Abstract
This comparative case study explores how 18 state education agencies (SEAs) support school districts in advancing standards-based elementary science reform. We identify how SEAs understand their work in advancing elementary science reform and describe how SEAs sought to engage districts in bridging from standards to classroom practice. Based on our analysis, we argue that the school subject is a critical explanatory variable in understanding SEA efforts to support standards implementation and SEAs lean on a resource-based approach for instructional policy implementation. This study contributes to the growing research base on the role of state policy in supporting standards implementation.
Introduction
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013) and the accompanying Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) from which the NGSS were developed reflect a new iteration of standards-based reform that aims to improve teaching and learning through the adoption of ambitious instructional standards. Evolving as a national (rather than federal) policy movement, the “for states, by states” approach to developing and implementing the NGSS intentionally positioned states as the primary driver of science education policy. The NGSS developed as a collaborative, state-led process where leaders and educators in the field drafted standards outlining what students should know and be able to do in science and provided for voluntary state adoption of those standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). In organizing the movement in this way, states established an agenda for science education reform outside of federal policies and provided formidable discretion in whether and how states pursued these efforts.
Since its development in 2013, the NGSS has gained traction as a national policy movement across the United States. At the time of this study (2019–2020), 20 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the NGSS and another 24 states had developed their own state science standards based on the recommendations in the Framework K-12 Science Education (hereafter referred to as the Framework). Since that time, an additional state developed state science standards based on the Framework. Research on state-level policy environments reports that state-level science coordinators’ vision for science instruction aligns with the NGSS in important ways (Haverly et al., 2022) and that the NGSS features prominently in the research and resources state science coordinators use and share with others (Hopkins, 2016; Hopkins & Gates, 2019). The wide-scale engagement of states with the NGSS and convergence in state leaders’ thinking around NGSS-aligned science reform suggests the “for states, by states” approach to developing and implementing the NGSS managed to penetrate state policy environments without the support of federal mandates.
Yet actualizing instructional reform like those advanced by the NGSS is not just a matter of eliciting reform activity at the state-level (although that is essential); but rather involves how the NGSS shape the work of districts, school, and teachers as they work with students. Research findings on both ambitious science instruction and standards-driven instructional reform in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics suggest that all but a small number of unusually capable teachers will need considerable support in transforming instruction to support the learning ideals of the NGSS (Blumenfeld et al., 2000; Cohen & Ball, 2007; Cohen & Hill, 2001; Duke, 2000), and that all but a small number of unusually capable schools will need support in developing capabilities to support teachers (Spillane et al., 2016, 2018). While much research examines the work of individual teachers or small groups of teachers constructing STEM learning environments in their classrooms and schools (e.g., Beyer & Davis, 2008; Lehrer et al., 2000; Windschitl et al., 2008), less attention has been given to understanding the work of science reform at scale from the perspective of intergovernmental relations—that is, state departments of education working with school districts to advance the NGSS (although there are some notable exceptions which we discuss in the following section).
In this study, we explore whether and how state education agencies (SEAs) support school districts to advance the aims of the NGSS and Framework. We focus on elementary science because of the unique challenges of instructional reform in this subject area, namely the recent focus of federal and state reform efforts on ELA and mathematics (e.g., No Child Left Behind, Common Core State Standards) and the limited instructional time historically dedicated to science teaching in elementary classrooms (Blank, 2013; Plumley, 2019). These challenges are particularly critical given the potential of high-quality elementary science instruction to pique children’s curiosities about the natural world and their joy for learning, and to strengthen their science identities in order to engage in complex sociopolitical decision-making, such as around issues of climate change, global pandemics, and justice movements (Eshach & Fried, 2005; National Academies of Sciences et al., 2021a).
With the SEA as the unit of analysis, we compare how 18 SEAs support school districts to advance elementary science education. Our findings contribute to the research base on the role of SEAs in supporting the implementation of ambitious learning standards. We begin by anchoring our work in the literatures on intergovernmental relations, educational organizations, and instructional reform. Next, we describe our cross-case research design and methodological approach. We then develop and support two claims based on our data analysis: First, SEAs understood their work in advancing elementary science reform as involving two central dimensions of reform activity—motivating local education leaders and teachers to engage with reforming elementary science education and building the capability of teachers and school leaders for improving elementary science. Second, states aimed to support school districts in elementary science reform by mobilizing three key instruments—high-quality instructional materials, professional development opportunities, and codified messages.
Analytic Framework
Our analysis is motivated and framed by the literature on intergovernmental relations and non-government actors. Additionally, we use literature on policy implementation and educational organization to frame our analysis.
Intergovernmental Relations and Non-Government Actors
Intergovernmental relations between federal, state, and local governments shape educational policy and practice in the United States. By intergovernmental relations, we mean the interactions between and among different levels of the government. The U.S. political system was designed to frustrate the centralization of power by dividing authority within and among local, state, and federal governments thereby constraining the coordinated action of any central government. While state governments have all the constitutional authority for education, historically they have delegated most authority to local government (Cohen & Spillane, 1992; McDonnell & McLaughlin, 1982; Weiss & McGuinn, 2017). Despite these segmented governance arrangements, federal and state governments have become more active in making instructional policy over the past several decades (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act, Common Core State Standards, Every Student Succeeds Act), defining learning standards and using test-based accountability to hold local districts and schools accountable for student achievement (Mehta, 2013; Smith & O’Day, 1990; Weiss & McGuinn, 2017). Still, more educational policymaking at the federal level has contributed to an increase rather than a decrease in policymaking at the state and local government levels (Cohen, 1982; Fuhrman & Elmore, 1990; Sunderman, 2010).
Intergovernmental relations are a key consideration in analyzing the implementation of instructional policy because policies enacted at any one level (e.g., national) can face major implementation hurdles at “lower” levels (e.g., state or local). This was evident most recently in the case of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) where the politics around developing the CCSS were relatively smooth, but state and local implementation were much more contentious as the number of decision venues and interest groups expanded (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2016). In particular, the CCSS collided with federal policy in advance of the Race to the Top program in 2009, which created resources and incentives for states to adopt college-and-career-ready standards and with the CCSS being a ready resource for states in doing so (Marsh & Wohlstetter, 2013). One effect, from the perspective of some observers and policy actors, was to associate the CCSS with federal policy and, thus, to politicize them amidst controversy about federal overreach.
State Education Agencies and Instructional Reform
Increasingly, state education agencies (SEAs) are playing a larger role in policymaking and policy implementing given the new demands of standards-based reform (Brown et al., 2011; Herrington & Fowler, 2003; Timar, 1997; VanGronigen et al., 2022; Weiss & McGuinn, 2017). Historically, SEAs were not deeply involved in K-12 instructional policymaking as they ceded most instructional decision-making to local school boards and districts (Weiss & McGuinn, 2017). In the era of standards-based reform, however, SEAs expanded their role in instructional policymaking by establishing state instructional standards, assessments, and school district oversight. In the 1980s and 1990s, SEAs began implementing loose, state-developed standards and monitoring student progress toward these standards (Massell et al., 1997). The federal government enhanced the role of SEAs as instructional policymakers through the codification of standards and accountability into state law under the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) in 1994 and later under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001. State development and adoption of the national CCSS and NGSS further underscored the increased role of SEAs in instructional policymaking as states became more active architects of instructional policy outside of federal mandates.
The evolving role of SEA policymaking can be traced more specifically through state science policy. In the 1980s, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) began a long-term research and development project aimed at improving science education that resulted in the publication of Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989), Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS, 1993), and Blueprints for Reform (AAAS, 1998) and informed the National Research Council’s (NRC) development of national science standards in 1996 and later again in 2008. In response to early standards and accountability policies, such as IASA and NCLB, states enhanced their role in science policymaking by establishing state standards and assessments in science and exercised their discretion in science policymaking as evidenced by the variation in the content of those standards and state accountability policies (Finn & Porter-McGee, 2012). After calls for more rigorous and equitable science learning in schools, the NRC published the Framework in 2012 based on the most current research on science and science learning. Following the Framework’s release, Achieve, in collaboration with the NRC, the National Science Teachers Association, and AAAS convened 26 lead state partners to develop the NGSS based on the Framework and released the new standards in 2013. States continue to exercise their discretion in science policymaking by making decisions regarding whether and how to adopt the new standards.
Recent research on SEAs in the context of the Framework and NGSS implementation suggest that in addition to playing an increased role in policymaking (e.g., in the development of state science standards and standardized assessments), many SEAs also play a role in policy implementation in science. For example, according to survey reports from Hopkins and Gates (2019) with data gathered from state science education leaders across 36 states, even though a small percentage of SEAs are involved in curriculum implementation, SEAs are highly involved in professional development for teachers and many interact directly with school districts through the sharing of resources. A key part of this resource sharing includes brokering research, such as reports or policy briefs published by NASEM and other peer-reviewed studies (Hopkins & Gates, 2019). Other research documents how some SEAs work collaboratively in the context of improvement networks and research-practice partnerships to craft coherent guidance to support teachers and school leaders in developing common understandings of equitable science teaching (Penuel et al., 2018) and build more equitable systems in science (Wingert et al., 2020).
While some SEAs are playing an increased role in policy implementing in science, these organizations continue to be lean and under resourced with respect to the demands of their evolving roles (Brown et al., 2011; Jochim & Murphy, 2013; Sunderman & Orfield, 2007; Weiss & McGuinn, 2017). SEAs also vary in their capacity and motivation to support school districts in policy implementation (Weiss & McGuinn, 2017). Despite these realities, state-level actors, nevertheless, have the potential to play an important role in efforts to advance the NGSS. This is particularly true in elementary science where, absent federal policy incentives, state-level actors have broad discretion over whether and how to pursue science education reform.
Role of Non-Government Actors
While we draw on intergovernmental relations as a central frame in this study, we complement this perspective with attention to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as they work with and between levels of government to enact educational policy. There is a long-standing dynamic of educational organization and improvement in the U.S. relying heavily on the non-governmental sector to supply the materials, methods, people, and services needed for educational improvement (Peurach et al., 2019, 2022; Rowan, 2002). This reliance on market resources has contributed to the expansion of a vast network of extra system actors that offer services critical for educational improvement, including curricular materials, student assessments, professional development, and others (Burch, 2009; DeBray-Pelot & McGuinn, 2009; Marsh & Wohlstetter, 2013). Rowan (2002) describes this system of actors as the school improvement “industry” comprised of the numerous for-profit firms, professional membership organizations, and non-profit organizations involved in education innovation and improvement. Examples of NGOs that support science include WestEd and EdReports, among others. Attending to the role of NGOs in educational improvement, we view instructional policy and implementation as shaped by the relations between federal, state, and local governmental organizations as they work with extra system actors to shape instruction in schools.
Policy, Organization, and Practice
Policy scholars have focused on the policy instruments that different levels of government use to influence one another and street-level work. Specifically, this approach examines how interdependent mechanisms, such as authority, markets, and persuasion, exercise influence and promote social coordination (Bardach, 1977; Burch, 2009; Lindblom, 1982; McDonnell, 2009; McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; Weiss, 1990). While we draw on these mechanisms broadly in this study, we take a somewhat different perspective by reframing the work of policy enactment and implementation from an organizational perspective—that is policy enactment and implementation unfolds in the ongoing interactions among government and non-governmental organizations.
The route from ambitious instructional policy, like that advanced by the NGSS, is circuitous with many twists and turns between national efforts and classrooms. Instructional policy runs through numerous individuals in different government and non-governmental organizations that both make sense of policy and, in turn, give sense of the ideas they construct to others. This perspective draws on a long line of research on policy implementation that identifies a range of dynamics that mediate relations between policy and classroom practice, including implementers’ professional judgment (e.g., Berman & McLaughlin, 1979; Lin, 2000; Lipsky, 1983), knowledge and cognition (e.g., Cohen & Hill, 2001; Spillane & Zeuli, 1999), communities of practice (Coburn & Stein, 2006), and language (Hill, 2006). In this view, implementing ambitious instructional standards involves not only teachers and school leaders, but also an array of other individuals in government and non-government organizations as they bridge and buffer between policy and practice (Honig & Hatch, 2004; Spillane, 2009).
From this organizational perspective, then, a core challenge involves engaging district central offices and schools as organizations that are both a problem to be managed and the solution to be leveraged in instructional reform: “Policies aim to solve problems, yet the key problem solvers are those who have the problem” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 515). Historically, district central offices and schools had limited capabilities for organizing and managing the core work of education—instruction (Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Peurach et al., 2019). Instead, these organizations focused on administrative functions of education, including staffing teachers in classrooms and resourcing those classrooms with instructional materials (Metz, 1898; Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Peurach et al., 2019), delegating the work of organizing and managing instruction to classrooms (Cohen & Mehta, 2017; Rentner et al., 2016). With regards to the NGSS, the challenge is that the legacy of this loose coupling persists, even as districts and schools are pressed by standards and accountability to organize and manage instruction to improve effectiveness (Peurach et al., 2018; Yurkofsky, 2020).
The NGSS challenge most teachers to depart from more didactic notions about teaching and learning to more ambitious instructional practices. The Framework and NGSS advance three dimensional science teaching, which involves the integration of disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), science and engineering practices (SEPs), and crosscutting concepts (CCCs) to engage students in phenomena-based science learning. Scholars describe these ambitious standards as involving students and teachers collaborating in understanding and enacting scientific practices, concepts, and ideas in ways that are rigorous, consequential, just, and equitable (Davis & Haverly, 2022) and requiring teachers and leaders to unlearn and relearn a great deal to enact these new instructional ideals (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine [NASEM], 2015; Smith, 2020; Windschitl et al., 2008). As such, most teachers and schools will need substantial support to actualize the aims of ambitious learning standards (NASEM, 2021b), and that will depend in important measure on their school districts’ capabilities to support instruction (Peurach et al., 2019; Spillane et al., 2019).
Recent research on standards-based reform in ELA and mathematics provides insight into how school districts can support teachers and leaders to advance ambitious instructional reform. This emerging line of research documents how school districts are re-organizing around instruction in order to build capacity to support teachers in improving teaching and learning in ways responsive to external policy pressures and internal ambitions (e.g., Austin et al., 2006; Cohen et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2014; Lyle & Peurach, 2022; Marsh et al., 2005; Weast, 2014). These accounts show how central offices are moving beyond administrative functions to take on responsibility for organizing and managing instruction in districts. Scholars describe this work as educational system-building where central office leaders collaborate with school leaders and teachers to organize and manage the day-to-day work of classroom instruction (Peurach. et al., 2019; Spillane et al., 2019; Spillane & Hopkins, 2013). School districts’ educational system-building involves five domains of work, including (a) building educational infrastructure, (b) supporting use of that infrastructure in practice, (c) managing environmental relationships, (d) managing performance, and (e) developing and distributing instructional leadership (Peurach et al., 2019; Spillane et al., 2019). From a systems-building perspective, the work of SEAs can be framed as supporting and incentivizing school districts to build educational systems to support the teaching of elementary science.
While some SEAs are supporting school districts in building their capacity for elementary science reform through resource sharing (Hopkins & Gates, 2019), professional development (Hopkins & Gates, 2019), and providing coherent guidance (Penuel et al., 2018), by and large SEAs have limited capacity and resources for this work. Moreover, building district capacity is particularly challenging in elementary science. Most federal and state reform efforts over the past several decades have focused on ELA and mathematics (e.g., NCLB, CCSS) and have thus incentivized districts to build capabilities in those subject areas. Because ELA and mathematics have long dominated the elementary school curriculum (Banilower et al., 2018; Marx & Harris, 2006), the national efforts for ambitious teaching in elementary science puts new pressures on teachers, schools, and districts. These pressures are even more demanding considering the limited instructional time historically dedicated to science in the elementary classroom (Blank, 2013; Plumley, 2019) and limited expertise of school leaders in science instruction or science leadership (Halverson et al., 2011; McNeill et al., 2018, 2022).
A key empirical issue, then, involves whether and how SEAs are supporting school districts to develop the capacity to advance the instructional vision embodied in the Framework and the NGSS. We ask two research questions:
How do SEAs understand their role in supporting elementary science reform?
How, if at all, do SEAs work to help local school districts in building capabilities for reforming elementary science instruction?
Methodology
This study is part of a larger, 5-year National Science Foundation-funded study exploring the work of developing coordinated school- and district-level elementary science learning environments in response to the Framework and NGSS. The analysis reported in this paper is based on data collected in the first year of the project that focused on state-level efforts to improve elementary science. We used a qualitative, cross-case design of 18 SEAs to explore state-level policy and practice around elementary science education.
Sample Selection
We selected a diverse sample of states that varied along a set of dimensions in order to sample across a range of state-level policies and practices for elementary science. We began our sample selection by asking experts and leaders in elementary science to identify leading states and individuals engaged in elementary science reform. Using a snowball sampling method, we gathered nominations and input from 62 elementary science leaders. We then ranked the states based upon number of nominations to identify those states that had more and less active environments for elementary science as identified by leaders in the field.
To select our sample, we developed a comparative matrix of all 50 states and the District of Columbia that included data in the following categories: type of science standards, number of nominations, population, geographic location, political leaning, and whether the state served as a lead state in the development of the NGSS. For the purposes of this paper, we do not analyze the data according to those varied characteristics and instead approach our research questions more theoretically grounded in intergovernmental relations to describe what this work looks like across geopolitical contexts. As part of the larger study, we were interested in sampling for variation in political leaning given the controversial nature of some science standards in U.S. society, in location of the state given different sociopolitical realities across regions of the U.S., and general population given different sociocultural experiences across groups in the U.S. We sampled for variation in this way in order to test the patterns in our analysis across different states. If these patterns hold across these different states, it contributes to the theoretical or analytical generalizability of our findings (Becker, 1996; Small, 2009; Yin, 2009). We first varied our sample based upon the type of science standards in each state by including (a) states that adopted the NGSS, (b) states that did not adopt the NGSS but developed standards based on the Framework/NGSS, (c) states that were in the process of revising their standards based on the Framework/NGSS, and (d) states that had neither adopted the NGSS nor developed standards based on the Framework/NGSS. We then varied our sample based on number of nominations, population, geographic location, and political leaning (see Table 1).
State Characteristics.
Large states include those in the top one-third in terms of population, mid-sized states include those in the second third of population, and small states include those in the bottom third of population.
Geographic location distinctions include; Northeast and Mid-Atlantic (East), Midwest and Plains (Midwest), South and Southwest (South), West and Northwest (West).
Political leaning is based on state U.S. Senate delegation from 2020.
Data Collection
We conducted nineteen 60-min, semi-structured interviews with 22 state science coordinators (SSCs) in 18 SEAs. 1 We do not reveal the names of the states in our study because doing so would breach the anonymity of SSCs. We collected a range of publicly available documents including state science standards, curricular resources, implementation guidance and tools, and other resources identified by participants as important to elementary science. We also conducted a review of SEA websites to gather data on publicly-available elementary science resources and information provided by these agencies.
Analysis
We began analysis by writing descriptive memos for each state based upon our review of SEA websites. These memos included data on state science standards and accountability, plans for implementation, and resources provided for elementary science, such as curriculum, tools, professional development, and other resources. We then established a set of provisional codes that describe policy contexts for elementary science by reviewing recent publications on elementary science education (Achieve, 2017a, 2017b, 2019; Committee on STEM Education, 2018; National Science Teachers Association, 2018). Using the qualitative analysis software, NVivo, we piloted the provisional codes by open coding two interview transcripts. We discussed our interpretations of the data and codes in order to build greater reliability among coders. As we coded the remainder of the transcripts, we continued meeting to discuss the codes, adding and revising as needed based on what surfaced in the open-coding process (see Appendix A). We then coded the memos generated during the review of SEA websites using the same coding scheme.
We then developed analytic memos for each state that organized the data by code (Yin, 2009). We used these analytic memos to construct a series of comparative analytic matrices based upon our research questions. We concluded with additional analytic memo writing to summarize key distinctions and similarities based upon our research questions.
Limitations
Our work has two limitations. One limitation is the small number of interviews conducted in each state. In all but one state, we conducted a single interview. We focused on interviewing across a larger number of states instead of interviewing more deeply within states to explore potential variation across states. A second limitation is the reliance on interviews and documents only as data sources. We did not observe professional development, training, or other routines for elementary science provided by the states.
Findings
We sought to uncover whether and how state education agencies (SEAs) are supporting school districts to advance elementary science reform in the context of a national movement for standards-based reform that provided states discretion in whether and how to pursue reform. We view this support through a lens of intergovernmental relations to understand the interactions between SEAs and local school districts to advance elementary science reform. We complement this perspective to include non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as they work with and between government to enact educational policy.
While states had considerable discretion in whether and how to advance elementary science reform, we observed two key patterns in how SEAs understood and enacted their work. Our findings are organized around two issues that surfaced in our data pertaining to intergovernmental relations between SEAs and local school districts as they advance elementary science reform. First, most SEAs understood their work in advancing elementary science reform as involving two central dimensions of reform activity—motivating local education leaders and teachers to engage with reforming elementary science education and building the capability of teachers and school leaders for improving elementary science. Second, most SEAs supported school districts in elementary science reform by mobilizing three key instruments—high-quality instructional materials, professional development, and, to a lesser extent, codified messages.
Central Dimensions of Elementary Science Reform Activity
SSCs identified two central dimensions of reform activity involved in their work with local school districts to advance elementary science reform. These included motivating school districts to engage in elementary science reform and building the capability of teachers and school leaders in districts for elementary science reform. SSCs described these two central dimensions of reform activity as shaped by the broader political and environmental conditions bearing on elementary science.
Motivating Elementary Science Reform
By and large, SSCs struggled with getting districts to prioritize science given the competing demands for instructional time in the elementary school curriculum. Thus, a first-order matter for SEAs seeking to improve elementary science involved motivating districts and schools to give attention and time to science instruction given the many other demands placed on elementary teachers with respect to teaching.
SSCs from 15 of the 18 SEAs acknowledged that science was not a priority in elementary schools as evidenced by the limited instructional time for science teaching. As one SSC described, “most teachers spend less than 30 minutes a week teaching science in [our state] and many do not teach science at all.” Another SSC described, “we are still in the battle of getting science taught” and a major change in their state would be, “just teachers teaching science.” For these SSCs, a central dimension of their work involved developing the will among local educators to engage with elementary science reform which, in many cases, involved getting schools to allocate instructional time for elementary science. For these SSCs, the limited attention to elementary science instruction in their states surfaced as a critical, first-order matter to which SSCs needed to attend.
Eleven of the 15 SSCs that acknowledged the limited instructional time for elementary science teaching attributed the inattention to elementary science to state and federal policies that emphasized literacy and mathematics instruction and, consequently, contributed to minimizing instructional time for science. As one SSC described, “From a state perspective, when it comes to elementary the focus is early literacy, early numeracy. A lot of the effort is towards reading, early reading, and early mathematics.” Similarly, another SSCs described science as a “backburner subject” because there is “such a strong emphasis on math and language.” These SSCs also identified state-level accountability policies and other mandates as contributing to marginalizing science at the elementary level. Seven of the 15 SSCs, for example, noted how the lack of state accountability for districts tied to elementary science contributed to the marginalization of time for the subject. One SSC said: How students do in science doesn’t really impact school grades [. . .]. The [State Department of Education] is trying really hard to say, you know, we really want you to provide those rich science experiences for students. Yet, there are a lot of signals basically respective of how they’re graded or pieces like that that marginalize science instruction at the lower grade levels.
Three of the 15 SSCs identified state mandates, such as 90-min reading blocks and student retention laws tied to reading, as further incentivizing schools to prioritize literacy and mathematics over elementary science. Moreover, three of the 15 SSCs saw an increasingly crowded and complex state policy context as further undermining efforts to improve elementary science including, among other things, revising and implementing standards in multiple subjects simultaneously and the constant rollout of new initiatives to support literacy and mathematics improvement. Thus, a critical, first-order matter for SSCs was figuring out how to motivate teachers as well as school and district leaders to attend to both getting elementary science taught and the improvement of extant science teaching, in a policy environment that was increasingly skewed toward literacy and mathematics.
A further complication was declining and unstable funding for science. Six of the 15 SSCs identified the absence or termination of funding for science education as thwarting their elementary science improvement initiatives. Four of the 15 SSCs specifically identified the drying up of federal funding for science, in particular Math Science Partnership funding from the National Science Foundation, as creating funding gaps that undermined state science education programing and services. One SSC explained: With few exceptions, [Math Science Partnerships] have not been maintained with state support. Therefore, the different initiatives do not have any sustainability piece. . .and those projects come and go, and they produce some really good things, but once a project ends, it all seems to end.
Two SSCs described how the termination of federal and state funding for science left SEAs with limited budgets or no budgets at all for science at the state-level.
For these 15 SSCs seeking to motivate district attention to elementary science, these arrangements coalesced to create a compounding dilemma. At the state-level, a complex and crowded education policy environment pressed districts to respond to multiple priorities for elementary education simultaneously, prioritizing literacy and mathematics. Shrinking and uncertain funding for science further complicated the situation for SEAs. With some states wholly dependent on special programs and funding to support elementary science, changes in these funding streams undermined their capability for sustained support for elementary science.
Three of the 18 SEAs did not identify limited instructional time for elementary science as a central challenge for elementary science reform. These SEAs were located in states with different NGSS adoption status, population distinctions, political leaning, and geographic locations. In these three SEAs, the SSCs did not identify the policy environment as a central matter shaping elementary science reform, but rather each of these SSCs pointed to building the capability of local educators as the central challenge facing elementary science reform. We take up this matter in the following section.
Building the Capability for Improving Elementary Science
Beyond motivating school districts to teach elementary science given competing demands, another central dimension of reform activity in elementary science involved building the capability of local educators—teachers, school leaders, and district leaders—to improve elementary science education. All 18 SSCs identified the need to support elementary teachers and school leaders in building the necessary knowledge and skills to engage in ambitious science instruction as a central aspect of their work.
For 11 of the 18 SSCs, building capability for standards-aligned elementary science instruction involved developing teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge, as well as their comfort with teaching science. Five of the 11 SSCs suggested that teaching all subject areas coupled with the limited attention to science in their preparation programs explained why elementary teachers needed to build their science teaching capabilities. One SSC explained, “Elementary teachers are generalists. They are trained to cover a great many subjects.” Another SSC shared, “their pedagogy is strong with learning how to read, learning how to count, numeracy, things of that nature.” They attributed this in part to teacher preparation systems that, “especially for K-5, are very science light.” Several SSCs described grappling with how best to develop teachers’ knowledge. One SSC described: We notice, especially with the adoption of the new standards that a lot of our elementary teachers do not feel like they have the content background to effectively implement some of the curriculum. We’ve really taken a huge stance in making sure that the professional developments are not just centered on general pedagogy, but that teachers have an opportunity to also build content knowledge, background knowledge they may need to know, in order to effectively implement the standards in the classroom.
For these SSCs, and others, building teacher capability for elementary science involved teachers developing a set of instructional skills and knowledge necessary for ambitious science teaching, including, among other things, knowledge of the new standards, pedagogical content expertise, and scientific content knowledge.
In addition to building teacher capability, seven of the 18 SSCs also identified the need to build elementary school leader capability as a critical matter facing their improvement efforts. As described by these SSCs, developing school leaders’ capability involved building their knowledge of the new standards and supporting leaders in using these standards in their leadership practice. For example, one SSC explained, “there’s a lack of understanding among administrators about science and what quality science learning looks like.” Another SSC described that some leaders do not understand how teaching evaluation tools (e.g., Marzano and Danielson models) apply specifically to science. Three SSCs explained that part of building school leaders’ capability involved helping leaders to reimagine elementary science as supportive of literacy and mathematics learning. For instance, one SSC described: This idea of integration [of literacy and mathematics], but thoughtful integration, is something that we’re really pushing for. It’s not just reading about science and ELA and calling that a science class [. . .]. The other strategy is helping district leaders to really see that you don’t need to do an hour-and-a-half—90 minutes of ELA, 90 minutes of math, and then there’s no time left in the day for anything else. Opening the door to different ways to approach learning all the subjects. Our work with the principals has been trying to get them to think outside the box a little bit.
For this SSC, helping school leaders reimagine elementary science instruction involved pushing against familiar notions of how, where, and when the subject could be taught.
For SSCs, the matter of building teachers’ and school leaders’ capability were further complicated by few state-level staff in science to do the work. This was true for SSCs from large, mid-sized, and small population states and for SSCs with varying size science teams supporting their work. Most states had only 1 or 2 people supporting K-12 science instruction, while other states had small teams of 3 to 5 people. In several states this meant there was one SSC to support anywhere from 1,500 to 2,600 schools. Many SSCs explained that the limited state-level science staff made it difficult to reach all schools in the state, particularly in rural areas. One SSC described, “I’ve been doing this for a year, completely solo, so having the capacity to build this and really support all educators in [the state] has been a challenge.” Another SSC explained: Right now, reaching everybody about the intent of the new standards and the new curriculum framework - that is a huge challenge. We’re talking about, in ways, equity. How do you make sure that we’re equitable in terms of providing PD? How are you in terms of equity in providing support? It is a huge concern. I guess that would be my biggest concern right now. I lose sleep over that one.
As these SSCs saw it, few state science staff limited their ability to support improvement efforts in science resulting in some districts not receiving state-level support.
Our analysis suggests that SSCs were committed to improving elementary science and appreciated that this necessitated more than just adopting new standards, but also building the capabilities of an array of educators across different levels of the system. Regardless of NGSS adoption status, state size, political leaning, or geographic location, SSCs acknowledged and appreciated that building capability involved developing teachers’ and school leaders’ knowledge of science content and pedagogy as well as helping them reimagine how science instruction might fit into elementary education. At the same time, this challenging work was exacerbated in many states by limited state resources, shrinking federal funds for science, and a policy environment that favored literacy and mathematics over science.
Supporting Districts in Elementary Science Improvement
In attending to the two central dimensions of work involved in advancing elementary science reform, SEAs mobilized three key instruments to support school districts in elementary science improvement—high-quality instructional materials, professional development opportunities, and, to a lesser extent, codified messages (Table 2). In this section, we describe how SEAs mobilized these instruments to engage school districts in elementary science improvement. We follow by describing two outlying cases where SEAs did not mobilize the aforementioned instruments and explore possible explanations as to why these SEAs did not use these instruments.
Key Instruments for Supporting Elementary Science Improvement.
Note. N = 18.
For example, curricular framework, sample lessons, scopes, & sequences.
High-Quality Instructional Materials
Fifteen of the 18 states sought to engage districts in improving elementary science by designing, curating, and/or vetting high-quality instructional materials (HQIMs) that districts could use locally to support elementary science. SSCs in these 15 states recognized that districts struggled to cultivate the instructional resources to support high-quality, standards-aligned elementary science education and believed that providing HQIMs could help to motivate districts to engage in the teaching of elementary science and develop local capability for ambitious elementary science instruction. While the SEAs varied in the types of HQIMs they provided, all 15 of these states worked within the norm of local control to engage districts in using HQIMs.
Fourteen of the 15 states that engaged districts in improving elementary science through HQIMS focused their efforts on developing curricular and instructional materials, such as curricular frameworks, scopes and sequences, sample lessons, and models of instruction, that districts could use in the planning and teaching of elementary science. These SSCs understood these materials as helping to enhance the capability of educators to engage in high-quality elementary science by providing guidance for instruction that teachers could use to build their understanding of standards-aligned science education. In particular, four of the 14 SSCs that provided curricular and instructional materials were focused on the educative potential of these materials and designed these resources to enable local educators learning from and about science instruction. As one SSC described: We have in our model science curriculum in K-5, we put in examples of what they can be doing in class and built-in links so if they didn’t understand matter and its interactions they could go to a few websites and learn about matter and its interactions. If they didn’t understand what asking questions was about, we linked them to asking questions resources.
Another SSC described: We are doing videos to accompany the science instructional plan so that we can have teachers in action engaging in those plans so people can see what it looks like in the classroom and they can get an idea. We’re also doing all sorts of videos from our end supporting all the different new things in the curriculum framework.
These SSCs viewed these materials not only as providing guidance for instruction, but as also serving a capability-building function. In part, these materials provided models of instruction that helped SSCs to exemplify for districts and teachers what high-quality elementary science entailed.
Four of the 18 states in the sample did not provide curricular and instructional materials to support elementary science reform in districts. All of these four states were Republican leaning, but the states varied in terms of NGSS adoption status, population, and geographic location. While five Republican leaning states did provide curricular and instructional materials to support elementary science reform in districts, political preferences and ideology, such as limited government and local control, in these four states may have played a role in how these states supported elementary science reform.
Seven of the 15 states that used HQIMs to support districts in elementary science reform went beyond providing instructional guidance materials to focus on helping districts vet and select HQIMs for elementary science. The SSCs in these states explained that most districts struggled to find HQIMs for elementary science and that, among other things, supporting districts in finding and adopting these materials would increase the likelihood of local engagement in elementary science. The SSCs from these seven states pointed to particular local factors that limited districts’ ability to find and procure HQIMs, including gaps in funding, limited availability of HQIMs in the market, and the prioritization of purchasing literacy and mathematics materials. For instance, one SSC explained how districts in their state often prioritized purchasing ELA and mathematics curricula over science curricula. They explained: Our idea is that if we put good curriculum in the hands of districts and teachers, there’ll be more learning that’s happening. We know that districts spend so much money on math and ELA curriculums and they hardly ever spend money on a science curriculum. We’re hoping that one of the things we can do is actually elevate some science curriculums so districts will find it easier to say, “Oh, there are actually curriculums out there that we could choose.”
These SSCs sought to support districts in navigating the market to find HQIMs for elementary science, although the states used different approaches for doing so. Some SEAs vetted curricula and provided state-generated lists of approved or recommended curricula to districts. In one state, a SEA directly connected districts with curricula publishers through state-wide curricula events. Other SEAs developed tools and guidance that districts could use to vet curricula themselves. Some SEAs facilitated state-wide textbook and instructional materials review following the standards revisions.
While seven of the 15 SEAs sought to engage districts in elementary science by helping districts vet and select HQIMs, these SSCs identified a deferral to local control over instructional materials and did not mandate districts to use particular resources. Recognizing and working within norms of local control, SSCs instead focused mostly on motivating and persuading districts to engage with HQIMs. For example, one SSC described how they viewed their role as supporting districts in curricular decision-making: We have worked with organizations to provide a vetted list of STEM curriculum. We are looking to expand that list, but just to serve as a reference as schools are either looking to make curriculum shifts or ensure that what they’re doing has evidence-based tied to it. So that is one way that we’re helping to guide districts as they make curricular decisions, not to say that they couldn’t adopt something that’s not on that list. It’s still certainly a local decision, but just another way that we’re sort of providing guidance in that area.
Another SSC explained: Because we’re a locally-controlled state, we don’t have any mandates. The only mandates we have is them taking the state assessments, and those are driven by the standards. Even the standards are technically optional, so we’re trying to be really strategic about giving really good guidance documents.
These SSCs saw their role as primarily involving providing guidance to districts around curricular decisions and acknowledged that districts maintain authority over this decision-making.
SSCs used various means to incentivize districts to engage with HQIMs for elementary science. One approach that SEAs used was to align their materials to state literacy and mathematics instructional programs and priorities. One SSC, for example, described strategically aligning elementary science scope and sequence documents to support state literacy priorities: Our sample scope and sequence documents, we were very strategic about looking at our ELA shift and making sure that we incorporated some of the non-fictional reading tasks that our ELA team is using and embed those into our science resources so that teachers could see how they can pull in those different reading assignments to support science instruction.
They go on to describe: [We say to leaders] Hey, if you implement this quality [science] curriculum that supports ELA and math through disciplinary literacy and by infusing Common Core throughout the program, that you are supporting your students in math and ELA, so you don’t have to spend three hours on ELA or have a two-hour block for math.
For this SSC, and others, incentivizing districts to take up elementary science involved explicitly organizing HQIMs to support the integration of literacy and mathematics with science and being strategic about the ways in which science instruction supported literacy and mathematics priorities. Another SEA encouraged district use of HQIMs by making it burdensome to adopt non-state approved curricula. This SSC explained: When we review curricula resources, we go under state contracts with those resources which makes it very easy for our districts to adopt. If districts opt not to adopt a program that’s on that list, then they have to go through our review process themselves and have that documented. The contracting is a heavier lift on the district’s end, so a lot of our districts do review and take our reviews and use them because the process is much easier for them and they trust the process a lot more.
Most SEAs, however, sought to incentivize districts to utilize these HQIMs namely through messaging to districts and school administrators. One SSC explained: We have been begging, pleading, cajoling, training people to use the EQUiP Rubric to evaluate sample lessons in proposed curriculum that they’re thinking about adopting, prior to purchasing it or adopting it. We’ve been recommending very strongly that they take a look at EdReports and the peer review panel results from Achieve. We’ve been asking them to push their vendors to show them a third-party analysis of the coherence that their curriculum has with the NGSS.
In this case, the SSC used messaging to advocate for practice-focused and research-developed tools. This included the EQUiP Rubric used to measure lesson- and unit-alignment with the NGSS and EdReports which identified high-quality instructional materials in science. While these SSCs used different approaches to incentivize district use of HQIMs, they recognized and worked within the constraints of local control. That, in turn, had the SSCs leaning on persuasion and messaging to encourage district use.
Eleven out of the 18 states did not help districts vet and select HQIMs for elementary science. We found no observable pattern among those states that did not help districts vet and select HQIMs by NGSS adoption status, population, geographic location, or political leaning.
Professional Development
Fourteen of the 18 SEAs sought to engage districts by providing professional development (PD) to build district capability for high-quality, standards-aligned elementary science instruction. While the SEAs varied in their designs for PD, we identified two trends in SEA approaches to PD including: (1) a focus on SEA-led PD directly to teachers and (2) SEA collaboration with external providers for PD support.
Fourteen of the 18 SEAs focused their efforts on providing PD opportunities directly to teachers. Among the 14 SEAs seeking to engage districts in elementary science through PD, 10 SEAs focused exclusively on providing direct-to-teacher PD. Four of these 14 SEAs also provided PD to audiences other than teachers, such as school leaders and, in one SEA, informal science educators that engage students in science in out-of-school contexts. The rationale for directly targeting teachers in PD echoed SSCs’ belief that developing teachers’ content knowledge and knowledge of the standards was a core challenge in implementing high-quality, standards-aligned elementary science. One SSC described: Really understanding what those standards mean and understanding those shifts and what’s different–I think that’s really important for the elementary spaces. The leap from what our previous standards look like to what they are now is hugely different. So, you know, the professional learning required in order to successfully implement them is actually pretty large.
Another SSC explained: For elementary [teachers], we need really to provide enough of a background for them to be able to allow for the opportunities to happen. Not only just providing samples of lessons, but providing that content background to help the teachers. I’m not saying all of them don’t understand, but enough don’t that it could be an obstacle in making sure that kids get those engaging experiences.
For these SSCs, the cognitive and pedagogical demand of the new standards had the SSCs directly supporting teachers to build their capability for teaching elementary science.
The majority of SEAs structured their PD as single or multi-day sessions focused on particular topics in elementary science, such as three dimensional learning, formative assessments, and others. These PD opportunities typically took the form of “symposia,” “institutes,” or “workshops” where a small subset of teachers left their district and engaged in cross-district learning on particular topics. One SEA, for example, offered “deeper learning institutes” for teachers that focused on the integration of science and literacy. The SSC described these institutes: [Deeper learning institutes] are one-day professional developments across the state to support especially science and literacy, because we recognize that literacy is being recognized as a need, and how can we build science into that or how can we use literacy in our science classroom to augment the expectations there?
Another SEA provided annual, 2-day symposia for teachers across the state to learn about topics in the state standards, such as environmental literacy. Three of the 14 SEAs focused their efforts on more ongoing, collaborative PD opportunities through state-facilitated network-based learning communities. In one SEA, for example, the SSC facilitated two professional networks focused on elementary science. This SSC explained: I ran two different networks for elementary science. One was for principals. So specifically targeting principals and helping them to get on board with what the new standards are and designing some PD modules for them to run at staff meetings around science. [The other] strategy that we tried last year was running a network of how to integrate math and science standards.
These professional networks organized and facilitated by SSCs typically met several times throughout the school year and focused on cross-district collaboration. While more ongoing and collaborative than single or multi-day sessions offered directly to teachers or administrators, these PD networking opportunities similarly sought to build the capability of teachers and leaders outside of districts.
While most SEAs focused on providing PD for teachers, limited state resources for elementary science complicated their efforts to engage teachers at scale statewide. In one state in particular, the geographic size of the state made it difficult to reach all teachers in their states. This SSC explained: Because we’re such a large state, we have pockets of excellence. We don’t have saturation yet. That’s one of the challenges we’re working with. How do we get our teachers in rural areas access to high-quality professional learning around the NGSS? That is something that we are working through.
For these SSCs, the limited state-level resources for elementary science coupled with focusing on providing PD opportunities directly to teachers complicated their efforts to engage all districts, schools, and teachers in meaningful PD experiences.
Moreover, by and large SEAs structured PD for elementary science as out-of-district opportunities where a subset of teachers and school leaders left their district to attend trainings. One SEA, however, sought to enhance the capability for elementary science within districts by building a PD infrastructure that could be used locally. This SEA developed an online module sequence focused on introducing teachers to a series of instructional approaches in elementary science (e.g., the 5E model, productive talk and student discourse, and constructing explanations). The SEA designed these modules to be used by individuals or teams as part of district-based PD and suggested that teacher teams use district-provided PLC time to explore the modules together. In contrast to other out-of-district PD opportunities, this SEA sought to support districts in building a local infrastructure for PD that could be embedded within existing school structures.
A second trend involved SEAs leveraging external support organizations to support state efforts for PD. Eleven of the 14 SEAs that provided PD collaborated with external support organizations to design and facilitate PD, including partnering with their state science teacher associations, local universities, curriculum providers, or other external partners to facilitate PD. This work involved collaborating and sharing responsibilities for the design and facilitation of PD. In several states, SEAs did not provide any PD, but rather delegated this work exclusively to external organizations through specific grant-funded projects. These SEAs provided grants to external partners, such as local museums, commercial and non-profit support providers, and other intermediary organizations, who then provided PD for elementary science directly to school districts.
Four of the 18 states in the sample did not provide PD to support elementary science reform in districts. All of these four states were Republican leaning, but the states varied in terms of NGSS adoption status, population, and geographic location. While five Republican leaning states did provide PD to support elementary science reform in districts, political preferences and ideology in these four states may have played a role in how these states supported elementary science reform.
Codified Messages for Elementary Science
Five of the 18 SEAs also sought to engage districts in supporting elementary science teaching by creating and disseminating codified messages for elementary science to school districts. By codified messages, we mean articulated and ordered communications from the SEA for how districts should engage in elementary science education. These codified messages were not formal requirements or conditions placed on districts, but rather were messages that provided guidance to districts about elementary science. These codified messages predominately focused on incentivizing school districts to engage in the teaching of elementary science and offering suggestions for how they might do so.
Four of the five SEAs provided codified messaging about instructional time for elementary science. Three SEAs established recommendations for instructional time in elementary science directly in the state science standards and by grade level. Despite being part of the state standards, SSCs underscored that these were recommendations and not requirements. One SSC explained: This instructional time is what we call just a recommendation that would be suggested. It’s not a this is what you have to do. [. . .] Those are just suggested from the educators working on the standards, that that’s how much time you would need per week or per day.
In addition to building these recommendations into the state science standards, one SEA also developed reference guides for elementary administrators to support science standards implementation which included the recommended instructional times for science. This SSC explained: I created a quick reference guide, we call them, for elementary administrators. That’s a two-page document that was some of the work that came out of the Elementary Principals Network, but then we took that document and we’re expanding it out. [. . .] We give recommendations on how much time science should be. [. . .] Every time I show that table to anyone—I show it to principals, they’re like, “Oh, I didn’t know—” It gives a little authority for science, so it’s nice.
For this SSC, the codified message on recommended instructional time was intended as a mechanism to persuade schools to engage in elementary science, despite being a recommendation and not a formal requirement.
Two of the five SEAs used communications, such as documents and resources, to formally convey the importance of teaching elementary science to districts. One SEA worked with a non-governmental agency—the state principal association—to develop videos for school leaders to be used in required principal training to communicate the importance of teaching elementary science. Another SEA sought to codify messages around the importance of elementary science through a vision and belief statement for how science instruction could support student literacy development. As described by the SSC, science provided a rich and “authentic context” in which students could learn literacy and mathematics. The SSC described, “Our beliefs document, which is posted on the [state] site, was intended to call out the attention and the opportunity of the science standards and the literacy standards really aligning and supporting each other well.” While these codified messages provided guidance for elementary science, these messages aimed to motivate and persuade (but not require) school districts to engage in supporting the teaching of elementary science.
Of the five states using codified messages to support elementary science reform in districts, four states leaned Democratic. There were no observed patterns in NGSS adoption status, population, or geographic location predicting or explaining SEA use of codified messages as a mechanism for elementary science reform.
Outliers
Two states in particular did not use any of the aforementioned instruments for supporting elementary science reform. Both of these outlying states were Republican leaning, but the two states varied by NGSS adoption status, population, and geographic location. The SSCs in these states offered different rationales for their limited engagement with districts for elementary science reform: one state had a strong preference for local control over educational decision-making and one state was constrained by limited resources.
In one of the outlying states, the SSC identified a strong preference for limited government with regards to local decision-making on instructional matters. The SSC explained: We don’t really have a whole lot of role because [our state] believes very strongly in local control. We don’t have any kind of a statewide scope and sequence. I believe, by statute, we’re not allowed to create that or to say anything about how standards are supposed to be taught.
For this SSC, the preference for strong local control reflected deeply ingrained notions of intergovernmental relations on matters of education. The state codified this preference for local autonomy through statutes which made providing guidance and support outside of their scope of work. The preference for local control in this case differs from those states that identified local control as a rationale for not mandating district use of particular curricula. In this case, the preference for local control at the state-level limited the type of supports the SEA could provide to districts. In the other aforementioned states, SEAs used some or all of the three instruments to support elementary science reform in districts but stopped short of mandating districts use SEA-promoted resources.
In the other outlying state, the SSC identified scarce resources at the state-level as constraining their ability to provide support to districts for elementary science. This state had been active in elementary science reform previously as evidence by their participation in the development of the NGSS as a lead state partner and the state’s early adoption of the NGSS, but changes to the state education budget impacted their ability to provide what they described as “boots on the ground” support for districts and schools. They explained: Right now, a lot of what I’m doing is because of lack of funding and lack of personnel. A lot of what I’m doing is answering questions that people have, sending out resources that are available. [. . .]. I will send them resources such as NextGen storyline to give them a sampling of what I’m talking about. I’ll send them to NSTA/NGSS hub so that they can see where there are some vetted lessons and other types of resources.
For this SSC, the scarce funding had their role shifting from providing direct instructional support to district and schools to the role of information broker where they connected individual teachers with instructional resources to support their work.
Discussion and Implications
Our study focused on the role of intergovernmental relations between state education agencies (SEAs) and local school districts to understand elementary science reform in 18 states. While states had considerable discretion in whether and how to advance elementary science reform, SEAs exhibited two key patterns in how state science coordinators (SSCs) understood and enacted their work advancing elementary science reform. Based on our data analysis, we advanced two claims. First, most SEAs understood their work in supporting local school districts to advance elementary science reform as involving two central dimensions of reform activity—motivating local education leaders and teachers to engage with reforming elementary science education and building the capability of teachers and school leaders for improving elementary science. Second, most states supported school districts in elementary science reform by mobilizing three key instruments—high-quality instructional materials, professional development, and, to a lesser extent, codified messages.
Our findings contribute to the growing research base on the role of state policy in supporting the implementation of ambitious learning standards. In documenting how SEAs worked to help school districts build capabilities for reforming elementary science instruction, we argue that the school subject is a critical explanatory variable in understanding SEA efforts to support standards implementation. Focusing on elementary science, we show how the school subject shapes state-level engagement and implementation of national reform efforts and we argue that theoretical and empirical work in this area must take the school subject into consideration when examining state- and district-level instructional improvement efforts. We also argue that SEAs lean on a resource-forward approach for instructional policy implementation as a means of engaging districts and schools in elementary science reform. In this section, we discuss these two central matters in understanding state efforts to support standards-based instructional reform in the context of elementary science.
SEA Designs as Rooted in Subject-Matter Challenges
In responding to national efforts to reform elementary science, states understood their work in advancing elementary science reform as involving two central dimensions of reform activity which were rooted in the broader political conditions shaping elementary science. One concerned the motivation of local actors for engaging in elementary science reform which SSCs tied to the overall marginalization of science compared to literacy and mathematics in the elementary curriculum. SSCs referenced the limited instructional time allocated for elementary science together with state and federal policies that emphasized literacy and mathematics as contributing to declining attention to and funding for science and thus complicating elementary science reform. These findings are consistent with research that documents an overall decline in science instructional time in elementary schools (Banilower et al., 2013; Blank, 2013; Smith, 2020) and the prioritization of literacy and mathematics over science (Marx & Harris, 2006; NASEM, 2021b; Spillane & Hopkins, 2013). Another central matter concerned the capability of educators across different levels of the system, including developing teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge and their comfort for teaching science. It also included the need to build school leaders’ knowledge of science reform initiatives and develop their ability to support reform efforts in schools. Our findings underscore scholarship that suggests many school leaders have limited expertise in science or science pedagogy (National Research Council, 2015), have limited understandings of science practices and pedagogy (Cherbow et al., 2020; McNeill et al., 2018), and need to develop greater expertise around science reform efforts (McNeill et al., 2022).
SSCs situated these two central dimensions of reform activity in the context of subject-matter specific challenges facing elementary science, including the prioritization of literacy and mathematics at the elementary level, federal and state funding for science, state teacher preparation policies, and others. Moreover, SEAs supported elementary science in ways that addressed subject-matter specific challenges, including supporting districts to integrate science with ELA and mathematics in order to motivate science teaching and providing high-quality instructional materials and professional development to develop teachers’ content knowledge and comfort for science teaching. SSCs’ keen attention to the subject-specific challenges facing elementary science reform both in terms of how they construct their role and support school districts suggest that the subject-matter is an important explanatory variable in understanding standards-based elementary science reform.
Yet, research on instructional reform and policy implementation can often treat teaching monolithically or focus mostly on elementary literacy or mathematics. The available empirical evidence suggests that the school subject shapes not only high school teaching (Ball, 1981; Ball & Lacey, 2012; Siskin, 1991, 2014), but also elementary teaching (Stodolsky, 1988). Specifically, the school subject shapes how elementary teachers and school leaders think about improving their teaching and how they organize for instructional improvement (Burch & Spillane, 2005; Spillane, 2000, 2005; Spillane & Hopkins, 2013). Focusing on elementary science, we document how the school subject also shapes state-level efforts to support the implementation of national reform efforts. The matter for SEAs with respect to science, for example, was not just about reforming extant teaching practice, but also getting science taught in elementary classrooms in the first place. Therefore, in identifying the unique work of states as they press for reform of elementary science, we argue that policy implementation research cannot afford to treat instructional policy and its implementation monolithically, nor can it afford to concentrate research in literacy and mathematics at the elementary level.
A Resource-Forward Approach for Elementary Science Reform
The vast majority of SEAs mobilized three key instruments to support school districts in elementary science reform—high-quality instructional materials, professional development, and codified messages. We argue that by and large the use of these instruments reflects a resource-forward approach (Peurach et al., 2022) to elementary science reform that emphasizes resourcing schools with materials and tools as the primary driver of innovation and improvement. The focus of SEAs on resourcing districts as a means of improvement reflects a longstanding approach to educational reform observed in both science and instructional reform more broadly that suggests providing more and better resources would drive more and better student learning, despite limited attention to instructional practice in context (Kahle, 2007; Peurach et al., 2022). States’ emphasis on resourcing school districts as an approach to elementary science reform can be viewed as a product of the limited resources and capacity of SEAs for policy implementation.
In helping school districts build capabilities for reforming elementary science instruction, much of the work of SEAs focused on resourcing districts with instructional materials, tools, and training for elementary science. In some states, this resourcing involved providing instructional guidance materials, such as curricular frameworks, scopes and sequences, and model lesson plans. In other states, this involved vetting or providing tools for local school districts to use in vetting high-quality instructional materials for elementary science reform. For those SEAs that provided professional development these sessions were typically organized as single or multi-day training provided outside of the district for a small group of teachers. Organized in this way, SEA-provided elementary science professional development reflected a “resource” in the external environment that districts, schools, and teachers could access and use to learn about elementary science reform.
From one perspective, a focus on resourcing districts and schools with materials, tools, and training reflects a strategic approach by SEAs to support instructional policy implementation in elementary science. As we document in this study, SEAs have limited capacity to support elementary science reform given the small number of science staff and limited budgets for science at the state-level in many states. Resourcing districts and schools with instructional materials, tools, and training that can be used locally for elementary science reform can be viewed as a strategic use of the limited resources at the state-level to support a large number of schools. In many cases, SSCs saw these resources as helping to build the capability of districts for elementary science reform. In particular, some SSCs saw these resources as having educative potential that could support teacher learning about science through the use of these materials. For other SSCs, the resources provided practical, research-based tools and materials, such as the EQUIP Rubric for Science, that could be leveraged locally to support standards implementation.
Viewed from another perspective, however, leaning on a resource-forward approach can be seen as partial in relation to the full scope of work needed to support ambitious elementary science reform. As described at the onset, recent research on standards-based reform in ELA and mathematics provides insight into the core domains of work observed in district central offices as they responded to external policy pressures and internal ambitions for instructional reform (e.g., Austin et al., 2006; Cohen et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2014; Lyle & Peurach, 2022; Marsh et al., 2005; Peurach et al., 2019; Spillane et al., 2019; Weast, 2014). This work involved district central offices reorganizing around the work of instruction and building educational systems to support local capabilities for ambitious instructional reform. Central offices developing as educational systems demonstrated critical capabilities in core domains of work, including (a) establishing an educational infrastructure, (b) supporting infrastructure use in practice, (c) managing environmental relationships, (d) managing performance, and (e) developing and distributing instructional leadership (Peurach et al., 2019; Spillane et al., 2019). While the work of educational system-building in the U.S. typically occurs at the level of district central offices, we argue that SEAs have the potential to play an important role in standards implementation by supporting and incentivizing school districts in building educational systems focused on supporting instruction. This may include, among other things, supporting and incentivizing districts to build capabilities in the five domains of practice outlined above.
Conclusion
Our account contributes to the growing research base on the role of state policy in supporting the implementation of ambitious learning standards by documenting (a) how SEAs understood their work in supporting elementary science reform and (b) how SEAs aimed to support school districts in elementary science reform. In particular, we argue that the school-subject matters when examining state- and district-level instructional improvement efforts, and SEAs lean on a resource-forward approach for instructional policy implementation as a means of engaging districts in elementary science reform.
While we detail a compilation of complexities SEAs face in engaging school districts in elementary science improvement, we see promise in the evolving relationships between SEAs and school districts. As standards-based reform policies expanded the role of SEAs in instructional policymaking, we see evidence of SEAs also evolving as instructional policy implementers. This development points to the potential role of SEAs in helping to build the capability of local school districts to actualize ambitious instructional policy in schools and suggests that understanding instructional reform efforts at scale, in part, requires attention to the interaction of SEAs and school districts around matters of instruction. This research yields further questions about how these intergovernmental relationships play out for those engaged deeply in these systems. Future research in this area would benefit from deeper exploration of these relationships between SEAs and school districts as they are enacted in practice and as they bear on the professional work of teachers and school and district leaders.
Footnotes
Appendix
Coding Scheme.
| 1. Standards and accountability |
| 1.1. The state has recently adopted new science standards, based on the Framework and/or NGSS 1.2. The state has high-quality assessments, aligned to the state standards, which signal student performances are consistent with expectations of the standards. 1.3. Elementary science is included in state accountability and/or certification systems. 1.4. The state has set statewide achievement goals for improving science education. |
| 2. Resources for implementation |
| 2.1. The state develops and enriches strategic partnerships and collaborations with external partners which may be community-based, with universities, across districts, across states, across educators, with informal educators, with local businesses, etc. 2.2. Management of implementation efforts is handled carefully and intentionally through the formation of a science leadership team, publishing strategic plans and budgets, and so on. 2.3. The state leverages some form of internal partners (i.e., intermediate school districts, districts, schools, groups of practitioners) in its implementation efforts. 2.4. One or more agencies or organizations play an active role engaging with the state and/or districts or schools in elementary science reform efforts. |
| 3. Elementary science education |
| 3.1. The state has a policy related to elementary science instructional time. 3.2. The state advocates for engaging students in interdisciplinary learning opportunities. 3.3. Instructional materials are curated for districts (i.e., through the creation of an inventory, articulation of beliefs and policies around procurement, provision of objective criteria to use for evaluating materials, training of educators to evaluate materials, etc.). 3.4. Materials for implementation are curated for districts (i.e., supports for practice including tools, documents, resources, plans, protocols, etc.). 3.5. Equity and access are policy priorities for elementary science. |
| 4. Professional learning opportunities |
| 4.1. Sustained opportunities for professional learning for teachers are supported by the state. 4.2. High-quality professional learning opportunities for administrators are supported by the state. 4.3. Professional learning opportunities for state-level science specialists are in place. |
| 5. Context |
| 5.1. Information on the political climate is in the state for science education reform. 5.2. Historical context for elementary science reform. |
| 6. Challenges |
| 7. Vision for elementary science instruction |
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge those who shared comments on earlier manuscripts and presentations on which the analysis draws, as well as the members of the research team: Elizabeth Davis, Anna Foster, Donald Peurach, and Emily Seeber. All opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any funding agency.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Work on this article was funded by the National Science Foundation (Core grant number DRL-1761057).
