Study of System-Building for Elementary Science Instruction

• In Event: System-Building to Improve Access, Quality, and Equity in Elementary Science

Abstract

Purpose
The purposes of this paper are to provide an overview of the study around which this symposium is organized and introduce the remainder of the symposium.

Theoretical Framework
A central objective of the NSF-funded Study of System-Building for Elementary Science Instruction is to refine a framework for analyzing district efforts to organize and manage instruction to improve educational access, quality, and equity. The framework was originally developed through a comprehensive review of the literature on district-level systems improvement (Author, 2019). It was further refined through a three-year, Spencer-funded study of system-building to improve elementary ELA (Author, 2020). The framework contributes to a growing literature on organizing districts and schools as coherent instructional systems (e.g., Bryk et al., 2010; Cobb et al., 2018; Forman et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2014).

The framework details five domains of work distributed and coordinated among central offices and schools that are integral to organizing and managing instruction to improve quality and reduce disparities:

● Managing environmental relationships;
● Building educational infrastructure;
● Supporting the use of educational infrastructure in practice;
● Managing performance for continuous improvement and accountability;
● Developing and distributing instructional leadership.

Modes of Inquiry
We use an embedded, comparative case study design to analyze efforts in 13 districts in 6 states to bridge from NGSS learning ideals to classroom instruction. We are studying these districts over five years, incorporating different levels of analysis (i.e., state, district, school, classroom) each year while continuing to study earlier levels.

Data/Analysis
Our data include: interviews with state policy actors, central office leaders, school leaders, and teachers; observations of district-level routines; collection of state and district documents. Analysis includes: closed coding using an elaborated version of framework sketched above; open coding aimed at further elaborating the framework; memoing among the project team; and validating interpretations through member checking, extended engagement, and resolution of negative cases.

Results
In the remaining papers, we report our mid-term findings, focusing specifically on system-building work as enacted in district/network central offices. Three papers are case studies of system-building in districts that are evolving as what we described in earlier research as “networked education systems”: i.e., systems that balance standardization and differentiation in raising overall educational quality and addressing student/school specific needs, a hallmark being feedback loops that leverage differentiation as a resource for continuous learning and improvement (Author, 2018; Author 2019). Each focuses on a different district with unique characteristics.

The final paper draws across all 13 districts to examine conditions that enable and complicate system-building for instructional improvement.

Scholarly Significance
The study (and this symposium) detail a comprehensive, mature framework for analyzing system-building for instructional improvement. It evidences the possibility of districts transforming as instructionally focused education systems with capabilities to organize and manage elementary science instruction to improve access, quality, and equity. Both the framework and the evidence are of immediate importance in policy and academic contexts seeking to leverage system-building as a reform strategy and focus of study and to reduce inequities in STEM experiences and outcomes.

Author

• Donald J. Peurach, University of Michigan