Constraints, Values, and Information: How Leaders in One District Justify Their Positions During Instructional Decision Making

Abstract

Using over 350 hours of observational data from district-level meetings, we investigate how leaders support their interpretations of problems and proposed solutions during closed-door negotiations around three policy decisions, and how they invoke race, class, and language in the process. District leaders primarily cite constraints from stakeholders, practical realities, and policies during deliberations. They also draw on beliefs, values, and—to a lesser extent—information like research and data. Race, class, and language discourses were layered with values-based reasons, and most often addressed structural challenges to equity. The balance of attention to these factors depended on the configuration of participants and the nature of the policy decision itself, particularly decision makers’ perception that it would be controversial among certain groups.

Solving for X: Constructing Algebra and Algebra Policy During a Time of Change

“…We created decision trajectories, a detailed collection of all the observational data related to a given topic, arranged longitudinally. Using these decision trajectories, we could follow each deliberation from the first observed meeting through the negotiations that occurred over 2 years (Huguet et al 2017(Huguet et al , 2021. One trajectory focused on the Algebra I debate.…”

“…Decisions emerge through a series of conversations in which ways of thinking about problems take shape and ''accrete'' in incremental steps to set the organization on a particular course (Weiss and Bucuvalas 1980). These decisions involve interpretive, persuasive, and political processes and are influenced by the configuration of decision-makers and their roles, backgrounds, and beliefs about instruction; the controversy over a decision; and broader political and organizational conditions (Asen 2015;Coburn, Honig, and Stein 2009;Daly and Finnigan 2016;Honig, Venkateswaran, and McNeil 2017;Huguet et al 2021;Park, Daly, and Guerra 2013;Spillane 2000).…”

“…Given the contested nature of when and how Algebra I should be offered to students, district leaders weigh a range of factors. They must consider the pedagogical content and materials, schools' logistical capabilities (e.g., their ability to staff courses), and political constraints due to various stakeholders' opinions (Huguet et al 2021). Furthermore, given Algebra I's role in stratifying student outcomes by race and class, any debate about algebra is inherently also a debate about achieving more equitable (i.e., less stratified) outcomes.…”

“…The CCSS-M represented a new way of structuring algebra, with algebraic ideas developed across grades K through 12. As states adopted CCSS-M, educators confronted issues around professional development, instructional materials, and how to structure and sequence new mathematics courses (Durland et al 2016; Huguet et al 2021).…”

“…Allbright and colleagues (2018) follow their model but add the category of transformational to denote increasingly politically progressive conceptions and policies. Research shows that equity policies are limited by the way policymakers conceptualize equity and that conceptions of equity change to meet districts’ political demands (Huguet et al 2021; Turner and Spain 2020).…”