School leader enactments of the structure/agency dialectic via buffering

Abstract

Even though school administrators and their leadership practices are rarely explored within science education research, our recent efforts to understand organizational influences on achievement disparities induced an elevated regard for elementary school principals. In this paper, we report on policy buffering by principals at schools whose science test scores exceed statistical expectations. We approached principals to learn more about their science program and the potential leadership and organizational infrastructures that might explain their schools' exemplary performance with students from diverse backgrounds. As street-level bureaucrats, principals are expected to translate formal policy while also ensuring the school is supportive of the teachers and the students. By applying a structure/agency perspective, principals were found to engage in the cognitive professional practice of buffering in four ways: adjusting school structures to accommodate new policies; negotiating compromises with central office about policy implementation; shielding teachers from low-priority policies; and occasionally encouraging teachers to preemptively engage in district-level representation to shape policy implementation. In addition, we uncovered many instances where principals were unwilling to deflect policy and worked with teachers accordingly. We learned that buffering is a cognitive act in which principals make rationale choices about policy and in certain instances will shield their school out of compassion for the teachers and students. It is likely that principal buffering contributes to the equitability and excellence of student performance on their schools' statewide science test. # 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52:503-515, 2015.

Instructional leadership in the era of the NGSS: Principals’ understandings of science practices

“…Leadership at all levels also plays an important role to move toward the vision of science instruction laid out in recent reform efforts (NRC, ). For instance, school principals’ decisions and instructional leadership ultimately impact students’ learning of science (Wenner & Settlage, ). Our research suggests that K–8 principals have limited understandings of the science practices and tend to focus on general pedagogy when observing science instruction.…”

An analysis of science instruction for the science practices: Examining coherence across system levels and components in current systems of science education in K‐8 schools

“…In terms of vertical coherence, school principals are tasked with translating formal top‐down policy (e.g., evaluation systems and educational reform) for teachers and students in their schools (Lipsky, 2010; Wenner & Settlage, 2015). As a result, school principals play an important role in establishing and maintaining a shared understanding concerning the goals, enactment, and evaluation of science reform between system levels above (i.e., district, state) and below (i.e., classroom) within the context of their school (Fishman et al, 2004).…”

“…School principals generally operate as the primary executor of state and local system‐level policies (e.g., accountability measures, reform movements) within schools (Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 2010). Therefore, principals serve an important role in shaping current science instruction (Wenner & Settlage, 2015) and science reform movements as they emerge in K‐12 science classrooms (Fishman, Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2004). We used the vantage point of school leaders to analyze how the interactions among system levels and components of science education contribute to the current state of science instruction (McNeill et al, 2018).…”

Community organizations’ programming and the development of community science teachers

“…As Wenner and Settlage () note “Structures shape the situations an actor involuntarily confronts, with structures sometimes limiting and other times empowering the actor” (p. 505). The Toxic Tour made the TFs think about environmental injustices as being caused or exacerbated by political and economic structures, but some did not explicitly question (at least in their written reflections) why toxic industries are in close proximity to Little Village and other low‐income neighborhoods of color.…”