Francesca T. Durand, K. Wilcox, H. Lawson, Kathryn Schiller
{"title":"Framing Leaders’ Discourses on College and Career Readiness","authors":"Francesca T. Durand, K. Wilcox, H. Lawson, Kathryn Schiller","doi":"10.1086/717672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This multiple comparative case study investigated district and high school leaders’ framing mechanisms and discourses around priorities and challenges to understand their equity aims and their preparation of diverse student populations’ college, career, and civic readiness. Research Methods/Approach: This research used framing theory to examine semistructured interviews and focus groups with 34 educational leaders from four sample schools with above average percentages of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and/or economically disadvantaged students. Three positive outlier schools were sampled as they achieved statistically significantly better graduation outcomes, whereas the comparison typical school performed as predicted. Findings: Positive outlier leaders coupled diagnostic and prognostic framing to address priorities and challenges while advancing an equity-oriented agenda. In addition, the positive outlier leaders’ discourses prioritized local needs and values, contextual challenges, and organizational learning. Furthermore, positive outlier leaders used a hybrid frame (motivational, normative, and regulatory) to emphasize academic achievement and student needs in service of improving outcomes for diverse students. In these schools, these hybrid discourses amount to a normative frame: “the way we do things around here.” In contrast, typical school leaders framed a narrower agenda focused on compliance-oriented discourses structured by policy regulations, and these acted as the primary motivators for action. Implications: Understanding framing mechanisms and discourses has import for educational leaders’ practices as they make sense of improvement efforts for underserved youth. Leaders’ frames and discourses may provide a consequential improvement mechanism for schools and entire districts caught in suboptimal organizational patterns and behavioral routines.","PeriodicalId":47629,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Education","volume":"128 1","pages":"327 - 354"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/717672","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Purpose: This multiple comparative case study investigated district and high school leaders’ framing mechanisms and discourses around priorities and challenges to understand their equity aims and their preparation of diverse student populations’ college, career, and civic readiness. Research Methods/Approach: This research used framing theory to examine semistructured interviews and focus groups with 34 educational leaders from four sample schools with above average percentages of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and/or economically disadvantaged students. Three positive outlier schools were sampled as they achieved statistically significantly better graduation outcomes, whereas the comparison typical school performed as predicted. Findings: Positive outlier leaders coupled diagnostic and prognostic framing to address priorities and challenges while advancing an equity-oriented agenda. In addition, the positive outlier leaders’ discourses prioritized local needs and values, contextual challenges, and organizational learning. Furthermore, positive outlier leaders used a hybrid frame (motivational, normative, and regulatory) to emphasize academic achievement and student needs in service of improving outcomes for diverse students. In these schools, these hybrid discourses amount to a normative frame: “the way we do things around here.” In contrast, typical school leaders framed a narrower agenda focused on compliance-oriented discourses structured by policy regulations, and these acted as the primary motivators for action. Implications: Understanding framing mechanisms and discourses has import for educational leaders’ practices as they make sense of improvement efforts for underserved youth. Leaders’ frames and discourses may provide a consequential improvement mechanism for schools and entire districts caught in suboptimal organizational patterns and behavioral routines.
期刊介绍:
Founded as School Review in 1893, the American Journal of Education acquired its present name in November 1979. The Journal seeks to bridge and integrate the intellectual, methodological, and substantive diversity of educational scholarship, and to encourage a vigorous dialogue between educational scholars and practitioners. To achieve that goal, papers are published that present research, theoretical statements, philosophical arguments, critical syntheses of a field of educational inquiry, and integrations of educational scholarship, policy, and practice.