Striving for Coherence, Struggling With Incoherence: A Comparative Study of Six Educational Systems Organizing for Instruction

Abstract

This article examines how leaders in public, private, and hybrid educational systems manage competing pressures in their institutional environments. Across all systems, leaders responded to system-specific puzzles by (re)building systemwide educational infrastructures to support instructional coherence and framed these efforts as rooted in concerns about pragmatic organizational legitimacy. These efforts surfaced several challenges related to educational equity; leaders framed their responses to these challenges as tied to both pragmatic and moral organizational legitimacy. To address these challenges, leaders turned to an array of disparate government and nongovernment organizations in their institutional environments to procure and coordinate essential resources. Thus, the press for instructional coherence reinforced their reliance on an incoherent institutional environment.

The paradox of leading amidst uncertainty: maintaining balance on an unstable beam

“…This democratic press arises primarily from social movements and is not yet widely institutionalized in state or federal policies in ways that parallel the press for rationalization. As a result, although educators are increasingly adopting beliefs and goals aligned with this press, they struggle to enact these ideas amidst the stronger and conflicting demands of rationalization and accountability (Bertrand and Rodela, 2018;Spillane et al, 2022;Trujillo et al, 2021;Woulfin and Weiner, 2019). Not only is this…”

“…This democratic press arises primarily from social movements and is not yet widely institutionalized in state or federal policies in ways that parallel the press for rationalization. As a result, although educators are increasingly adopting beliefs and goals aligned with this press, they struggle to enact these ideas amidst the stronger and conflicting demands of rationalization and accountability (Bertrand and Rodela, 2018; Spillane et al ., 2022; Trujillo et al ., 2021; Woulfin and Weiner, 2019). Not only is this press not yet institutionalized, but it is also contended, sometimes prompting a reactionary press that centers on limiting the influence of historically marginalized groups and preserving privileged groups' control over educational decision-making.…”

“…Environmental uncertainty refers to the state of conflicting and changing policies, expectations, values and assumptions that schools must negotiate (Bridwell-Mitchell, 2013; Hodge and Stosich, 2022)—for example, the press to simultaneously rationalize teaching and learning and increase democratic engagement. It is generated by the layers of policies and regulations arising out of historical traditions of local democratic control (Cohen and Spillane, 1992), as well as the complex and dynamic network of organizations schools rely on for resources, support and legitimacy (Bridwell-Mitchell, 2018; Burch, 2007; Spillane et al ., 2022). Technical uncertainty arises out of the internal work of organizations, particularly the degree of variability of work processes, ambiguity about cause-effect relationships and interdependence (Thompson, 1967/2002).…”

“…We see the paradox perspective as offering numerous affordances for understanding educational organizations generally as well as the specific challenge of navigating uncertainty. First, a paradox perspective captures the enduring and evolving dilemmas facing school systems in response to a rationalizing and democratic press (Spillane et al ., 2022; Watson, 2013). Paradox theory can also offer a metatheoretical perspective (Smith and Lewis, 2011) that can build connections among a variety of domains of educational research—learning sciences, social justice leadership, system building and schools as organizations—all focused on navigating the uncertainty generated by a growing democratic and rationalizing press.…”

Bridging Educational Change and Social Justice: A Call to the Field

“…The field of educational change has contributed to building an understanding of a range of topics, including the role of educators in educational change, implementing and sustaining change, how context shapes change efforts, systemic reform, and the implications of evidence-informed improvement strategies, among many other topics (e.g., Fullan, 2015; Garcia-Huidobro et al, 2017; Hargreaves et al, 2009; Malone, 2015; Peurach et al, 2022; Spillane et al, 2022; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Research on educational change has illuminated the role of educational policy in establishing accountability systems, mandating new standards, and establishing professional development networks (e.g., Daly & Finnigan, 2016; Darling-Hammond et al, 2017).…”