Abstract
Enactment of federal educational policy has direct implications for states and local school districts across the nation, particularly in the areas of accountability and funding. This study utilized constructivist grounded theory to examine the impact of policy on science education reform in a large, urban school district over a 5-year period. The existence and interaction between macro and micro, and explicit and implicit policies created educational turbulence. Findings further extend upon Fullan’s (Change theory: a force for school improvement, 2006) change theory adding high-stakes accountability as a prevalent distractor issue and the need for quad-level, rather than tri-level engagement in reform. Suggestions for addressing educational turbulence are provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11–17.
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm. Retrieved from the National Academies Press website: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html.
Czerniak, C. M., Beltyukova, S., Struble, J., Haney, J. J., & Lumpe, A. T. (2005). Do you see what I see? The relationship between a professional development model and student achievement. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Exemplary science in grades 5–8: Standards-based success stories (pp. 13–43). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26.
Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement (Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper No. 157). Retrieved from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_06/06_change_theory.pdf.
Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin and Ontario Principals’ Council.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goldston, D. (2005). Elementary science: Left behind? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(2), 185–187.
Harry, B., Sturges, K. M., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Qualitative data analysis: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34(2), 3–13.
Hess, F. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Johnson, C. C. (2011a). Secondary STEM educational reform. Palgrave: MacMillan.
Johnson, C. C. (2011b). The road to culturally relevant science: Exploring how teachers navigate change in pedagogy. Journal of Reserch in Science Teaching, 48(2), 170–190.
Johnson, C. C., & Fargo, J. D. (2010). Urban school reform through transformative professional development: Impact on teacher change and student learning of science. Urban Education, 45(1), 4–29.
Johnson, C. C., Fargo, J. D., & Kahle, J. B. (2010). The cumulative and residual impact of a systematic reform program on teacher change and student learning of science. School Science and Mathematics, 110(3), 144–159.
Johnson, C. C., & Marx, S. (2009). Transformative professional development: A model for urban science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(2), 113–134.
Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. (2007a). A study of sustained, whole-school, professional development on student achivement in science. Journal of Reserch in Science Teaching, 44(6), 775–786.
Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. (2007b). Effective teaching results in increased science achivement for all students. Science Education, 91(3), 371–383.
Lee, L., & Luykx, A. (2005). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in elementary science instruction with nonmainstream students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 411–438.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of mathematics and science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (2008). Tough choices or tough times: The report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Neill, M. (2011, August 9). Why states should refuse Duncan’s NCLB waivers (The Answer Sheet blog). Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2009). P21 framework definitions, Partnership for 21st Century Learning.
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodston (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Skerrett, A., & Hargreaves, A. (2008). Student diversity and secondary school change in a context of increasingly standardized reform. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 913–945.
Southerland, S. A. (2011). The possibilities of teaching “Science for All” given national education policy: How policy influences the equitable teaching of science. In O. Lee & J. Bianchini (Eds.), Ethics and equity. The Netherlands: Kluwer. (in press).
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this manuscript was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant number R305A090145 to The University of Cincinnati. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Johnson, C.C. Educational Turbulence: The Influence of Macro and Micro-Policy on Science Education Reform. J Sci Teacher Educ 24, 693–715 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9333-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9333-9