Search for: All records

Reforming instruction is challenging. In this comparative case study of 12 school districts, we investigated the dilemmas that emerged for system leaders as they engaged in system building for elementary science and the approaches leaders took in managing them. We found that system leaders’ efforts to manage their environments contributed to the preferential treatment of literacy and mathematics relative to science. Leaders managed this dilemma using three strategies: (a) integration of science with other subjects, (b) specialization of teachers, and (c) adopting curriculum materials. This study contributes to literature on dilemma management by showing that dilemmas in education system building are school-subject sensitive, emerge in relation to system building for other subjects, and are embedded in school and education systems’ structural/organizational arrangements. 

Purpose: Most empirical work using a distributed perspective to frame research on leadership practice uses the school as the unit of analysis, focusing on how leadership is stretched over people and aspects of the situation within schools. This study investigates leadership practice for elementary science, using a multilevel distributed framework, to understand the interrelationships among educational leaders operating at various levels—from classrooms, to schools, to educational systems, and, beyond, to the educational sector. Research Methods/Approach: Using an embedded, comparative case study design, we analyzed leadership practice for elementary science reform in 13 school districts in the U.S. as leaders worked to bridge from the Next Generation Science Standards learning ideals to classroom instruction. Data collection included interviews, observations, and documents. Findings: Leading elementary science reform involved three core components of leadership practice: (1) garnering attention for science in a situation that prioritized the instruction of English Language Arts and mathematics; (2) cultivating and channeling essential relationships not only within the system but also in the broader education sector to access the resources needed to (re)build an educational infrastructure for elementary science instruction; and (3) supporting the use of educational infrastructure in everyday practice in schools. Implications: This study makes the case for using a multilevel distributed leadership perspective to frame studies of leadership practice to understand how efforts at different levels interact in shaping the practice of leadership. 

This comparative case study explores how 18 state education agencies (SEAs) support school districts in advancing standards-based elementary science reform. We identify how SEAs understand their work in advancing elementary science reform and describe how SEAs sought to engage districts in bridging from standards to classroom practice. Based on our analysis, we argue that the school subject is a critical explanatory variable in understanding SEA efforts to support standards implementation and SEAs lean on a resource-based approach for instructional policy implementation. This study contributes to the growing research base on the role of state policy in supporting standards implementation. 

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), a reform effort “for states, by states,” advances ambitious ideals for elementary science teaching, but the fate of these ideals will depend in part on the engagement of state science coordinators (SSCs). This article explores the responses of SSCs to NGSS in a purposeful sample of 18 US states. Based on analysis of 19 interviews with 22 SSCs, we develop two arguments. First, SSCs' ideas about improving elementary science education converged around three themes: the introduction of three-dimensional science teaching and learning, the integration of engineering with science teaching, and the integration of science with ELA and mathematics. Second, SSCs' sense-making about reforming elementary science education was situated in and shaped by (a) their knowledge of how elementary science instruction has been and continues to be de-prioritized, as well as their experiences (b) facilitating work groups in developing science standards using the Framework for K-12 Science Education, and (c) participating in professional networks.