The Role of Teachers in Searching and Vetting Evidence to inform Localized Educational Policy

• In Event: Positionality and Research Use in Educational Policy and Practice: Toward Evidence-Informed Decisions

Abstract

1. Objectives or purposes
Forty states in the U.S. require at least one civics course, with sixteen states requiring a comprehensive exam to graduate high school (Brezicha & Mitra, 2019). However, the implementation and direction of such policy requirements (e.g., grade-level taught, content covered, curriculum utilized) often falls to the jurisdiction of local school districts. Lead teachers and subject coordinators are often delegated to search and vet evidence to inform civics curriculum and programmatic decision-making. These educators vary in their familiarity with the academic literature (i.e., training, professional development; Farley-Ripple et al., 2012; Neal et al., 2019) and access to available resources to support such engagement (Farrell & Coburn, 2017). To unpack this decision-making process, this session will explore the following research questions: 1) what are the major information desires of educators? 2) what sources do they find useful? and, 3) how are educators using research evidence to advocate for their students?
2. Perspective(s) or theoretical framework
There is notable breadth in educators' strategies to search, vet, and use evidence to inform school decision-making within civics programming. With district and state policy guidelines in place, teachers have varying degrees of professional discretion to leverage evidence to inform pedagogical decisions (i.e., curriculum utilized, content covered) that directly affect student learning and their future as civic actors (Frank et al., 2011; AUTHOR, 2024). Thus, there is a distinct gap between the empirical research generated and what is being used in actual practice. In this presentation, we explore the role of teachers and their positionalities in the searching and vetting of research evidence to inform localized educational policy.
3. Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry
In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted.
4. Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials
This study analyzes interviews from 35 lead teachers/subject coordinators working across 8 geopolitically diverse states.
5. Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view
Findings highlight educators' unique and often conflicting desires for evidence that serves the needs of a diverse student body and keep them “safe” from potential backlash. Two conditions that facilitate research use encompass: 1) an educator’s perceived trust of the messenger, and 2) the perceived quality of such evidence (Crowley et al., 2021; Dumont, 2024). Educators leverage research evidence in the domains of instrumental, strategic, and conceptual use (Nutley et al., 2007; Weiss et al., 2005). Regarding instrumental use, educators use evidence to inform direct decision-making (e.g., program implementation, advocacy for district policy). For strategic use, educators employ evidence to corroborate or support pre-determined curricular decisions, which are often enacted in anticipation of potential political backlash. Concerning conceptual use, educators use evidence to sway or challenge parental concerns regarding civic content.
6. Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work
Findings illuminate a need to holistically bolster conditions that promote active engagement and comfort in research use from lead teachers/subject coordinators. Support for brokering such research use must attend to and understand the role of teacher positionality in relation to the multi-level political environment that educators operate in.

Authors

• Mariah Kornbluh, University of Oregon

• Sherry Bell, University of Oregon

• gabi Garcia, University of Oregon

• Raquel Amador, University of Oregon