Humans in Hierarchies: Intergroup Relations in Education Reform

Abstract

Purpose: Existing research on loosely coupled educational systems has largely ignored the social and affective dimensions of such systems. Drawing on literature from organizational behavior, this study examines how “human” factors, including role identity dynamics, power dynamics, and stereotyping, shape the implementation of state-led education reforms. Research Method/Approach: This study draws on interviews and focus groups with 77 actors from different organizational levels in two states and uses a grounded theory analytical approach. Findings: Our findings indicate that stereotyping is ubiquitous across contexts, that the way actors stereotype and perceive each other depends on their positions in the system, and that stereotypes of higher ups often persist even as higher ups are aware of them and try unsuccessfully to mitigate them. We theorize about the reasons for these outcomes and their consequences for efforts at systemic change. Implications for Research and Practice: This study underscores the importance of social and emotional factors in education reform efforts, which have been under-theorized to this point. It demonstrates that reforms could be more successful when higher ups and lower downs have more frequent and meaningful interactions, which facilitate opportunities to break down social and emotional barriers to successful implementation.

Professional Identity as an Analytic Lens for Principal Learning in Contexts of Transformation

“…Attention to principal identity is growing, especially alongside calls to move away from more technocratic views of principal leadership and educational change (Crow et al, 2016; Cruz-González et al, 2021; Rinehart Kathawalla & Mehta, 2022). Recent scholarship on principal identity includes arguments for more explicit sociocultural conceptions of identity by examining how relationships between social context and individual identity evolve over time (e.g., Crow et al, 2016).…”

“…Typical approaches to understanding leadership reform and learning are likely to be insufficient (e.g., Holme et al, 2014; Yurkofsky, 2022). There is a need for conceptual and analytic tools for understanding the human-centered, contextual, and relational complexity of how learning and change unfold (e.g., Rinehart Kathawalla & Mehta, 2022).…”