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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). The new accountability, student failure, and teachers’ work in urban high schools. Educational Policy, 17(3), 291–316.
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.
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.
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
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.
Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268.
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.
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.
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.
Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.
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.
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.008
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diehl, D., & McFarland, D. (2010). Toward a historical sociology of social situations. American Journal of Sociology, 115(6), 1713–1752.
Figlio, D. N., & Getzler, L. S. (2002). Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
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.
Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.
Goffman, E. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist, 58(3), 473–502.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gould, R. (1993). Collective action and network analysis. American Sociological Review, 58, 182–196.
Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75, 52–74.
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.
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.
Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 7–41.
Jennings, J. L. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice? Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 227–247.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston, MA: Little & Brown.
Lindblom, C. E. (1977). Politics and markets: The world’s political economic systems. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lortie, D. C. (2009). School Principal: Managing in Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London, UK: Mmacillan.
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Malen, B. (2003). Tightening the grip? The impact of state activism on local school systems. Educational Policy, 17(2), 195–216.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Padgett, J., & Ansell, C. (1992). Robust action and the rise of the Medici. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259–1320.
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.
Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.
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.
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.
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How local schools misunderstand policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Stene, E. O. (1940). An approach to a science of administration. The American Political Science Review, 34(6), 1124–1137.
Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: Norton and Co.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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.
Valli, L., & Chambliss, M. (2007). Creating classroom cultures: One teacher, two lessons and a high-stakes test. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(1), 57–75.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
Weiss, J. A. (2000). From research to social improvement: Understanding theories of intervention. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 81–110.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix A: Codes and Examples of Coded Content
Appendix A: Codes and Examples of Coded Content
Macrocode/subcode | Definition/usage | Coded content example |
|---|---|---|
Additional subcodes (not exhaustive) and examples of coded content | ||
Policy | Here we code direct and indirect references to district, state, and federal policy; in other words, any instance when policy is invoked | They went to a meeting in Washington regarding this No Child Left Behind, which means if a school is not performing up to standards, the parent has the option to choose a school to send their child to a school that is a well-performing school… |
Framing | Here we code any speech/tactic used in a way that appears intended to frame/reframe an issue/group/person | And I agree with this but it’s not, I don’t feel it’s the teacher’s fault. I think the school districts as a whole you know they cut out art, they cut out music, they cut out you know, there’s only gym one day a week. So students who have those other intelligences it’s hard… |
Footing | Here we code any speech/tactic used in a way that appears intended to gain footing with a constituent group or involves code-switching/signalling the “move” to take up a new position in relation to those being spoken to/about | Please don’t feel intimidated by it… we did that with National Board because we sat down together as a team and we critiqued each other’s…we were harder on ourselves than the other people who were looking at us. But it made me grow as an individual because I’m thinking I had a smoking lesson. When I go back and look at myself… (group chuckles) …I’m like “Ooh, I did that?” or “I did that?” or “This could’ve been better” or… |
Tactics/agenda setting | Setting parameters of discussion | This is a planning party; putting together strategic plans for next year…whatever we do it has to complement these standards. Bring them. |
Tactics/authority | Drawing on direct, official authority to require/mandate something of others | They will say that white book is what we should be following… |
Tactics/invoking professionalism | Referencing what it means or involves to be a professional or “good” teacher and/or referencing notions/norms of professionalism (e.g. caring about kids, returning graded work promptly, sharing ideas with colleagues, teaching to standards, etc.) | But if we don’t define ourselves as professionals who know how to assess our children and who know, who adjust the balance and methods and our children are taught to, somebody will think we are not professionals… |
We as teachers have to be good listeners... | ||
We just cannot deal with the academics; we have to meet all of their needs… | ||
Tactics/assertingin-group identity | Finding ways to join or express co-membership with groups in order to reorder preferences and develop new collective identities from “inside” | When I was in the classroom… I’m not far removed because I can go back to the classroom any day and I don’t have a problem with it because I love it. |
Tactics/narrating others’ speech/own neutrality | Presenting oneself as a neutral reporter or informant and reporting the opinions, statements, and/or predictions of others; see additional subcodes ➔ | (i) Reporting someone else’s speech:Accountability was in here…And I’m just gonna read some of the comments that they made. |
(ii) Associating policies with specific people: [the CAO] is partnering up with [a scholar]…to put in place a city wide reading programme. | ||
(iii) Leveraging uncertainty and unpredictable actors: We might have people coming in, they might re-do our whole curriculum, they might… | ||
Tactics/aligning | Asserting alignment of some kind of aligning, including appealing to common values or convincing others that what will occur (or needs to occur) is consistent with their identities and interests in some way; see additional subcodes ➔ | (i) Aligning with “common sense”: How many of you housekeep?…Teachers, keep your house clean. So that whoever comes in this building, if they ask for it, here it is... |
(ii) Aligning something new with something familiar/already done: Adams, don’t you ever, don’t break out in any sweat. Because we’ve been doing these things all along… | ||
(iii) Aligning adherence with maintaining cherished norms/ideals/autonomies: …because who wants anyone to come in our school and tell us then how to teach... | ||
(iv) Appealing to common value(s) or shared goal(s): We keep talking about raising test scores. We cannot raise test scores if our children are at home… | ||
Tactics/other-oriented ingratiating | Expressing appreciation and concern for others, their needs and desires, and not being wedded to any personal course of action; see additional subcodes ➔ | (i) Being modest or self-critical, emphasising own failings or struggles: Patience is one of the things that we really need to work on… I should say in a lot of cases I need to work on. |
(ii) Starting with flattery: Many teachers throughout the system are hardworking teachers, we’re all good teachers, but… | ||
(iii) Emphasising to others that they are in control: These are your assessments, you developed them, you know best… | ||
(iv) Using self-deprecating humour or deflecting attention from oneself and/or one’s expertise or authority: Do I know everything? Heck no. Don’t even come probably 1/3 of knowing everything… |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Spillane, J., Anderson, L. (2019). Negotiating Policy Meanings in School Administrative Practice: Practice, Professionalism, and High-Stakes Accountability in a Shifting Policy Environment. In: Hung, D., Lee, SS., Toh, Y., Jamaludin, A., Wu, L. (eds) Innovations in Educational Change. Education Innovation Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6330-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6330-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6328-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6330-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)