal of Educational Change, 23(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09403-1

96.

Weast

J. D.

(2014). Confronting the achievement gap: A district-level perspective. In Improving the odds for America’s children: Future directions in policy and practice (pp. 101–120). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

97.

Weiss

(1990). Control in school organizations: Theoretical perspectives. In Clune

Witte

(Eds.), Choice and control in American education (Vol. 1, pp. 91–134). The Falmer Press.

98.

Weiss

McGuinn

(2017). The evolving role of the state education agency in the era of ESSA and Trump: Past, present, and uncertain future. CPRE Working Papers. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/14

99.

Windschitl

Thompson

Braaten

(2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177193

100.

Wingert

Riedy

Campanella

Penuel

W. R.

(2020). Equity across state systems: Possibilities and tensions in understanding scale. In Gresalfi

Horn

I. S.

(Eds.), The interdisciplinarity of the learning sciences, 14th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) (pp. 2453–2460). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

101.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

102.

Yurkofsky

M. M.

(2020). Technical ceremonies: Rationalization, opacity, and the restructuring of educational organizations. Harvard Educational Review, 90(3), 446–473. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-90.3.446

State-Level Efforts to Reform Elementary Science Education

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References