Principals' Role in Policy Implementation: What Insight Does Political Discourse Analysis Offer?

• In Event: 49.073 - Politics of Education Association Yearbook: Revisiting Education Policy Implementation

Abstract

Objectives
This study offers dual insights into principals’ role in implementation of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (PL# 108-446, § 118 Stat. 2647, 2004) including: (a) description of principals’ political interpretations, and (b) a methodological shift from survey-based opinions to principals’ street-level bureaucratic role in implementation (Honig, 2006, Lipsky, 1972, 1980, Weatherly, 1979, Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977).

Perspective
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was applied as both a theoretical perspective and a methodology (Rogers, 2004). CDA allows for the analysis of institutionalized forms of talking and writing revealing where social domination and inequality arise (Stamou & Padeliadu, 2009). CDA includes analysis of discursive practices within social structures (Jager, 2001, Leistyna, 2001. This study’s spaces ranged from the macro-plane of federal legislation to circuit court decisions, to state and district policy documents and finally to the school level, where principals mediate implementation of policy.

Modes of Inquiry & Evidence
The two stage study took an inductive cut downward from macro-documentary discourse at federal court and state levels to micro-discourse at the principal/school level. The federal discourse position included IDEA legislative or regulatory guidance and selected case law about the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). The second and third discourse positions included state and district-level regulatory documents, respectively. The fourth discourse position included principal interviews. A single urban district’s Director of Special Education identified five principals whose schools encompassed a full LRE continuum of services. Participation entailed one audio-recorded interview session ranging from 30- to 60-minutes and an opportunity to review their individual transcripts. Two grand tour questions (Spradley, 1979) were used to elicit the principals’ understanding of the concept of LRE.
Tell me what you know about and how you handle the least restrictive environment for students in your school.
Can you think of a particular child and tell me about how you handled determining the least restrictive environment for that student?

Analysis
The analyses included two phases appropriate to the particular discourse planes. Document coding was used from the macro-levels through the intermediate planes of state and district levels. The micro-level interviews formed the second phase of analysis. Triangulation occurred along axis points among policy levels and captured power relationships among discourse planes and positions yielding local meaning.

Results
These principals did not receive nor did they develop any guidelines for implementation of LRE. The horizontal analysis of the principal discourse position provided some understanding into why there was no plan for implementation. Three themes emerged from these principals’ discourses: (a) responsibility for student achievement, (b) positions of power, and (c) the dichotomy of regular and special discourse.

Scholarly Significance
The role of principals in addressing special education has been studied using attitudinal questionnaires and surveys since the late 1970s. Principals’ leadership appears key for educational policy adoption, but the methods for identifying their mediating role as street-level bureaucrats in policy interpretation have not included critical discourse analysis. This study demonstrated strategic discourse planes illuminating principals’ role in the implementation of LRE.

Authors

• Laura C. O'Laughlin, Greenville County School District

• Jane Clark Lindle, Clemson University