“The Good Struggle” of Flexible Specificity: Districts Balancing Specific Guidance With Autonomy to Support Standards-Based Instruction

Abstract

This study examines implementation of college-and-career-ready (CCR) education standards across five school districts in Ohio, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Drawing on the policy attributes theory, we found that the specificity of districts’ approaches to two long-recognized policy levers, curriculum and professional learning, was critical in shaping how stakeholders implemented and experienced CCR policies. We identified an approach we called “flexible specificity”—flexibility informed by ongoing data collection and evaluation that allowed districts to develop specific, useful guidance about curriculum and professional learning based on stakeholder needs. We present four shared practices characterizing this approach in two districts, analyzing why those districts seemed to find the right balance of specificity and flexibility while others struggled.

Changes that stick

“…But within that time frame no one tells us what we have to do on which day. We determine that as a PLC [professional learning community]; as a grade level team we determine how we're going to pace things (Stornaiuolo, Desimone, & Polikoff, 2023).…”

“…Districts can facilitate flexible specificity by creating continuous feedback loops or conversations that allow educators to communicate their needs (Stornaiuolo, Desimone, & Polikoff, 2023). In these conversations, teachers can discuss implementation and the supports they need, and leaders can share how they will address those needs.…”

“…The standards are listed for us there, but it's so many standards and it's just -how is this going to work in my classroom? (Stornaiuolo, Desimone, & Polikoff, 2023) In our study, district leaders used several mechanisms to promote consistency between new policies and educators' current practice, as well as consistency among resources and professional learnings. Continuous feedback loops, such as gathering feedback through surveys or in meetings and responding to concerns raised, helped ensure consistency by providing teachers the opportunity to communicate how the policy integrated into their current practice and to suggest ways to adapt the policy to better fit their instruction and their students' needs (Stornaiuolo, Desimone, & Polikoff, 2023).…”

“…(Stornaiuolo, Desimone, & Polikoff, 2023) In our study, district leaders used several mechanisms to promote consistency between new policies and educators' current practice, as well as consistency among resources and professional learnings. Continuous feedback loops, such as gathering feedback through surveys or in meetings and responding to concerns raised, helped ensure consistency by providing teachers the opportunity to communicate how the policy integrated into their current practice and to suggest ways to adapt the policy to better fit their instruction and their students' needs (Stornaiuolo, Desimone, & Polikoff, 2023). In other examples, districts brought together teachers of students with disabilities, English learners, and general education students to help them understand the policy and to share supports, ideas, and strategies for implementation (Pak, Desimone, & Parsons, 2020).…”

Local success in the standards era

“…A set of in-depth studies across multiple states and in Chicago help illuminate what strategies seem most promising. The Center for Standards, Assessment, Instruction, and Learning (C-SAIL), a five-year research center funded by the Institute for Education Sciences, drew on data from California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas for its studies (Desimone et al, 2019; Edgerton & Desimone, 2018, 2019; Pak, Desimone, & Parsons, 2020; Nichols, Edgerton, & Desimone, 2021; Pak, Polikoff et al, 2020; Song et al, 2022; Stornaiuolo, Desimone, & Polikoff, 2023). Data included representative surveys of 84 district officials, 439 principals, and 1,760 teachers; 36 interviews with state officials; 54 district interviews across nine districts; and in-depth teacher interviews, classroom observations, and focus groups with students in three districts.…”