Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 535–557 | Cite as

Highway to reform: The coupling of district reading policy and instructional practice

  • Sarah L. Woulfin
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article presents findings on teachers’ implementation of a reading reform in an urban school district. Findings are based in observation, interview, and document data related to 12 elementary teachers’ responses to a new reading program, the Teachers College Reading and Writing Workshop. Utilizing coupling theory and the concept of routines, the paper presents a nuanced portrayal of classroom-level policy implementation. The paper depicts mini-lessons, independent reading, conferencing, and instructional materials as building blocks of the new reading program, and I expose the intensity of messaging on each of these elements. I use Qualitative Comparative Analysis to analyze teachers’ routines for reading instruction and show that independent reading was a common foundational step in teachers’ workshop routines. This analytic technique answers questions about the combinations of conditions resulting in mini-lesson instruction. This paper extends the research on the implementation of instructional policy and has implications for policymakers, administrators, and teachers.

Keywords

Educational infrastructure Reading instruction Coupling theory Qualitative methods QCA 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulos, D., & Rutledge, S. (2007). Making sense of school sanctioning policies in urban high schools: Charting the depth and drift of school and classroom change. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1261–1302.Google Scholar
  3. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “educational triage” and the texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burch, P. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of institutional theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the common core: accelerating achievement. New York: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. Calkins, L., Tolan, K., & Ehrenworth, M. (2010). Units of study for teaching reading. New York: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  7. Coburn, C. E. (2001a). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coburn, C. E. (2001b). Making sense of reading: Logics of reading in the institutional environment and the classroom. (Unpublished Ph.D.). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coburn, C. E. (2005). The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coburn, C. E., Pearson, P. D., & Woulfin, S. L. (2010). Reading policy in an era of accountability. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol IV ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, D. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, D. K., & Bhatt, M. P. (2012). The importance of infrastructure development to high-quality literacy instruction. The Future of Children, 22(2), 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, D. K., & Moffitt, S. L. (2009). The ordeal of equality: Did federal legislation fix the schools?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cress, D. M., & Snow, D. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4), 1063–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Crotty, M. (1998). Introduction: The research process. In The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspectives in the research process. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Diamond, J. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Theoretical Sociology, 35, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the common core state standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoffman, J., Assaf, L., & Paris, S. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in texas, tomorrow? Reading Teacher, 54(5), 482–492.Google Scholar
  31. Honig, M. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hopkins, M., Spillane, J. P., Jakopovic, P., & Heaton, R. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 200–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hunter, M. (1994). Enhancing teaching. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. International Reading Association Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee. (2012). Literacy implementation guidance for the ELA common core state standards. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/Libraries/association-documents/ira_ccss_guidelines.pdf.
  35. Kersten, J., & Pardo, L. (2007). Finessing and hybridizing: Innovative literacy practices in reading first classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Logging data. In Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  37. McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Governors Association. (2009). Fifty-one states and territories join common core state standards initiative. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-content-list/title_fifty-one-states-and-territories-join-common-core-state-standards-initiative.html.
  43. Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.Google Scholar
  45. Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pearson, P. D. (2007). An endangered species act for literacy education. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(2), 145–162.Google Scholar
  47. Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815. doi: 10.1093/icc/dth070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T., & Hillison, D. (2010). Comparing organizational routines as recurrent patterns of action. Organization Studies, 31(7), 917–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Porter-Magee, K. (2015). Misdirection and self-interest: How heinemann and lucy calkins are rewriting the common core. Retrieved from http://edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/common-core-watch/2012/misdirection-and-self-interest-how-Heinemann-and-Lucy-Calkins-are-rewriting-the-Common-Core.html.
  50. Pressley, M., Allington, R., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & Morrow, L. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first grades. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  51. Ragin, C. C. (1992). “Casing” and the process of social inquiry. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 217–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Ragin, C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy-sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rigby, J. G. (2013). Three logics of instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0013161X13509379.Google Scholar
  54. Ragin, C., Drass, K., & Davey, S. (2006). Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0. Tucson, AZ: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenshine, B. (1985). Direct instruction. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  56. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  57. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2006). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  58. Sherer, J. Z., & Spillane, J. P. (2007). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Unpublished manuscript (Under Review).Google Scholar
  59. Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1990). Systemic school reform. Journal of Education Policy, 5(5), 233–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Spillane, J., & Burch, P. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public education. In H. Meir & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (Vol. 6, pp. 87–102). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  62. Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary grade reading instruction in high poverty schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trujillo, T. M., & Woulfin, S. L. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of american urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Leadership, Neag School of EducationUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options