Using over 350 hours of observational data from district-level meetings, we investigate how leaders support their interpretations of problems and proposed solutions during closed-door negotiations around three policy decisions, and how they invoke race, class, and language in the process. District leaders primarily cite constraints from stakeholders, practical realities, and policies during deliberations. They also draw on beliefs, values, and—to a lesser extent—information like research and data. Race, class, and language discourses were layered with values-based reasons, and most often addressed structural challenges to equity. The balance of attention to these factors depended on the configuration of participants and the nature of the policy decision itself, particularly decision makers’ perception that it would be controversial among certain groups.
AnsellC.ReckhowS.KellyA. (2009). How to reform a reform coalition: Outreach, agenda expansion, and brokerage in urban school reform. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 717–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00332.x
AsenR.GurkeD. (2014). The Research on Education, Deliberation, and Decision-making (REDD) project. In FinneganK. S.DalyA. J. (Eds.), Using research evidence in education (pp. 53–68). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7_5
4.
AsenR.GurkeD.ConnersP.SolomonR.GummE. (2013). Research evidence and school board deliberations: Lessons from three Wisconsin school districts. Educational Policy, 27(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811429291
5.
AsenR.GurkeD.SolomonR.ConnersP.GummE. (2011). “The research says”: Definitions and uses of a key policy term in federal law and local school board deliberations. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47(4), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2011.11821747
6.
BabbS. (1996). “A true American system of finance”: Frame resonance in the US labor movement, 1866 to 1886. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 1033–1052. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096307
7.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
8.
BinderA. J. (2002). Contentious curricula: Afrocentrism and creationism in American public schools. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400825455
9.
CoburnC. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700302
10.
CoburnC. E.BaeS.TurnerE. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider–outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 364–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802222350
11.
CoburnC. E.HonigM. I.SteinM. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In BransfordJ. D.StipekD. J.VyeN. J.GomezL. M.LamD. (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–86). Harvard Education Press.
12.
CoburnC. E.SpillaneJ. S.HarrisonC.HuguetA.FarrellC. F.AllenA.-R. (2016). A study of instructional decision-making in mathematics and English language arts: Conceptual framework. National Center for Research in Policy and Practice.
13.
CoburnC. E.TalbertJ. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence-based practice in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1086/505056
14.
CoburnC. E.TouréJ.YamashitaM. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision-making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115–1161.
15.
CohenD. K.SpillaneJ. 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
16.
ContandriopoulosD.LemireM.DenisJ. L.TremblayÉ. (2010). Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: A narrative systematic review of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(4), 444–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00608.x
17.
CorbinJ. M.StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
18.
DalyA. J.FinniganK. S.MoolenaarN. M.CheJ. (2014). The critical role of brokers in the access and use of evidence at the school and district level. In FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (Eds.), Using research evidence in education (pp. 13–31). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7_3
DuludeE.SpillaneJ. P.DumayX. (2017). High stakes policy and mandated curriculum: A rhetorical argumentation analysis to explore the social processes that shape school leaders’ and teachers’ strategic responses. Educational Policy, 31(3), 364–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815598396
21.
Farley-RippleE. N. (2012). Research use in school district central office decision-making: A case study. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(6), 786–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143212456912
22.
FarrellC. C.AllenA.-R. (2021). Representations of stakeholders in school district policymaking [Manuscript submitted for publication]. University of Colorado, Boulder.
23.
FinniganK. S.LavnerM. (2012). A political analysis of community influence over school closure. The Urban Review, 44(1), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-011-0179-9
24.
FisherA. (1988). The logic of real arguments. Cambridge University Press.
25.
FissP. C.ZajacE. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1173–1193. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478255
26.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
27.
GoodrickE.SalancikG. (1996). Organizational discretion in responding to institutional practice: Hospitals and cesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393984
28.
GoodnightG. T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberationJournal of the American Forensic Association, 18(4), 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1982.11951221
29.
HightowerA. M.KnappM. S.MarshJ. A.McLaughlinM. W. (2002). School districts and instructional renewal. Teachers College Press.
30.
HonigM. I.CoburnC. E. (2008). Evidence-based decision-making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807307067
31.
HonigM. I.VenkateswaranN.McNeilP. (2017). Research use as learning: The case of fundamental change in school district central offices. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 938–971. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217712466
32.
HuguetA.AllenA.-R.CoburnC. E.FarrellC. C.KimD. H.PenuelW. R. (2017). Locating data use in the microprocesses of district-level deliberations. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2017.1314743
33.
HuguetA.WongL.HarrisonC.CoburnC. E.SpillaneJ. P. (2018). Research use in schools. Theory and evidence: A framework for understanding research use in school-level decision-making. In ConnollyM.Eddy-SpicerD. H.JamesC.KruseS. D. (Eds.), The SAGE international handbook of school organization (pp. 618–631). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526465542.n36
34.
JabbarH. (2015). “Every kid is money”: Market competition and school leader strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 638–659. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715577447
35.
JohnsonB. L. (1999). The politics of research-information use in the education policy arena. Educational Policy, 13(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904899131003
36.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
37.
MeyerJ. W.ScottW. R.DealT. E. (1981). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of educational organizations. In SteinH. D. (Ed.), Organization and the human services (pp. 151–179), Temple University Press.
38.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
PowellW. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183–203). University of Chicago Press.
42.
PowellW. W.ColyvasJ. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR.SahlinK. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–299). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n11
43.
RorrerA. K.SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08318962
44.
ScottW. R.RuefM.MendelP. J.CaronnaC. A. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. University of Chicago Press.
45.
SnowD. A.BenfordR. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1(1), 197–217.
46.
SnowD. A.RochfordE. B.Jr.WordenS. K.BenfordR. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095581
47.
SpillaneJ. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904896010001004
48.
SpillaneJ. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1802_01
49.
SpillaneJ. P.HopkinsM.SweetT. (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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217743928
50.
SteinM. K.KaufmanJ. H.ShermanM.HillenA. F. (2011). Algebra: A challenge at the crossroads of policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 453–492.
51.
StoneD. A. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Scott Foresman.
52.
TracyK. (2010). Challenges of ordinary democracy. A case study in deliberation and dissent. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
53.
TracyK.AshcraftC. (2001). Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(4), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880128115
54.
TracyK.DimockA. (2004). Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. Annals of the International Communication Association, 28(1), 127–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2004.11679034
55.
TracyK.RoblesJ. S. (2013). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities. Guilford Press.
56.
TurnerE. O. (2015). Districts’ responses to demographic change: Making sense of race, class, and immigration in political and organizational context. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 4–39. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214561469
TurnerE. O.SpainA. K. (2016). The multiple meanings of (in) equity: Remaking school district tracking policy in an era of budget cuts and accountability. Urban Education, 55(5), 783–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916674060
WeissC. H.BucuvalasM. J. (1980). Social science research and decision-making. Columbia University Press.
63.
WeissC. H.Murphy-GrahamE.BirkelandS. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A.R.E. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214004273337
64.
YoungV. M.KimD. H. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(19). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v18n19.2010
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.
