Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 77–101 | Cite as

System learning in an urban school district: A case study of intra-district learning

  • Christopher Redding
  • Marisa Cannata
  • Jason M. Miller
Article

Abstract

This paper presents evidence from a unique reform model that allowed teachers and other educators in a large urban district to collaborate with one another in the development of an innovation meant to improve student ownership and responsibility. In this longitudinal case study, we describe school stakeholders’ learning about the design, the process of knowledge-transfer to school teams, and how school teams shared their ongoing learning with one another. School implementation teams were initially reluctant to share their learning with one another. By engaging in a shared innovation development process with structures for routine sharing, over time, implementation team members were increasingly interested in sharing their learning with one another. We discuss the implications for school improvement efforts.

Keywords

Organizational learning School improvement Teacher learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted with funding from the Institute of Education Sciences (R305C10023). The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the sponsor.

References

  1. Atteberry, A., & Bryk, A. S. (2010). Centrality, connection, and commitment: The role of social networks in a school-based literacy initiative. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baker-Doyle, K. J., & Yoon, S. A. (2010). Making expertise transparent: Using technology to strengthen social networks in teacher professional development. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradach, J. (2003). Going to scale: The challenge of replicating social programs (Stanford social innovation review). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/images/articles/2003SP_feature_bradach.pdf
  6. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cannata, M., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Sorum, M. (2017a). Partnering for improvement: Improvement communities and their role in scale up. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(5), 569–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cannata, M., Redding, C., Brown, S., Joshi, E., & Rutledge, S. (2017b). How ideas spread: Establishing a networked improvement community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Antonio, TX, April 27–May 1, 2017.Google Scholar
  9. Cannata, M., Redding, C., & Rubin, M. (2016). Continuous improvement in action: Educators’ use of evidence for school improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Cannata, M., Smith, T. M., & Haynes, K. T. (2017c). Integrating academic press and support by increasing student ownership and responsibility. AERA Open, 3(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman, C. (2008). Towards a framework for school-to-school networking in challenging circumstances. Education Research, 50(4), 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman, C., & Muijs, D. (2014). Does school-to-school collaboration promote school improvement? A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25, 351–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional community in policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 25–46). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, D. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27–84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American schools, 1890–1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  20. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (1st ed., pp. 348–361). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). How do school districts affect the quality of professional development provided to teachers? Results from a national sample of districts. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1265–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duguid, P. (2005). “The art of knowing”: Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. The Information Society, 21(2), 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elmore, R. F. (2016). “Getting to scale…” it seemed like a good idea at the time. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), 529–537.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9290-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthy, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning and school organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Farrington, C., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Seneca Keyes, T., Johnson, D., et al. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.Google Scholar
  28. Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development. The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars (pp. 136–156). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  30. Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Fullan, M. (2016). The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), 539–544.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9289-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons for districtwide reform. Education Leadership, 61(7), 42–46.Google Scholar
  35. Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 541–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Glazer, J. L., & Peurach, D. J. (2013). School improvement networks as a strategy for large-scale education reform the role of educational environments. Educational Policy, 27(4), 676–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Glazer, J. L., & Peurach, D. J. (2015). Occupational control in education: The logic and leverage of epistemic communities. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 172–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T. A., Goldring, E., et al. (2017). Central office supports for data-driven talent management decisions: Evidence from the implementation of new systems for measuring teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(1), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Håkanson, L. (2010). The firm as an epistemic community: The knowledge-based view revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6), 1801–1828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hannan, M., Russell, J. L., Takahashi, S., & Park, S. (2015). Using improvement science to better support beginning teachers: The case of the building a teaching effectiveness network. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 494–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  43. Heneman, H. G., & Milanowski, A. T. (2004). Alignment of human resource practices and teacher performance competency. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 108–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holzner, B. (1968). Reality construction in society. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.Google Scholar
  45. Honig, M. I. (2006). Building policy from practice: Implementation as organizational learning. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 125–147). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  46. Honig, M. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Honig, M. I., & Venkateswaren, N. (2012). School-central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hopkins, M., & Woulfin, S. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Organizational learning in schools: An introduction. In Organizational learning in schools (pp. 1–14). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  51. Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy, 12(3), 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools: A practical and positive approach for leading change at every level. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Little, J. W. (1993). Professional community in comprehensive high schools: The two worlds of academic and vocational teachers. In J. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work (pp. 137–163). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  55. Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Martin, Gary W., & Gobstein, Howard. (2015). Generating a networked improvement community to improve secondary mathematics teacher preparation: Network leadership, organization, and operation. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McLaughlin, M. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering questions, and new opportunities. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 209–228). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  60. McLaughlin, M. W., & Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: Going deeper and going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2(4), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moolenaar, N. M. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools; Theory, methodology, and applications. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Muijs, D. (2015). Improving schools through collaboration: A mixed methods study of school-to-school partnerships in the primary sector. Oxford Review of Education, 41(5), 563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (2014). Creating productive cultures: Communities for students, teachers, and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  66. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11421826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Joshi, A., Pearlman, L., Kim, C. M., & Frank, K. A. (2010). The alignment of the informal and formal organizational supports for reform: Implications for improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 57–95.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Krause, A. E., & Frank, K. A. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124–163.Google Scholar
  69. Peurach, D. J. (2016). Innovating at the nexus of impact and improvement: Leading educational improvement networks. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 421–429.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16670898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Peurach, D. J., & Glazer, J. L. (2016). Reading recovery as an epistemic community. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 21(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peurach, D. J., Glazer, J. L., & Lenhoff, S. W. (2012). Make or buy? That’s really not the question. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(7), 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Peurach, D. J., Lenhoff, S. W., & Glazer, J. L. (2016). Large-scale high school reform through school improvement networks: Exploring possibilities for “developmental evaluation”. Teachers College Record, 118(13), 1–28.Google Scholar
  73. Polikoff, M. S., & Porter, A. C. (2014). Instructional alignment as a measure of teaching quality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Redding, C., & Viano, S. (in press). Co-creating school innovations: Should self-determination be a component of school improvement? Teachers College Record.Google Scholar
  76. Rutledge, S. A., Harris, D. N., & Ingle, W. K. (2010). How principals “bridge and buffer” the new demands of teacher quality and accountability: A mixed-methods analysis of teacher hiring. American Journal of Education, 116(2), 211–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Saito, E., Khong, T. D. H., & Tsukui, A. (2012). Why is school reform sustained even after a project? A case study of Bac Giang Province. Vietnam. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Saunders, W. M., Goldenberg, C. N., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental study of title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1006–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Scribner, J. P., Cockrell, K., Cockrell, D., & Valentine, J. (1999). Creating professional communities in schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school improvement process. Education Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 130–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Smylie, M. A., & Hart, A. W. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development perspective. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 297–322). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  81. Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 583–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Supovitz, J. A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  85. Supovitz, J. A. (2008). Implementation as iterative refraction. In J. A. Supovitz & E. H. Weinbaum (Eds.), Implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 151–172). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  86. Talbert, J. (2009). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 555–571). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  87. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Woulfin, S. L., Donaldson, M. L., & Gonzales, R. (2016). District leaders’ framing of educator evaluation policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 110–143.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education, College of EducationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Leadership, Policy, and Organizations, Peabody CollegeVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  3. 3.Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education Department, Curry School of EducationUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations