Federal, state, and district policy mandates are increasingly affecting primary grade teachers—especially, those in at-risk schools, given that they face more mandated curriculum and professional development. This study investigated K–3 teachers in two inner-city schools as they navigated through various mandates. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed. The results indicated that the teachers attempted to make sense of the curricular changes and that they had confidence in their colleagues’ abilities. They were concerned about how to implement the expected changes from these mandates and what impact the mandates would have on their students’ achievements; however, little change was observed in their instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersP., HoffmanJ., & DuffyG. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In KamilM., MosenthalP., PearsonP., & BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 719–742). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
BanduraA. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
4.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–170.
5.
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 343–379.
6.
CunninghamP., HallD., & DefeeM. (1991). Non-ability grouped, multilevel instruction: A year in first grade. The Reading Teacher, 44, 566–571.
7.
CunninghamP., HallD., & DefeeM. (1998). Non-ability grouped, multilevel instruction: Eight years later. The Reading Teacher, 51, 652–664.
FriedmanV. (1997). Making schools safe for uncertainty: Teams, teaching, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 99, 335–360.
10.
GayL., MillsG., & AirasianP. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (5th ed.). Upper River Saddle, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
11.
GoetzJ., & Le CompteM. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research.New York: Academic Press.
12.
GoddardR. D., HoyW., & HoyA. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact of student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.
13.
GoddardR. D., HoyW., & HoyA. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–13.
14.
GuskeyT. (2003). What makes professional development effective?Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 748–750.
15.
HordS., RutherfordW., Huling-AustinL., & HallG. (1987). Taking charge of change.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
16.
KnappM. S., BamburgJ. D., FergusonM. C., & HillP. T. (1998). Converging reforms and the working lives of frontline professionals in schools. Educational Policy12, 397–418.
17.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
18.
MarzanoR. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19.
McLaughlinM. W. (1991). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. In OddenA. R. (Ed.). Education policy implementation (pp. 185–195). Albany: State University of New York Press.
20.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001).
22.
SchmokerM. (2004). Learning communities at the crossroads: Toward the best schools we've ever had. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 84–88.
23.
SmitB. (2005). Teachers, local knowledge, and policy implementation: A qualitative policy–practice inquiry. Education and Urban Society37, 292–306.
24.
SongM., & YoungT. (2008). Reading: Policy, politics, and processes.Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
25.
SpillaneJ. P., ReiserB. J., & ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431.
26.
StanderfordN. S. (1997). Reforming reading instruction on multiple levels: Interrelations and disconnections across the state, district, and classroom levels. Educational Policy, 11, 58–91.
27.
ValenciaS. W., & WixsonK. K. (2004). Literacy policy and policy research that make a difference. In RuddellR. B., & UnrauN. J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 69–92). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
28.
Van DeWegheR., & VarneyK. (2006). The evolution of a school-based study group. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 282–286.
29.
WheatleyK. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5–22.
