Advertisement

Negotiating Policy Meanings in School Administrative Practice: Practice, Professionalism, and High-Stakes Accountability in a Shifting Policy Environment

  • James SpillaneEmail author
  • Lauren Anderson
Chapter
  • 62 Downloads
Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)

Abstract

Using a micro-sociological approach, this chapter examines how school leaders and teachers negotiate the meanings of emerging high-stakes accountability policy in formal school meetings. In doing so, the chapter examines how policy advanced at the macro level gets worked out at the micro level in school administrative practice. Exploring policy in school administrative practice, we uncover how school leaders work to advance the legitimacy of external policy, negotiate its meanings, and attempt to compel teachers’ cooperation. School leaders in our study did so by deploying formal authority, as well as various tactics described in earlier theoretical work on social influence, such as invoking a shared in-group identity and/or underscoring moral worth. In deploying these social tactics, school leaders engaged not only in rhetorical framing but also rhetorical footing as they worked to convince teaching staff of policy’s legitimacy and its meanings for classroom instruction. Our account demonstrates how these negotiations extended beyond the technical implications for instruction as school leaders and teachers renegotiated what it means to be a professional educator in a shifting policy environment, and who, or what holds authority on matters of teaching practice in particular.

References

  1. Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). The new accountability, student failure, and teachers’ work in urban high schools. Educational Policy, 17(3), 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulos, D. (2006). “Real students” and “true demotes”: Ending social promotion and the moral ordering of urban high schools. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anagnostopoulos, D., & Rutledge, S. A. (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
  4. Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 177–193). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booher-Jennings, J. (2008). Learning to label: Gender, socialization, and high-stakes testing in elementary school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clotfelter, C. T., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 23–64). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  9. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading Coaches and the Relationship Between Policy and Practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Diehl, D., & McFarland, D. (2010). Toward a historical sociology of social situations. American Journal of Sociology, 115(6), 1713–1752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Figlio, D. N., & Getzler, L. S. (2002). Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Firestone, W. A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goffman, E. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist, 58(3), 473–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
  24. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  25. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  26. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gould, R. (1993). Collective action and network analysis. American Sociological Review, 58, 182–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75, 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heiling, J. V., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Irvine, J. T. (1996). Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural Histories of Discourse (pp. 131–159). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 7–41.Google Scholar
  32. Jennings, J. L. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice? Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston, MA: Little & Brown.Google Scholar
  34. Lindblom, C. E. (1977). Politics and markets: The world’s political economic systems. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lortie, D. C. (2009). School Principal: Managing in Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Louis, K. S., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London, UK: Mmacillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Malen, B. (2003). Tightening the grip? The impact of state activism on local school systems. Educational Policy, 17(2), 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Padgett, J., & Ansell, C. (1992). Robust action and the rise of the Medici. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Park, V., Daly, A. J., & Guerra, A. W. (2013). Strategic framing: How leaders craft the meaning of data use for equity and learning. Education Policy, 27(4), 645–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwille, J. R., Porter, A. C., Belli, G., Floden, R. E., Freeman, D. J., & Knappen, L. (1983). Teachers as policy brokers in the content of elementary school mathematics. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of Teaching and Policy (pp. 370–391). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  48. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.Google Scholar
  51. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 133–155). New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
  52. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (2005). Clarifying the relationship between framing and ideology. In H. Johnston & J. A. Noakes (Eds.), Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective (pp. 205–212). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  53. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How local schools misunderstand policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Stene, E. O. (1940). An approach to a science of administration. The American Political Science Review, 34(6), 1124–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: Norton and Co.Google Scholar
  58. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  59. Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Valli, L., & Chambliss, M. (2007). Creating classroom cultures: One teacher, two lessons and a high-stakes test. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(1), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1639–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weiss, J. A. (2000). From research to social improvement: Understanding theories of intervention. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Connecticut CollegeNew LondonUSA

Personalised recommendations