The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 23-52

  Coburn, Cynthia E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Nonsystem actors; Policy implementation; Reading instruction

Indexed keywords

EID: 18444405865     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737027001023     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Askew, B. J., Fountas, I. C., Lyons, C. A., Pinnell, G. S., & Schmitt, M. C. (1998). Reading Recovery review: Understandings, outcomes, and implications. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.
3. Barley, S. R. (1990). Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organizational Science, 1, 220-247.
4. Brandt, R. (1989, November). On curriculum in California: A conversation with Bill Honig. Educational Leadership, pp. 10-13.
5. Breneman, B., & Parker, D. (1991). Reading Recovery: An idea whose time has come. California Reader, 24(3), 24-28.
6. Burch, P. E. (2000). Moving from the margins to the mainstream: Teaching and learning reform in local policy context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
7. California State Board of Education. (1999). Guide to the California Reading Initiative 1996-1999. Sacramento: California Reading Initiative Center.
8. California State Department of Education. (1987). English-language arts framework. Sacramento, CA: Author.
9. California State Department of Education. (1995a). Every child a reader: The report of the California Reading Task Force. Sacramento, CA: Author.
10. California State Department of Education. (1995b). Ready, set, let's read!: A helping handbook for comprehensive early literacy instruction (draft version). Sacramento, CA: Author.
11. Carlos, L., & Kirst, M. (1997). California curriculum policy in the 1990s: "We don't have to be in the front to lead. " San Francisco: PACE.
12. Coburn, C. E. (2001a). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-170.
13. Coburn, C. E. (2001b). Making sense of reading: Logics of reading in the institutional environment and the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
14. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211-244.
15. Cohen, D. K. (1982). Policy and organization: The impact of state and federal educational policy on school governance. Harvard Educational Review, 52, 414-499.
16. Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11-17, 31.
17. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294-343.
18. Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1993). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. In S. F. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 35-95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Cunningham, P. M. (1995). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing (2nd ed.). New York: Harper-Collins.
20. Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission. (1994). K-8 language arts instructional resources evaluation form. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/cilbranch/englang/ela_adopt.htm
21. Cusick, P. A., & Borman, J. A. (2002). Reform of and by the system: A case study of a state's effort at curricular and systemic reform. Teachers College Record, 104, 765-786.
22. D'Aunno, T., Sutton, R. I., & Price, R. (1991). Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 636-661.
23. DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920-1940. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63-82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Dobbin, F., Sutton, J. R., Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1993). Equal opportunity law and the construction of internal labor markets. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 396-427.
25. Dowd, T. J., & Dobbin, F. (1997). The embedded actor and the invention of natural economic law: Policy change and railroader response in early America. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 478-489.
26. Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531-1576.
27. Eilers, A. M. (2004). Below the accountability radar screen: What does state policy say about school counseling? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 72(3), 1-32.
28. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
29. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
30. Fuhrman, S. (Ed.). (1993). Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31. Fuhrman, S., Clune, W. H., & Elmore, R. F. (1988). Research on educational reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90, 237-257.
32. Fuhrman, S., & Elmore, R. F. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 82-96.
33. Guthrie, J. W. (Ed.). (1990). Special issue. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3).
34. Hartley, J. F. (1994). Case studies in organizational research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 208-229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Hill, H. C. (2000). Implementation networks: Non-state resources for getting policy done. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
36. Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 289-318.
37. Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65-87.
38. Hornby, P., & Symon, G. (1994). Tracer studies. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 167-186). London: Sage.
39. Joinings, N. E. (1996). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform and teachers' practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
40. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
41. Laumann, E. O., & Knoke, D. (1987). The organizational state: Social choice in national policy domains. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
42. Literacy Initiative, (n.d.). The Literacy Initiative: San Mateo/Santa Clara counties. Palo Alto, CA: Noyce Foundation.
43. Massel, D., Fuhrman, S., Kirst, M., Odden, A., Wohlstetter, P., Carver, R., & Yee, G. (1994). Ten years of state education reform, 1983-1993: Over-view with four case studies. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium of Policy Research in Education.
44. McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). Policy and instruction: What is the relationship? In M. Kamil, R. Barr, P. D. Pearson, & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 889-908). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
46. Meyer, J., Scott, W. R., & Deal T. E. (1981). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of educational organizations. In H. D. Stein (Ed.), Organization and the human services (pp. 151-179). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
47. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. Moore, M. (1988). What sort of ideas become public ideas? In R. B. Reich (Ed.), The power of public ideas (pp. 55-83). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
49. Neal, J., Kelly, P., Klein, A., & Schubert, B. (1997). Touching the future: Executive summary, California Reading Recovery 1991-1997. Fresno: Central California Reading Recovery Project.
50. Odden, A. (1991). Education policy implementation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
51. Ogawa, R. T. (1994). The institutional sources of educational reform: The case of school-based management. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 519-548.
52. Ohio State University. (1998). The Early Literacy Learning Initiative at the Ohio State University. Columbus: Ohio State University.
53. Piaget, J. (1978). The essential Piaget. London: Routledge.
54. Pollack, S. (1997). Three decades of service-learning in higher education (1966-1996): The contested emergence of an organizational field. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
55. Popkewitz, T. S., Tabachnick, B. R., & Wehlage, G. (1982). The myth of educational reform: A study of school responses to a program of change. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
56. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
57. Rigby Education. (1997). Early literacy inservice course (ELIC). Retrieved from http://www.rigby.com/about/background.htm
58. Rowan, B. (2001 ). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Philadelphia: Consortium of Policy Research in Education.
59. Scott, W. R. (1994). Conceptualizing organizational fields: Linking organizations and societal systems. In U. Gerhardt, H. Derlein, & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Systemrationalitat und Partialinteresse [Systems rationality and partial interests] (pp. 203-219). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
60. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. Scott, W. R., Mendel, P., & Pollack, S. (1996, March). Studying "everything else": Assessing the environments of an organizational field. Paper presented at the Conference on Institutional Analysis, Tucson, AZ.
62. Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63. Smith, M. S. (2000). Balancing old and new: An experienced middle school teacher's learning in the context of mathematics instructional reform. Elementary School Journal, 100, 351-375.
64. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). New York: Palmer Press.
65. Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10, 63-87.
66. Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 33-63.
67. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 1-33.
68. Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 141-179.
69. Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 439-481.
70. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, G., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and re-focusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431.
71. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
72. St. Mary's College. (1998). Saint Mary's College Reading Recovery statistics. Unpublished manuscript.
73. St. Mary's College, (n.d.). Best practices in early literacy instruction: A long term staff development program for schools and school districts. Moraga, CA: Author.
74. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
75. Swartz, S. L., Shook, R. E., & Klein, A. F. (2000). California early literacy learning and extended literacy learning. Redlands: Foundation for California Early Literacy Learning.
76. Valencia, S. W., & Wixson, K. K. (2000). Policy-oriented research on literacy standards and assessment. In M. Kamil, R. Barr, P. D. Pearson, & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 909-935). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
77. Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
78. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.