Evolving as Educational Systems: How School Districts Develop Capabilities to Support Elementary Science Instruction (Poster 6)

• In Event: System-Building for Improving Elementary Science Teaching and Learning: From the Classroom to the Central Office

Abstract

Purpose
In this study, we use educational system-building and multilevel distributed leadership perspectives to explore how 13 school districts evolved as educational systems to support elementary science instruction.

Theoretical Framework
Elementary science faces unique challenges given the institutional environment in which it is situated. Developing educational systems is evolutionary as districts build their capabilities for organizing and supporting instruction over time. We use a system building perspective to analyze how districts develop capabilities to coordinate and support classroom instruction as they bridge instructional standards to instructional practice. Educational system building involves five core domains of work distributed across districts and schools, including building educational infrastructure, supporting the use of infrastructure in practice, managing performance, managing environmental relationships, and developing and distributing instructional leadership (Authors, 2019). We also use a multilevel distributed leadership perspective to conceptualize leadership practice as spanning classrooms, schools, systems, and the educational sector (Authors, 2023) to understand how districts lead instructional reform.

Modes of Inquiry
We use a comparative case study research design to explore how 13 school districts in the US engaged in reforming elementary science education.

Data/Analysis
Our analytical approach combined inductive and deductive coding, memo writing, and timeline analyses (Miles et al., 2014). Our account is based on analysis of the following data:
• 112 interviews with central office staff and 55 interviews with formal and informal school leaders.
• Observation fieldnotes of 28 district-level routines in science (e.g., professional development, strategic planning meetings) and 22 school-level routines in science (e.g., professional development, team planning).
• Artifacts including documents detailing district and school goals, instructional visions, curriculum materials, and strategic plans.

Findings
Based on our analysis, we identify a typology of educational system building to describe districts’ efforts to bridge from instructional standards to classroom instruction.
Resource-centered School System: Resource-centered school systems focus primarily on resourcing classrooms with instructional materials, but delegate responsibility for organizing and managing instruction to classroom teachers absent sustained support for the practical use of these materials. These systems typically adopt instructional materials in response to new standards with teachers determining how to use these materials with students.
Emerging Education System: Emerging education systems establish elements of an educational infrastructure (e.g., instructional materials) and support teachers in using that infrastructure in practice, typically through professional development. Emerging education systems aim to couple educational infrastructure and practice-based support.
Developing Education System: Developing education systems demonstrate capacity in multiple domains of work, typically in the areas of building an educational infrastructure, supporting infrastructure use, and one other domain of activity.
Mature Education System: Fully functioning education systems demonstrate capability in five core domains of work; building educational infrastructure, supporting infrastructure use in practice, managing performance, managing environmental relationships, and developing and distributing instructional leadership. Together, these capabilities serve to coordinate and support instruction and its improvement.

Significance
This study contributes to understanding elementary science reform by establishing a typology of educational system-building that can be used as an analytic and practical tool to understand district-based instructional reform.

Authors

• Angela Lyle, University of Michigan

• Christa Haverly, Northwestern University