Multiple Logics of Curriculum Leadership: How a Large Public School District Manages Institutional Complexity

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jonathan W. Cooney, Michael Ian Cohen
{"title":"Multiple Logics of Curriculum Leadership: How a Large Public School District Manages Institutional Complexity","authors":"Jonathan W. Cooney, Michael Ian Cohen","doi":"10.1177/0013161x231217987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study contributes to a growing literature focused on institutional complexity, or the phenomenon of competing institutional logics, in PK-12 public education. Responding to calls for more nuanced characterizations of district-level administration, our purpose was to identify the logics of curriculum leadership in one large school district in the Western U.S. and examine how district leaders made sense of their multiple demands. Research Methods: Employing case study methods, we collected curricular documents and conducted 21 interviews of district-level curriculum leaders, principals, and teachers. We used inductive coding to identify patterns in the district's culture of curriculum leadership and then drew upon institutional theory to associate these patterns with particular institutional logics. Findings: We found three coexisting logics of curriculum leadership in the school district: a logic of uniformity, which called for teachers’ fidelity to a prescriptive curriculum; a logic of participation, which valued teacher voice and shared leadership; and a logic of performance, which placed a premium on measurable student achievement. These logics were often incompatible or contradictory, producing mixed messages and an institutional complexity that remained largely unacknowledged among leaders. Implications: Tensions among logics of curriculum leadership may not always result in open contestation, yet if leaders do not resolve them at the district level, teachers may be unsupported in their efforts to reconcile competing demands in their classroom practices. Identifying specific logics of curriculum leadership and considering their interactions may help leaders make sense of conflicting values and better support teachers in their classroom decision making.","PeriodicalId":48091,"journal":{"name":"Educational Administration Quarterly","volume":"60 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Administration Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x231217987","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study contributes to a growing literature focused on institutional complexity, or the phenomenon of competing institutional logics, in PK-12 public education. Responding to calls for more nuanced characterizations of district-level administration, our purpose was to identify the logics of curriculum leadership in one large school district in the Western U.S. and examine how district leaders made sense of their multiple demands. Research Methods: Employing case study methods, we collected curricular documents and conducted 21 interviews of district-level curriculum leaders, principals, and teachers. We used inductive coding to identify patterns in the district's culture of curriculum leadership and then drew upon institutional theory to associate these patterns with particular institutional logics. Findings: We found three coexisting logics of curriculum leadership in the school district: a logic of uniformity, which called for teachers’ fidelity to a prescriptive curriculum; a logic of participation, which valued teacher voice and shared leadership; and a logic of performance, which placed a premium on measurable student achievement. These logics were often incompatible or contradictory, producing mixed messages and an institutional complexity that remained largely unacknowledged among leaders. Implications: Tensions among logics of curriculum leadership may not always result in open contestation, yet if leaders do not resolve them at the district level, teachers may be unsupported in their efforts to reconcile competing demands in their classroom practices. Identifying specific logics of curriculum leadership and considering their interactions may help leaders make sense of conflicting values and better support teachers in their classroom decision making.
课程领导的多重逻辑:大型公立学区如何管理机构的复杂性
研究目的:本研究为越来越多的关注机构复杂性或 PK-12 公共教育中相互竞争的机构逻辑现象的文献做出了贡献。为了响应对学区级行政管理进行更细致入微的描述的呼吁,我们的目的是确定美国西部一个大型学区的课程领导逻辑,并研究学区领导如何理解他们的多重需求。研究方法:采用案例研究法,我们收集了课程文件,并对学区课程领导、校长和教师进行了 21 次访谈。我们采用归纳编码法来确定学区课程领导文化的模式,然后借鉴制度理论,将这些模式与特定的制度逻辑联系起来。研究结果:我们发现该学区的课程领导有三种并存的逻辑:统一逻辑,即要求教师忠实于规定课程;参与逻辑,即重视教师的发言权和共同领导;绩效逻辑,即重视可衡量的学生成绩。这些逻辑往往互不相容或相互矛盾,从而产生了混杂的信息和制度的复杂性,而这种复杂性在很大程度上仍未为领导者所认识。影响:课程领导逻辑之间的紧张关系可能并不总是导致公开的竞争,但是,如果领导者不在地区层面上解决这些问题,教师在课堂实践中调和相互竞争的需求的努力就可能得不到支持。确定课程领导的具体逻辑并考虑它们之间的相互作用,可以帮助领导者理 解相互冲突的价值观,更好地支持教师的课堂决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Administration Quarterly
Educational Administration Quarterly EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
3.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: Educational Administration Quarterly presents prominent empirical and conceptual articles focused on timely and critical leadership and policy issues of educational organizations. As an editorial team, we embrace traditional and emergent research paradigms, methods, and issues. We particularly promote the publication of rigorous and relevant scholarly work that enhances linkages among and utility for educational policy, practice, and research arenas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信