Kimberly LeChasseur

Negotiating Site- Based Management and Expanded Teacher Decision Making: A Case Study of Six Urban Schools

Purpose: This article presents findings from a study of six schools in the Together Initiative (TI), which facilitates increased school autonomy from districts and expands teacher decision-making authority. This study aims to understand how TI’s theory of action changed structures, cultures, and agency as the concepts of site-based management and expanded teacher decision making were interpreted and implemented by district and school leaders and teachers. Research Design: Data were collected over the first 2 years of the initiative using a concurrent mixed-methods design. Field notes from more than 200 hours of observations and transcripts of 231 semistructured interviews with stakeholders were coded using the constant-comparative method. Findings from qualitative data were triangulated with annual teacher survey findings. Findings: Implementation of TI varied across the six schools and depended greatly on school staffs’ existing relationships the district, principal support for decision-making structures, and the extent to which school cultures reflected trust and teachers were able to enact greater agency. Only two schools experienced moderate increases in site-based management and expanded teacher decision making; those that did not were missing at least one of these structural or cultural supports. Conclusions: At a time when charter schools are touted as an effective reform model, this article informs policy and practice on the original charter concept—autonomous, innovative district schools. Our findings suggest that creating contexts where site-based management can flourish is far more complicated than changing structures or establishing supportive school cultures.

The Structure and Substance of Teachers' Opportunities to Learn about Teacher Evaluation Reform: Promise or Pitfall for Equity?.

ABSTRACT Despite growing momentum to overhaul teacher evaluation policies and practices, scant research examines how educators at the street level of such reform—principals and teachers—make sense of them, and almost no research examines the implications of current evaluation reforms for equity. This article provides findings based on a study of 14 districts implementing a new teacher evaluation policy in Connecticut. It focuses on how principals shaped teachers’ opportunities to learn about the new policy. We find that the majority of teachers’ opportunities to learn were formal and in whole group or one-on-one formats. We find important differences in the quantity and quality of learning opportunities at the district level, with districts serving greater shares of low-income students, students of color, and English language learners generally offering teachers fewer and lower quality opportunities to learn about the new reform than their counterparts. As such, this article builds on prior research illustrating the potential of new evaluation systems to exacerbate inequities and raises important cautions regarding the extent to which the unprecedented teacher evaluation reforms (currently underway) may exacerbate inequities among school districts.

Re-examining power and privilege in collective impact

Abstract The dual purpose of this article is to deconstruct the collective impact approach’s treatment of power and privilege while reconstructing the model’s potential to encourage equity agendas in community change. Drawing on discourse analysis of three articles describing collective impact and case studies of two equity-oriented partnerships, analyses explore entry points for framing collective impact in ways that encourage equity as a foundation to partnership practices. Analyses suggest that the original descriptions of the approach referenced by community partners promote the marketization of change and a universal view of success, which mask opportunities to draw on the strengths of individuals and address the distribution of resources. However, partners in two communities in the US were able to use shared measurement practices to layer equity agendas onto the approach. Partners in these cases went beyond the guidance provided through the collective impact approach’s tenets at the advice of funders and community partners.

Critical Race Theory and the Meaning of “Community” in District Partnerships

This article uses a critical race theory lens to explore how members of one community-district partnership understand “community.” Engaging the community through full service schools (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002), parent engagement programs (Comer & Emmons, 2006), lab schools through universities (Goldring & Sims, 2005), and other partnerships have become a major strand of reform in schools and districts. However, there is a dearth of critical scholarship that explores the contested meanings and implications of evoking community-laden terminology and approaches (Sanders, 2003; Warren, 2005). Using a grounded theory approach, this case study draws from a combination of ethnographic observations of governance meetings, committee meetings, and events over a year and a half; semi-structured interviews with 11 governance council members from the school district and other partners; and document analysis. Iterative rounds of coding identified ten concepts that were organized into three key categories: geographical and sociocultural conceptualizations of community, “community” as a euphemism, and structuring constraints and empowerment through advisory roles. These findings have broad implications for how we engage in community development and district partnership work in ways that are constructive, effective, and socially just.

Situating teacher inquiry: a micropolitical perspective

Professional learning communities (PLCs) have become a popular strategy in various forms (e.g., data teams, grade-level teams) and with various champions (e.g., district leaders, university researchers, teacher advocates). Although well-implemented PLCs have been shown to distribute leadership, the tension between democratic inquiry processes and the demands of accountability remain understudied. This study asks how teacher inquiry is situated within conflicting school priorities and the impact of competing power structures on PLCs through a case study of a teacher inquiry initiative at 6 urban elementary and middle schools in the US. Data were collected over 3 years of PLC implementation. District officials, principals, reform coaches, and teachers at each setting participated in more than 300 interviews, regular site visits, and annual teacher surveys. The influences of power structures – such as district mandates, accountability pressures, and principal leadership – emerged as strong themes in teacher narratives of what it means to “do” inquiry in their PLCs.

Responses to Including Parents in Teacher Evaluation Policy: A Critical Policy Analysis.

Abstract The intersection of development in family and school settings has been well established and education policies have begun to promote ways to bridge the two contexts (i.e. teacher evaluations). For this manuscript, authors focus on how teachers and principals used a state educator evaluation policy to position parents as authorities on education. We utilize a Critical Policy Analysis and provide findings based on a study of 12 districts implementing a new teacher evaluation policy in Connecticut. Directionality of the strategies used to implement the policy surfaced as having implications for how much authority districts and schools granted to parents. These findings yield lessons and questions for teachers regarding practice and how they may be asked to participate in policies that measure its value.

The Structure of Tracking: Instructional Practices of Teachers Leading Low- and High-Track Classes

Tracking remains a pervasive sorting mechanism in US high schools. Anthony Giddens’s theory of structuration provides a useful framework for understanding how tracking is enacted and how its inequities might be interrupted. This study examines whether teachers reify tracks by systematically structuring generative rules differently for students in low and high tracks. Using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System, we observed 26 teachers in low- and high-track classrooms in spring 2012. We found that teachers, on the whole, structured generative rules that communicated lower expectations and provided less support to students in low-track classes than they did to those in high-track classes. However, we also found that a small number of teachers structured supportive environments for low-track students, suggesting implications for the transformation points of tracking.

Brokering, buffering, and the rationalities of principal work

Purpose Brokering and buffering represent two ways in which principals may respond to hyperrational elements of policy demands in the current era of accountability. The purpose of this paper is to examine how some principals broker more efficient, measurable, and predictable evaluation practices for teachers and others buffer their teachers from inefficient, immeasurable, and unpredictable aspects of policy. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative data were obtained from 37 school principals and 363 teachers across 12 districts participating in a new teacher evaluation policy in one state of the USA. Principal interviews and teacher focus groups were conducted at the beginning, middle, and end of 2012-2013. Transcripts were coded to identify hyperrational elements of the policy and principals’ brokering and buffering practices. Findings All principals described elements of the new evaluation policy as inefficient, incalculable, or unpredictable – hallmarks of hyperrationality. Principals brokered efficiency by designing schoolwide parent goals and centralizing procedures; brokered transparency of calculation methods and focused teacher attention on measuring effort, rather than outcomes; and encouraged collective sensemaking to facilitate predictable procedures and outcomes. Principals buffered teachers by de-emphasizing the parent-based component; minimizing the quantitative nature of the ratings; ceding responsibility over calculations to district leaders; and lowering expectations to make ratings controllable. Originality/value The paper provides new understanding of principals’ strategic leadership practices, which represented rational responses to hyperrational policy demands. Therefore, the paper includes recommendations for principal preparation, district support for policy implementation, and further research on principal practice.