Power and Politics in the Adoption of School Reform Models

Abstract

States, districts, and schools are promoting and attempting whole school improvement through the use of externally developed reform designs. This article examines how and why schools adopt reforms and the consequences of those processes for reform implementation and sustainability. Case study data are presented on 22 schools, and three types of reform adoption processes are discussed: (a) districts encouraging schools to choose among a set of reforms; (b) districts pushing schools to adopt a particular reform; and (c) principals bringing reform designs to their schools. In no case did the impetus for reform adoption arise among teachers in these schools. Because a hierarchical approach is evident in each of these reform adoption scenarios, data are analyzed in terms of a micropolitical perspective. Findings show that the power relations surrounding reform adoption often thwarted genuine initial buy-in and interest in change among local educators, as well as, in some cases, their subsequent implementation efforts. Educators often also had varying perspectives on how the adoption process occurred, suggesting differences in perspective on the reform itself. Recommendations for how the reform adoption process could be improved are discussed.

Beyond Accountability and Average Mathematics Scores: Relating State Education Policy Attributes to Cognitive Achievement Domains

“…For example, strong authoritative policies with genuine teacher participation can counteract weaknesses in other strategies, such as lack of stability (Desimone, 2002). Similarly, balancing the use of power and authority can be critical in eliciting changes in teachers' instructions (Datnow, 2000). Consistency can support or weaken power; for example, if high‐stakes testing and school‐based curricula are not aligned, leadership could be perceived as sending mixed messages, no matter how powerful the rewards and incentives attached to the high‐stakes testing.…”

“…Teacher participation in decisions is one key mechanism by which leadership/management strategies in the educational system generate authority (e.g., Purkey & Smith, 1983; Smith et al, 1997). For decades, teacher involvement in decision‐making has been linked to better implementation of school and classroom change efforts (e.g., Berman & McLaughlin, 1975; Cuban, 1984; Datnow, 2000; Desimone, 2002; Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet, & Suk Yoon, 2002; Goodlad, 1984; Louis & Marks, 1998; Louis & Miles, 1990; McLaughlin, 1976, 1987; Sizer, 1984, 1992; Tyack, 1990).…”

The reincarnation of the effective schools research: rethinking the literature on district effectiveness

“…Yet, critics of the school effectiveness tradition problematized its investigations not just in terms of the shortcomings in many of their designs, but for the overly technical-rational perspectives that framed their inquiries. These scholars called for more holistic school effectiveness studies that explicitly examined the political, social, and normative factors that shape schools' capacity to be judged effective (Slee et al, 1998), and that scholars have repeatedly found to significantly shape educational processes and outcomes, particular when reforms are equity-oriented (Datnow, 2000;Oakes, 1992;Trujillo, 2013a, b;Welner, 2001). Critics also interrogated many school effectiveness studies for the lack of theoretical rationales behind their design and analysis (Teddlie and Reynolds, 2000).…”

The failure of the U.S. education research establishment to identify effective practices: Beware effective practices policies

“…5 To my knowledge this is the first time that federal monies were restricted in this fashion. Datnow (2000) reported that by 2000 over 1800 schools had each received $50,000 a year for up to three years for adopting one of the listed effective programs. There was also an effort in a number of states to require schools to use their Title I funds to adopt one of these "effective" programs.…”