Constraints,Values,and Information: How Leaders in One District Justify Their Positions During Instructional Decision Making

Abstract

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.

Keywords

decision making educational policy equity research utilization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ansell

Reckhow

Kelly

(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

Asen

(2015). Democracy, deliberation and education. Pennsylvania State University Press. https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gp9mh

Asen

Gurke

(2014). The Research on Education, Deliberation, and Decision-making (REDD) project. In Finnegan

K. S.

Daly

A. J.

(Eds.), Using research evidence in education (pp. 53–68). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7_5

Asen

Gurke

Conners

Solomon

Gumm

(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

Asen

Gurke

Solomon

Conners

Gumm

(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

Babb

(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

Benford

R. D.

Snow

D. 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

Binder

A. J.

(2002). Contentious curricula: Afrocentrism and creationism in American public schools. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400825455

Coburn

C. 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.

Coburn

C. E.

Bae

Turner

E. 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.

Coburn

C. E.

Honig

M. I.

Stein

M. K.

(2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In Bransford

J. D.

Stipek

D. J.

Vye

N. J.

Gomez

L. M.

Lam

(Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–86). Harvard Education Press.

12.

Coburn

C. E.

Spillane

J. S.

Harrison

Huguet

Farrell

C. F.

Allen

A.-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.

Coburn

C. E.

Talbert

J. 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.

Coburn

C. E.

Touré

Yamashita

(2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision-making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115–1161.

15.

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

16.

Contandriopoulos

Lemire

Denis

J. L.

Tremblay

. (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.

Corbin

J. M.

Strauss

(1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593

18.

Daly

A. J.

Finnigan

K. S.

Moolenaar

N. M.

Che

(2014). The critical role of brokers in the access and use of evidence at the school and district level. In Finnigan

K. S.

Daly

A. J.

(Eds.), Using research evidence in education (pp. 13–31). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7_3

19.

Domina

Penner

(2015). Categorical inequality: Schools as sorting machines. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053354

20.

Dulude

Spillane

J. P.

Dumay

(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-Ripple

E. 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.

Farrell

C. C.

Allen

A.-R.

(2021). Representations of stakeholders in school district policymaking [Manuscript submitted for publication]. University of Colorado, Boulder.

23.

Finnigan

K. S.

Lavner

(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.

Fisher

(1988). The logic of real arguments. Cambridge University Press.

25.

Fiss

P. C.

Zajac

E. 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.

Goffman

(1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

27.

Goodrick

Salancik

(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.

Goodnight

G. T.

(1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18(4), 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1982.11951221

29.

Hightower

A. M.

Knapp

M. S.

Marsh

J. A.

McLaughlin

M. W.

(2002). School districts and instructional renewal. Teachers College Press.

30.

Honig

M. I.

Coburn

C. 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.

Honig

M. I.

Venkateswaran

McNeil

(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.

Huguet

Allen

A.-R.

Coburn

C. E.

Farrell

C. C.

Kim

D. H.

Penuel

W. 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.

Huguet

Wong

Harrison

Coburn

C. E.

Spillane

J. P.

(2018). Research use in schools. Theory and evidence: A framework for understanding research use in school-level decision-making. In Connolly

Eddy-Spicer

D. H.

James

Kruse

S. D.

(Eds.), The SAGE international handbook of school organization (pp. 618–631). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526465542.n36

34.

Jabbar

(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.

Johnson

B. 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.

Meyer

J. W.

Rowan

(1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550

37.

Meyer

J. W.

Scott

W. R.

Deal

T. E.

(1981). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of educational organizations. In Stein

H. D.

(Ed.), Organization and the human services (pp. 151–179), Temple University Press.

38.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.

39.

Munter

(2014). Developing visions of high-quality mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 584–635. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.5.0584

40.

Oliver

(1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002

41.

Powell

W. W.

(1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In Powell

W. W.

DiMaggio

P. J.

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183–203). University of Chicago Press.

42.

Powell

W. W.

Colyvas

(2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In Greenwood

Oliver

Suddaby

Sahlin

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–299). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n11

43.

Rorrer

A. K.

Skrla

Scheurich

J. J.

(2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08318962

44.

Scott

W. R.

Ruef

Mendel

P. J.

Caronna

C. A.

(2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. University of Chicago Press.

45.

Snow

D. A.

Benford

R. D.

(1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1(1), 197–217.

46.

Snow

D. A.

Rochford

E. B.

Jr. Worden

S. K.

Benford

R. D.

(1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095581

47.

Spillane

J. 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.

Spillane

J. 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.

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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217743928

50.

Stein

M. K.

Kaufman

J. H.

Sherman

Hillen

A. F.

(2011). Algebra: A challenge at the crossroads of policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 453–492.

51.

Stone

D. A.

(1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Scott Foresman.

52.

Tracy

(2010). Challenges of ordinary democracy. A case study in deliberation and dissent. The Pennsylvania State University Press.

53.

Tracy

Ashcraft

(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.

Tracy

Dimock

(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.

Tracy

Robles

J. S.

(2013). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities. Guilford Press.

56.

Turner

E. 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

57.

Turner

E. O.

(2020). Suddenly diverse: How school districts manage race and equity. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226675534.001.0001

58.

Turner

E. O.

Spain

A. 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

59.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708000100303

60.

Weiss

C. H.

(1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 531–545.

61.

Weiss

C. H.

(1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(3), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708000100303

62.

Weiss

C. H.

Bucuvalas

M. J.

(1980). Social science research and decision-making. Columbia University Press.

63.

Weiss

C. H.

Murphy-Graham

Birkeland

(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.

Young

V. M.

Kim

D. 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.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB