The Coherence Challenge Between Policy Makers and School Leaders: Exploring a National Pedagogical Reform

Abstract

Purpose

It has been suggested that coherency between primary stakeholders involved in an educational reform is a key determinant of its success. The “Meaningful Learning Reform” is defined as an open reform, serving as a bottom-up solution to promote school autonomy. This reform allows school leaders to exercise considerable discretion regarding the broad policy’s goals of reaching 21^st century learning skills in public schools. The purpose of this study is to examine the variations in perceptions of policy makers and principals while implementing this generally outlined “Meaningful Learning Reform.”

Methodology

In this qualitative phenomenological study, interviews were conducted with principals (N = 30), that were involved in the implementation of the reform examined, and policy makers (N = 2) that served as national initiators of the reform.

Findings

The data analysis of the stakeholders conveys the coherency of interpretations in three main themes: (a) misalignments in the nature of reform’s meaning—including differences in the perceptions of the name given to the reform, the reform’s purpose, and its foundation tenets; (b) contradictions regarding the authority leading the reform—various outlooks regarding the direction of the leading authority; and (c) difficulties in the process of implementation—including initiation and implementation phases of the reform.

Originality/Value

The exploration of the variations of interpretations between policy makers and principals contributes to a deeper understanding of coherency in the educational context. The data provides new insights regarding the dynamics between top-down and bottom-up leadership while implementing a generally outlined pedagogical reform.

Keywords

reform implementation principals policy makers coherence pedagogical reform

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

C. D.

Penuel

W. R.

(2015). Studying teachers’ sensemaking to investigate teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114560646

Ball

S. J.

Maguire

Braun

(2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactment in secondary schools. Routledge.

BenDavid-Hadar

(2016). School finance policy and social justice. International Journal of Educational Development, 46, 166-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.10.003.

Berkovich

(2011). No, we won’t! Teachers’ resistance to educational reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111159548

Birkland

(2010). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (3rd ed.). M. E. Sharpe.

Bogotch Shields (2014). International handbook of educational leadership and social (in) justice (Vol. 29). Springer.

Bridich

S. M.

(2016). The invisible schism: Teachers’ and administrators’ differing perceptions of education reforms. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 87. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2192.

Coburn

C. E.

(2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x032006003

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.

10.

Colestock

Sherin

M. G.

(2009). Teachers’ sense-making strategies while watching video of mathematics instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 7–29.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.

12.

Da’as

Zibenberg

(2019). Conflict, control and culture: Implications for implicit followership and leadership theories. Educational Review, 73(2), 194–208. ‏https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1601614

13.

Daly

A. J.

Liou

Y.-H.

Brown

(2016). Social red ball: Exploring energy relationships in a school district leadership team. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 412–448. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.412

14.

Datnow

(2006). Connections in the policy chain: The “co-construction” of implementation in comprehensive school reform. In New directions in education policy implementation confronting complexity (pp. 105-124). State University, New York Press.

15.

Derrington

M. L.

Campbell

J. W.

(2015). Implementing new teacher evaluation systems: Principals’ concerns and supervisor support. Journal of Educational Change, 16(3), 305326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9244-6

16.

Diamond

J. B.

(2012). Accountability policy, school organization, and classroom practice: Partial recoupling and educational opportunity. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511431569

17.

Elmore

R. F.

(2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Harvard Education Press.

18.

Fullan

Quinn

(2015). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts and systems. Corwin.

19.

Gawlik

M. A.

(2015). Shared sensemaking: How charter school leaders ascribe meaning to accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-08-2013-0092

20.

Gibbs

G. R.

(2018). Analyzing qualitative data. Sage Publications Ltd.

21.

Grice

(2019). Leading pedagogical reform. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(2), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1463462

22.

Hallinger

Lee

(2013). Exploring principal capacity to lead reform of teaching and learning quality in Thailand. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(4), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.03.002

23.

Hannay

L. M.

Earl

(2014). Transformational cultural norms supportive of knowledge management. In Reframing transformational leadership (pp. 55-80). Brill Sense.

24.

Honig

M. I.

(2004). Where’s the “up” in bottom-up reform? Educational Policy, 18(4), 527–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804266640

25.

Honig

M. I.

Hatch

T. C.

(2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033008016

26.

Hopfenbeck

T. N.

Flórez Petour

M. T.

Tolo

(2015). Balancing tensions in educational policy reforms: Large-scale implementation of Assessment for Learning in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2014.996524

27.

Koyama

(2014). Principals as bricoleurs: Making sense and making do in an era of accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x13492796

28.

Kraaz

M. S.

(2009). Leadership as institutional work: A bridge to the other side. Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 59–91). Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations.

29.

Leithwood

Patten

Jantzi

(2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x10377347

30.

Louis

K. S.

Robinson

V. M.

(2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629–665. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249853

31.

Marz

Kelchtermans

Dumay

(2016). Stability and change of mentoring practices ina capricious policy environment: Opening the “black box of institutionalization”. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1086/685846

32.

McDonnell

L. M.

Weatherford

M. S.

(2016). Recognizing the political in implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x16649945

33.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

M. A.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

34.

Nathaniel

Pendergast

L. L.

Segool

Saeki

Ryan

(2016). The influence of testbased accountability policies on school climate and teacher stress across four states. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 492-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.013.

35.

New Leaders (2013). Change agents: How state can develop effective school leaders. New Leaders.

36.

Nir

Ben-David

Bogler

Inbar

Zohar

(2016). School autonomy and 21st century skills in the Israeli educational system: Discrepancies between the declarative and operational levels. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1231–1246. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-11-2015-0149

37.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2019). Income inequality. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

38.

Ornstein

A. C.

Hunkins

F. P.

(2018). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Pearson Education Limited.

39.

Park Jeong (2013). School reforms, principal leadership, and teacher resistance: evidence from Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education.

40.

Petko

Egger

Cantieni

Wespi

(2015). Digital media adoption in schools: Bottom up, top-down, complementary or optional? Computers & Education, 84(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.019

41.

Peurach

D. J.

(2011). Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, possibilities, and success for all. Oxford University Press.

42.

Porter

R. E.

Fusarelli

L. D.

Fusarelli

B. C.

(2015). Implementing the common core: How educators interpret curriculum reform. Educational Policy, 29(1), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814559248

43.

Ramberg

M. R.

(2014). What makes reform work? School-based conditions as predictors of teachers’ changing practice after a national curriculum reform. International Education Studies, 7(6), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n6p46

44.

Richards

Morse

J. M.

(2013). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

45.

Robinson

Aronica

(2016). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Penguin Books.

46.

Rorrer

A. K.

Skrla

Scheurich

J. J.

(2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x08318962

47.

Rossman

G. B.

Rallis

S. F.

(2016). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.

48.

Rowan

(1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. Review of Research in Education, 16(1), 353–389. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167356

49.

Russell

J. L.

Bray

L. E.

(2013). Crafting coherence from complex policy messages: Educators’ perceptions of special education and standards-based accountability policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(12), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n12.2013

50.

Spillane

J. P.

Anderson

(2014). The architecture of anticipation and novices’ emerging understandings of the principal position: Occupational sense making at the intersection of individual, organization, and institution. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600705

51.

Stoll

Kools

(2017). The school as a learning organization: A review revisiting and extending a timely concept. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 2(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-09-2016-0022

52.

Sullanmaa

Pyhältö

Pietarinen

Soini

(2019). Differences in state- and district-level stakeholders’ perceptions of curriculum coherence and school impact in national curriculum reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-08-2018-0153

53.

Taylor

S. J.

Bogdan

DeVault

(2016). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley.

54.

Versland

T. M.

Erickson

J. L.

(2017). Leading by example: A case study of the influence of principal self-efficacy on collective efficacy. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1286765. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2017.1286765

55.

Weick

K. E.

(1982). Administering education in loosely coupled schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 63(10), 673–676.

56.

Werts

A. B.

Brewer

C. A.

(2014). Reframing the study of policy implementation: Lived experience as politics. Educational Policy, 29(1), 206–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814559247

57.

Young

Lewis

W. D.

(2015). Educational policy implementation revisited. Educational Policy, 29(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815568936

58.

Youngs

Holdgreve-Resendez

R. T.

Qian

(2011). The role of instructional program coherence in beginning elementary teachers’ induction experiences. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1086/657655