External partnerships can play a vital role in educational change, yet few tools assess how partner ideas become embedded in school systems. This paper introduces measuring organizational learning outcomes through big ideas (MOBI), an emerging methodological approach to identify when and how external ideas take root. MOBI examines the presence, spread, alignment, attribution, and centrality of partner ideas across collective knowledge, policy documents, and organizational routines. Unlike self-reports, MOBI uses systematic evidence-informed methods to track organizational learning outcomes. We use illustrative examples to show how MOBI can reveal variation across departments and districts. We conclude by outlining directions for MOBI's testing and refinement and discuss its future adaptations for varied contexts and constituencies.
AndersonE. R.ColyvasJ. A. (2021). What sticks and why? A MoRe institutional framework for education research. Teachers College Record, 123(7), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300705
2.
AndersonE. R.BohannonA.PenuelW. P. (In preparation). What’s the big idea? Conceptual uses of research in research practice partnerships. University of Pittsburgh School of Education.
3.
ArgoteL.LeeS.ParkJ. (2020). Organizational learning processes and outcomes: Major findings and future research directions. Management Science, 67(9), 5399–5429. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3693
4.
ArgyrisC.SchōnD. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory in action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
5.
AydarovaE. (2024). What you see is not what you get: Science of reading reforms as a guise for standardization, centralization, and privatization. American Journal of Education, 130(4), 653–685. https://doi.org/10.1086/730991
BiagM.GomezL. M.ImigD. G.VasudevaA. (2021, January). Responding to COVID-19 with the aid of mutually beneficial partnerships in education. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.621361
8.
BlauP. M.ScottW. R. (2003). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. Stanford University Press.
9.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002231
10.
BotchevaL.WhiteC. R.HuffmanL. C. (2002). Learning culture and outcomes measurement practices in community agencies. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(02)00229-1
11.
Bridwell-MitchellE. N.JackJ.ChildsJ. (2023). The social structure of school resource disparities: How social capital and interorganizational relationships matter for educational equity. Sociology of Education, 96(4), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407231176541
12.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.40
13.
BurchP. E. (2009). Hidden markets: Public policy and the push to privatize education. Routledge.
14.
BurchP. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of institutional theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07299792
15.
BurchP. E.SpillaneJ. P. (2005). How subjects matter in district office practice: Instructionally relevant policy in urban school district redesign. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-004-7781-5
16.
BurchP. E.SpillaneJ. P. (2004). Leading from the middle: Mid-level district staff and instructional improvement. Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509005.pdf
17.
CaduffA.DalyA. J.FinniganK. S.LealC. C. (2023). The churning of organizational learning: A case study of district and school leaders using social network analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 33(4), 355–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846221134006
18.
CarpenterM. A.LiM.JiangH. (2012). Social network research in organizational contexts: A systematic review of methodological issues and choices. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1328–1361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312440119
19.
CenturyJ.CassataA. (2016). Implementation research: Finding common ground on what, how, why, where, and who. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 169–215. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x16665332
20.
CobbP.JacksonK.HenrickE.SmithT. M. (2020). Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Harvard Education Press.
21.
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043003343
22.
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
23.
CoburnC. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032006003
24.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373702300214
25.
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
26.
CoburnC. E.HillH. C.SpillaneJ. P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The common core state standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651080
27.
CoburnC. E.SpillaneJ. P.BohannonA. X.AllenA-R.CeperichR.BenekeA.WongL-S (2020). The role of organizational routines in research use in four large urban school districts (Technical Report No. 5). National Center for Research in Policy and Practice.
28.
CohenD. K.BallD. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: Commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737012003331
CowhyJ. R.WongL. S.HopkinsM. (2024). Toward dissolving the institutionalization of “Othering”: Organizational conditions that support shared responsibility. AERA Open, 10(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584251352816
31.
CucchiaraM. (2008). Re-branding urban schools: Urban revitalization, social status, and marketing public schools to the upper middle class. Journal of Education Policy, 23(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930701853088
32.
Darling-HammondL. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “No Child Left Behind.”Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320701503207
33.
DatnowA.HonigM. I. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on scaling up teaching and learning improvement in urban districts: The promises and pitfalls of external assistance providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 323–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802222301
34.
DeBargerA. H.PenuelW. R.BoscardinC. K.MoorthyS.BeauvineauY.KennedyC.AllisonK. (2017). Investigating science curriculum adaptation as a strategy to improve teaching and learning. Science Education, 101(1), 66–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21249
35.
DiamondJ. B.GomezL. M. (2023). Disrupting White supremacy and anti-Black racism in educational organizations. Educational Researcher. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231161054
36.
DiemS.YoungM. D.WeltonA. D.MansfieldK. C.LeeP. (2014). The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(9), 1068–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.916007
37.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
DornerL. M.HarrisK.WilloughbyB. (2022). Policy enactment during a pandemic: How one school responded to COVID-19 in negotiation with a nonprofit partner. AERA Open, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221078
41.
Easterby-SmithM.CrossanM.NicoliniD. (2000). Organizational learning: Debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 783–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00203
42.
EisenhartM. A.HoweK. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In LeCompteM. D.MillroyW. L.PreissleJ. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 643–680). Academic Press.
43.
FarrellC. C.CoburnC. E. (2017). Absorptive capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding district central office learning. Journal of Educational Change, 18(2), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9291-7
44.
FarrellC. C.CoburnC. E.ChongS. (2019). Under what conditions do school districts learn from external partners? The role of absorptive capacity. American Educational Research Journal, 56(3), 955–994. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218808219
45.
FarrellC. C.PenuelW. R.AllenA.AndersonE. R.BohannonA. X.CoburnC. E.BrownS. L. (2022). Learning at the boundaries of research and practice: A framework for understanding research–practice partnerships. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211069073
46.
FarrellC. C.DavidsonK. L.Repko-ErwinM. E.PenuelW. R.QuantzM.WongH.RiedyR.BrinkZ. (2018). A descriptive study of the IES Researcher–Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research Program: Final report (Technical Report No. 3). National Center for Research in Policy and Practice.
47.
FeldmanM. S.PentlandB. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620
48.
FinkL.YogevN.EvenA. (2017). Business intelligence and organizational learning: An empirical investigation of value creation processes. Information & Management, 54(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.03.009
49.
FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 41–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/667700
50.
GamsonD. A.HodgeE. M. (2016). Education research and the shifting landscape of the American school district, 1816 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 216–249. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16670323
51.
GamsonD. A.TurnerE.KissellR. E. (2025). Policies and politics of the American school district: Past, present, and future. In Cohen-VogelL.YoungP.ScottJ. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research. AERA Press.
52.
GarverR.HopkinsM. (2025). Educator agency for multilingual learner integration: A typology of school ecologies. Peabody Journal of Education, 100(4), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2025.2535917
53.
GherardiS.NicoliniD. (2001). The sociological foundations of organizational learning. In DierkesM.BerthoinA. A.ChildJ.NonakaI. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 35–60). Oxford University Press.
54.
GomollA.Hmelo-SilverC. E.ŠabanovićS. (2022). Co-constructing professional vision: Teacher and researcher learning in co-design. Cognition and Instruction, 40(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.2010210
55.
HatchT. (2001). Incoherence in the system: Three perspectives on the implementation of multiple initiatives in one district. American Journal of Education, 109(4), 407–437. https://doi.org/10.1086/444334
56.
HatchT.AhnM.FergusonD.RumbergerA. (2023). The role of external support in improving K–3 reading outcomes in New York City. Urban Education, 58(5), 867–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919877932
57.
HedbergB. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In NystromP.StarbuckW. H. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design: Adapting organisations to their environment (Vol. 1, pp. 3–27). Cambridge University Press.
58.
HenrickE. C.KlafehnA. B.CobbP. (2020). Assessing the impact of partnership recommendations on district instructional improvement strategies. In CobbP.JacksonK.HenrickE.SmithT. M., & the MIST Team (Eds.), Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office (pp. 209–220). Harvard Education Press.
59.
HigginsM.IshimaruA.HolcombeR.FowlerA. (2012). Examining organizational learning in schools: The role of psychological safety, experimentation, and leadership that reinforces learning. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9167-9
60.
HightowerA. M.KnappM. S.MarshJ. A.McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.). (2003). School districts and instructional renewal. Teachers College Press.
61.
HillH. C. (2006). Language matters: How characteristics of language complicate policy implementation. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 65–82). SUNY Press.
62.
HillH. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289–318. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002289
63.
HodgeE. M.BenkoS. L.SalloumS. 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://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200303
64.
HodgeE. M.RosenbergJ. M.LópezF. A. (2023) “We don't teach critical race theory here”: A sentiment analysis of K–12 school and district social media statements. Peabody Journal of Education, 98(5), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2023.2261318
65.
HonigM. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 627–664. https://doi.org/10.1086/589317
66.
HonigM. I. (2004a). District central office–community partnerships: From contracts to collaboration to control. In HoyW. K.MiskelC. G. (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 59–90). Information Age.
67.
HonigM. I. (2004b). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in educational policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026001065
68.
HonigM. I.HatchT. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008016
69.
HonigM. I.RaineyL. R. (2014). Central office leadership in principal professional learning communities: The practice beneath the policy. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345158
70.
HonigM. I.VenkateswaranN. (2012). School–central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1086/663282
71.
HonigM. I.VenkateswaranN.McNeilP. (2017). Research use as learning: The case of fundamental change in school district central offices. American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 938–971. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217712466
72.
HopkinsM.WoulfinS. L. (2015). School system (re) design: Developing educational infrastructures to support school leadership and teaching practice. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9260-6
73.
HuberG. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88
74.
HuismanM. (2001). Decision-making in meetings at talk-in-interaction. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31(3), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2001.11656821
75.
IrbyD. J.GreenT.IshimaruA. M. (2022). PK–12 district leadership for equity: An exploration of director role configurations and vulnerabilities. American Journal of Education, 128(3), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.1086/719120
76.
KarcherH.KnightD. S. (2021). Funding structures and state capacity for school improvement under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Case studies of five states. Journal of Education Human Resources, 39(4), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.3138/jehr-2021-000
77.
KezarA. J.HolcombeE. M. (2020) Barriers to organizational learning in a multi-institutional initiative. The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 79, 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00459-4
78.
KazemiE.CalabreseJ.LindT.LewisB.ResnickA. F.GibbonsL. K. (2024). Learning together: Organizing schools for teacher and student learning. Harvard Education Press.
79.
KnappM. S. (2008). How can organizational and sociocultural learning theories shed light on district instructional reform?American Journal of Education, 114(4), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1086/589313
80.
KoolsM.StollL.GeorgeB.SteijnB.BekkersV.GouëdardP. (2020). The school as a learning organisation: The concept and its measurement. European Journal of Education, 55(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12383
81.
Larbi-CherifA.GlazerJ. L.IsonA. (2024). Continuous improvement in urban districts: Bringing environments back in. American Journal of Education, 130(3), 363–394. https://doi.org/10.1086/729598
82.
LeithwoodK.LouisK. S. (Eds.). (2021). Organizational learning in schools. Taylor & Francis.
83.
LeithwoodK.JantziD.SteinbachR. (2021). Leadership and other conditions which foster organizational learning in schools. In LeithwoodK.LewisK. S. (Eds.), Organizational learning in schools (pp. 67–90). Taylor & Francis.
84.
LewisA. E.DiamondJ. B. (2015). Despite the best intentions: How racial inequality thrives in good schools. Oxford University Press.
MehtaJ.FineS. (2019). In search of deeper learning: The quest to remake the American high school. Harvard University Press.
88.
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
OrtizK.NashJ.SheaL.OetzelJ.GaroutteJ.Sanchez-YoungmanS.WallersteinN. (2020). Partnerships, processes, and outcomes: A health equity-focused scoping meta-review of community engaged scholarship. Annual Review of Public Health, 41, 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094220
92.
ParkV.DatnowA. (2008). Collaborative assistance in a highly prescribed school reform model: The case of success for all. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 400–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802222376
93.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
PenuelW. R.GallagherD. J. (2017). Creating research practice partnerships in education. Harvard Education Press.
96.
PeurachD. J.NeumerskiC. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9259-z
97.
PeurachD. J.YurkofskyM. (2018). Organizing and managing instruction in U.S. public school districts: Considerations for families, communities, and states. National Education Policy Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED591996.pdf
98.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
99.
RaginC. C.BeckerH. S. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge University Press.
100.
ReardonJ. L.DavidsonE. (2007). An organizational learning perspective on the assimilation of electronic medical records among small physician practices. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(6), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000714
101.
ReckhowS.Tompkins-StangeM. (2018). Financing the education policy discourse: Philanthropic funders as entrepreneurs in policy networks. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 7, 258–288. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-018-0043-3
102.
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
103.
RowanB. (2006). The school improvement industry in the United States: Why educational change is both pervasive and ineffectual. In MeyerH.-D.RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 67–86). SUNY Press.
104.
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3), 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021277712833
105.
RowanB.WhiteM. (2022). The Common Core State Standards Initiative as an innovation network. American Educational Research Journal, 59(1), 73–111. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211006689
106.
RussellJ. L.MeredithJ.ChildsJ.SteinM. K.PrineD. W. (2015). Designing inter-organizational networks to implement education reform: An analysis of state Race to the Top applications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 92–112. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43773488
107.
SandersM. G. (2012). Achieving scale at the district level: A longitudinal multiple case study of a partnership reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 154–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11417432
108.
Sattin-BajajC.RodaA. (2020). Opportunity hoarding in school choice contexts: The role of policy design in promoting middle-class parents’ exclusionary behaviors. Educational Policy, 34(7), 992–1035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802106
109.
SchechterC.QadachM. (2012). Toward an organizational model of change in elementary schools: The contribution of organizational learning mechanisms. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 116–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11419653
110.
ScottJ.DeBrayE.LubienskiC.La LondeP. G.CastilloE.OwensS. (2017). Urban regimes, intermediary organization networks, and research use: Patterns across three school districts. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1264800
111.
ScottJ.DiMartinoC.HernandezL.LeibovitzT.ChongS. (2025). Organizations in education policy and politics. In Cohen-VogelL.YoungP.ScottJ. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 785–820). AERA Press.
112.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327
113.
ScottW. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.
114.
ShererJ. Z.SpillaneJ. P. (2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 611–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300302
115.
SpillaneJ. P. (1998a). A cognitive perspective on the role of the local educational agency in implementing instructional policy: Accounting for local variability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X98034001004
116.
SpillaneJ. P. (1998b). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312035001033
117.
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
118.
SpillaneJ. P.ThompsonC. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737019002185
119.
SpillaneJ. P.PariseL. M.ShererJ. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210385102
120.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387
121.
SpillaneJ. P.BlaushildN. L.NeumerskiC. M.SeeligJ. L.PeurachD. J. (2022). Striving for coherence, struggling with incoherence: A comparative study of six educational systems organizing for instruction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 44(4), 567–592. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737221093382
SupovitzJ. A. (2008). Melding internal and external support for school improvement: How the district role changes when working closely with external instructional support providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 459–478. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i25594794
125.
SupovitzJ. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Learning, building, and sustaining school improvement. Harvard Education Press.
126.
ThompsonJ.RichardsJ.ShimS.-Y.LohwasserK.Von EschK. S.ChewC.SjobergB.MorrisA. (2019). Launching networked PLCs: Footholds into creating and improving knowledge of ambitious and equitable teaching practices in an RPP. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419875718
127.
TogneriW.AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Learning First Alliance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475875.pdf
128.
TolbertP. S.ZuckerL. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392383
TrujilloT. (2014). The modern cult of efficiency: Intermediary organizations and the new scientific management. Educational Policy, 28(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813513148
131.
TrujilloT.WoulfinS. (2014). Equity-oriented reform amid standards-based accountability: A qualitative comparative analysis of an intermediary's instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 253–293. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214527335
132.
TurnerE. O. (2020). Suddenly diverse: How school districts manage race and inequality. The University of Chicago Press.
133.
TurnerE. O.BakerD. J.JabbarH. (2024). Improving researchers’ capacity to address injustice: An introduction to the special issue. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 46(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737241239982
134.
TyackD.TobinW. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031003453
135.
UseemE.ChristmanJ. B.GoldE. (1997). Reforming alone: Barriers to organizational learning in urban school change initiatives. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2(1), 55–77. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED396040.pdf
136.
VanGronigenB. A.MeyersC. V.ScottC.FantzT.DunnL. 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, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09403-1
137.
WaslanderS.HoogeE. H.TheisensH. C. (2023). Getting policy done in educational practice: What happens when multiple central government policies meet clusters of organization routines in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 24(3), 605–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09460-8
WeddleH.HopkinsM.GoldsteinH. (2024a). How can research-practice partnerships advance multilingual learner equity? A case study of partnership with state education agency leaders. Peabody Journal of Education, 99(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2024.2357036
140.
WeddleH.LocktonM.DatnowA. (2021). Research–practice partnerships “on the ground”: Exploring partnership work in urban schools under pressure to improve. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70(1), 101013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101013
141.
WeddleH.HopkinsM.LowenhauptR.KangasS. E. N. (2024b). Shared responsibility for multilingual learners across levels of the education system. Educational Researcher, 53(4), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X241227913
142.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.
WelshR.WilliamsS.BryantK.BerryJ. (2021). Conceptualization and challenges: Examining district and school leadership and schools as learning organizations. Learning Organization, 28(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-05-2020-0093
145.
WolthuisF.HubersM. D.van VeenK.de VriesS. (2022). The concept of organizational routines and its potential for investigating educational initiatives in practice: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 92(2), 249–287. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211051424
WooA.LeeS.TumaA. P.KaufmanJ. H.LawrenceR. A.ReedN. (2023). Walking on eggshells—Teachers’ responses to classroom limitations on race-or gender-related topics: Findings from the 2022 American Instructional Resources Survey (Research Report. RR-A134-16). RAND Corporation.
148.
WongL. (2023). Accomplishing system reforms by minding the details: Developing understandings for collective practice. American Journal of Education, 129(3), 383–412. https://doi.org/10.1086/724362
149.
WongL. (2019). Administrators’ unintentional sensegiving and system reform outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(3), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3854
150.
WongL.CoburnC. E.KamelA. (2020). How central office leaders influence school leaders’ decision making: Unpacking power dynamics in two school-based decision-making systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(4), 392–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2020.1800175
151.
WoulfinS. L. (2016a). Duet or duel? A portrait of two logics of reading instruction in an urban school district. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1086/685848
152.
WoulfinS. L. (2016b). Mediating instructional reform: An examination of the relationship between district policy and instructional coaching. AERA Open, 2(4), 2332858416680087. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418792278
153.
WoulfinS. L.SpitzerN. (2023). The evolution of coaching as a policy instrument: How a district engages in organizational learning. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048231201788
154.
WoulfinS. L.YurkofskyM. M. (2025). Toward a theory of racialized institutional logics in education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 61(2), 159–194.https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X251322886
155.
YangB.WatkinsK. E.MarsickV. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1086
156.
YarnallL.ShechtmanN.PenuelW. R. (2006). Using handheld computers to support improved classroom assessment in science: Results from a field trial. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9008-4
157.
YoungM. D.DiemS. (Eds.). (2023). Handbook of critical education research: Qualitative, quantitative, and emerging approaches. Routledge.
158.
YoungM. D.DiemS.SampsonC. (2024). The vital necessity of critical education policy research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737241239985
159.
YurkofskyM. 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
