Reconceptualizing Policy as Designs for Supporting Learning Paul CobbKara Jackson Vanderbilt University

Reconceptualizing Policy as Designs for Supporting Learning

Paul Cobb Kara JacksonVanderbilt University

Purpose

• Describe and illustrate a learning design perspective for analyzing policies

• Justification - usefulness– Anticipate limitations of specific policies– Understand why specific policies play out in

particular ways in particular situations• Feeds back to inform the revision of the policy

Overview

• Develop the learning design perspective on policies

• Illustrate the usefulness of this perspective– Efforts of a US school district to improve the

quality of mathematics instruction• Policies for improvement in mathematics• How they were implemented

• Develop entailments of this perspective on policies

Policy and Change

• A policy specifies either:• Changes in a group of people’s practices– Principals will act as instructional leaders by observing

classroom instruction and giving feedback

• Changes in results/outcomes that require the members of one or more groups to change in practices– Schools will increase students test scores in mathematics

Policy and Change

• A policy is an attempt by members of one group to influence the practices of members of another group(Coburn & Stein, 2006)

– Policies necessarily involve relations of power

Dominant Views of Policy

• Researchers in educational policy typically begin by analyzing national or state policies

• Study extent to which the targets of policy implement the policy as intended– Change their practices as intended by

policymakers

(Stein, 2004)

Dominant Views of Policy

• Dissemination of information about the intent of the policy– Know what changes they should make in their

practices

• Incentives and accountability – Motivate to make intended changes

Policy and Learning• Any serious policy - any policy that does not

simply endorse current practice and call for more of it - requires learning on the part of those who implement it(Cohen & Barnes, 1993)

Policy and Learning

• Ambitious policies require practitioners to develop new capabilities and to unlearn present capabilities

• Implementation of a policy is a species of learning, and policy is a sort of instruction(Cohen et al, 2007, italics added)

Policies as Designs for Supporting Learning

• Three components that correspond to the what, how, and why of policy

• What: A vision for the practices of members of the target group– Principals will act as instructional leaders by

observing classroom instruction and giving teachers feedback


• How: The designed supports for learning for members of the target group– Professional development for principals as

instructional leaders


• Why: An (often implicit) rationale that explains how the supports will bring about the intended improvements in practice by scaffolding the learning of members of the target group

The How of Policy: Supports for Learning

• New positions or changes in responsibilities for existing positions– School-based mathematics coaches• Support principals as instructional leaders in

mathematics

• Tools– Curriculum maps


• Tools can be conceptual as well as material (e.g., principles for organizing mathematical ideas implicit in the content maps)– Must be reified by the members of the target

group– What is constituted as tool is an empirical

question


• Intentional learning events– Group of people work together on an ongoing

basis with the explicit goal of improving their own practices

• Either ongoing or discrete


• Ongoing intentional learning events– Regularly scheduled meetings that build on one

another; group is relatively small so it can become a genuine community of practice

• Discrete intentional learning events– One-off professional development sessions (e.g.,

on using the content maps)– Regularly scheduled meetings that do not build on

each other (e.g., monthly principal meetings)


• Incidental learning events– At least two people working together to a

function of the school• Weekly meetings between principal and coach to

discuss quality of math teaching and consider how to support teachers’ learning

– Improving their own practices is not an explicit goal

– Nonetheless, learning opportunities can arise in the course of the joint work incidentally

• Either ongoing or discrete


• New organizational routines• Organizational routine: A repetitive,

recognizable pattern of interdependent actions, carried out by multiple actors(Feldman & Pentland, 2003)

– Learning Walks with the math coach • Assess quality of mathematics instruction in the school

and thus identify teachers’ needs

Summary: Policies as Learning Designs

• What: Envisioned practices• How: Supports for learning– New positions– Tools– Intentional learning events– Incidental learning events– New organizational routines

• Why: Justification or rationale

Background: US Educational System

• Decentralized education system– Local control of schooling

• Each US state divided into a number of independent school districts– Rural districts with less than 1,000 students– Urban districts with 100,000 students or more

Background: US Educational Policy

• No Child Left Behind Policy (NCLB)– Standards for mathematics learning• 50-80 standards per grade common

– Assessments at the end of each school year to test whether students are achieving these standards• Primarily procedural skill at expense of conceptual

understanding– Yearly student achievement goals in

mathematics for each school


• Instruments used to influence practice are typically disconnected from the learning that teachers and school leaders have to do to develop more effective practices— long on pressure and short on support

(Knapp & Shields, 1995)

• Policy rarely attends to what school leaders and teachers would have to learn to carry it out(Elmore, 2000; Spillane & Thompson, 1999)

Background: Research Project

• Central question: What does it take to improve the quality of mathematics instruction on a large scale?

• Four urban districts– High proportion of students from traditionally

underserved groups– Limited financial resources– High teacher turn over

Background: Research Project

• Most schools and districts clueless about how to respond productively to high-stakes accountability– A small minority have reasonably worked out strategies

(Elmore, 2000)

• Investigating the four districts’ instructional improvement efforts in middle-school mathematics (12-14 years old students)– District B as an illustrative case


• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM) Principles and Standards for School Mathematics– Build on students’ current reasoning to achieve a

mathematical agenda that focuses on central mathematical ideas• Consistent with research in mathematics education and

related fields


• Teacher adjusts instruction to the students– Ongoing assessment of students’ reasoning

• Teaching becomes non-routine – A complex and demanding activity


• Deep understanding of mathematics– Mathematical knowledge for teaching

• Knowledge of how students’ reasoning develops in particular mathematical domains– Anticipate range of solutions

• Know-in-action how to achieve a mathematical agenda by building on students’ (diverse) solutions

Background: US Policy Context

• NCLB - specifies a result that requires unspecified changes in instructional practice– Increased student mathematics achievement

• NCTM - specifies an envisioned form of instructional practice

Background: US Policy Context

• The how of both national policies:• District and school leaders will formulate

concrete local policies for improvement– Potentially competing national policies are key

aspects of the contexts in which district leaders make policies for mathematics teaching and learning

National Policies as Discourses

• NCLB and NCTM constitute alternative policy Discourses– Discourse of high-stakes accountability• Increase student performance in mathematics

– Discourse of instructional reform• Improve quality of mathematics teachers’ instructional

practices(Confrey et al., 2000)

National Policies as Discourses

• Discourses are sociohistorical coordinations of people, objects (props), ways of talking, acting, interacting, thinking, valuing, and (sometimes) writing and reading that allow for the display and recognition of socially significant identities(Gee, 1997)

Background: District B

• 80,000 students– 56.9% Hispanic• 27% of all students Limited English Proficient (LEP)

– 26.3% African American– 15% White


• Eighth grade state mathematics standards– 38% of African American students– 55% of Hispanic students • 27% of LEP students

– 76% of White students


• District leaders situated primarily in the discourse of instructional reform– Betting that test scores will increase as the quality

of mathematics instruction improves

• Coherent set of strategies for supporting teachers’ and school leaders’ learning


• A resource for formulating and implementing district policies: – Guide• How problems are framed

– Account– Legitimate

(Feldman & Pentland, 2003)


• Leaders in most urban districts situated in the discourse of high-stakes accountability– Teach directly to the test– Game the accountability system


• Third year of collaborating with District B– Data for this analysis is from Year 2

• October: Interview district leaders to document current strategies for improving middle-school mathematics– Each strategy is a policy

• Specifies the What, How, and sometimes the Why

• The set of policies constitutes District B’s Theory-of-Action for instructional improvement in middle-school mathematics

Visions for Role Groups’ PracticesROLE GROUP ENVISIONED PRACTICES

Teachers High-quality instructional practices that support all students’ learning of significant mathematical ideas

Mathematics Coaches

Support both teachers’ development of high-quality instructional practices and principals’ development of content-specific instructional leadership practices

Principals Support and hold teachers accountable for developing high-quality instructional practices

Visions for Role Groups’ Practices

ROLE GROUP ENVISIONED PRACTICES

District Math Specialists

Support mathematics coaches’ development of effective coaching practices

District Leadership Specialists

Support and hold principals accountable for developing effective instructional leadership practices

Situated Account of District B Leaders’ Policy-Making

District B as an Illustrative Case

Vision for Principals’ Practices

• Support and hold teachers accountable for developing high-quality instructional practices – Develop a vision of high-quality mathematics instruction– Conduct “learning walks” (sometimes with coaches) to

assess building needs and determine the nature of assistance needed by teachers

– Observe classroom instruction and give feedback– Work with the coach to ensure coach provides appropriate

professional development

The “How” and “Why” of District Policy for Principals

Means of Support for Principals’ Learning

MEANS OF SUPPORT DISTRICT B DESIGNED POLICY

New Positionsor New Responsibilities for Positions

Created Mathematics Coach position, supports principals’ instructional leadership

Tools Curriculum MapsStudent work for analysis in monthly principal meetings


MEANS OF SUPPORT

DISTRICT B DESIGNED POLICY

Intentional Learning Events

Ongoing

DiscreteMonthly principal meetings (the meetings do not necessarily building on one another).

Incidental Learning Events

OngoingWeekly meeting between principals and coaches in which coaches share observations about the quality of math instruction and determine how to support struggling teachers.

Discrete


MEANS OF SUPPORT DISTRICT B DESIGNED POLICY

Organizational Routines (Feldman & Pentland, 2003)

Learning Walks with Mathematics Coaches

Potential Limitations of Policy

• Limited opportunities to work with a more knowledgeable other on their own practices

• Limited intentional learning events that would sufficiently support principals’ development as instructional leaders– Discrete learning events not likely to support principals’

development of a vision of high-quality mathematics instruction or how to support teachers’ development of ambitious instructional practices

Potential Limitations of Policy

• In incidental learning events, principals are not explicitly working on their own practice– Weekly principal/coach meetings

• Principals are not supported to learn how to use tools (e.g., content maps) in their own practice

Documenting Principals’ Actual Practices

• Interviews in January with Principal, Mathematics Coaches, and Teachers – Determine how the District’s Theory-of-Action is

playing out in schools and classrooms

• Analysis involves triangulating Principals’, Coaches’, and Teachers’ accounts of the Principals’ practices

Principals’ Envisioned vs. Actual Instructional Leadership Practices

ENVISONED PRACTICES ACTUAL PRACTICES

Developing a vision of high-quality mathematics instruction

Most Principals have developed vision of high-quality instruction that is compatible with what the district is aiming for; however visions are not developed; principals tend to focus on the form rather than function of high-quality instruction (Saxe, Spillane)

Observing instruction Most Principals spend considerable amounts of time observing instruction but they focus on the forms of instruction and do not communicate appropriate expectations for instructional improvement

Principals’ Envisioned vs. Actual Instructional Leadership Practices

ENVISONED PRACTICES ACTUAL PRACTICES

Conducting “learning walks” (sometimes with coaches) to assess building needs and determine the nature of assistance needed by teachers

Principals only occasionally take “learning walks,” and only one principal reported doing “learning walks” with a coach. Coach’s schedules make it difficult to schedule learning walks.

Working with the coach to ensure coach provides appropriate professional development to the staff

Principals and coaches meet regularly. In half of the schools, meetings focus on issues such as the pacing of instruction, while in the other schools, they focus on teachers’ classroom practices.

Designed and Implemented Policy

• Identify differences between envisioned and actual practices

• Account for these differences by– Situating principals’ learning in the school and

district settings in which they work– Analyzing the supports for principals’ learning

Situating Principals’ Learning

• Additional aspects of the institutional setting that proved relevant included:–Accountability relations with Leadership

Specialists–Means of supporting principals’ learning– Expertise of coach in school– Expertise of teachers in school

Situating Principals’ Enacted Practices in the Institutional Setting

• Accountability relations with Leadership Specialists– Although the policy specified that district leadership specialists’

were to hold the principals accountable for supporting the improvement of teachers’ instructional practices, the principals reported that they were held accountable for:

1) Raising test scores primarily2) Focusing on improvement of instruction secondarily

– Implications: Principals do not communicate clear instructional expectations to teachers (e.g., nature of the feedback they provide)


• Means of Support– Principals received inadequate support for

developing instructional leadership practices• Limited opportunities to work with a more

knowledgeable other on their practices– Very few Learning Walks with Coach


• Means of Support– No ongoing intentional learning events• Discrete intentional learning events (e.g., principal

monthly meetings) without ongoing learning are insufficient to support the development of either a vision of high-quality instruction or effective instructional leadership practices


• Means of Support– What the district intended as tools to support

principals’ learning (e.g., content maps) did not became tools for them because principals weren’t supported to learn how to use the tools

Research Team’s Feedback

• Based on our analysis, each spring we– Provide a written report to the District Leaders– Meet with the District Leaders to discuss the

report

• Report/discussion includes– Detailed feedback regarding how the District’s

Theory-of-Action is playing out– Actionable recommendations

Accountability RelationsMIST RECOMMENDATION MAY 2008 REVISION TO POLICY FALL 2009

Address the tension that principals experience between improving the quality of instruction and raising test scores.

Increased emphasis on how District Leadership Specialists will communicate expectations to principals and how they will support principals’ development of instructional leadership practices

•Leadership specialists and principals conduct Learning Walks together•Weekly Instructional Leadership meeting at schools (District leadership specialists attends)

Clarify what principals should expect instructionally of teachers, and how principals can communicate those expectation; requires coordinated efforts of Curriculum & Instruction and Leadership

Supports for Principals’ LearningMIST RECOMMENDATION MAY 2008

REVISION TO POLICY FALL 2009

Provide professional development that focuses on recognizing high-quality math instruction and giving feedback to teachers

Principal meetings will focus more deeply on supporting principals to develop forms of instructional leadership practices (e.g., sustained learning events specific to the curriculum and recognizing high-quality instruction)

No emphasis on providing feedback on instruction


• Usefulness: Explanatory and predictive power– Allows us to anticipate limitations in policies– Allows us to understand why policies play out in

particular ways in specific situations• Explain why members of role groups develop particular

practices and not others in the institutional settings in which they work


• Institutional settings in which principals work are the immediate contexts of their learning

• The supports as they are actually enacted are key aspects of these (evolving) institutional settings – Math coach

• Weekly meetings• (Learning Walks with coach)

– Monthly principal meetings– (Tools – curriculum map)


• Resulting situated analysis of policy implementation relates:– The practices that principals developed– The institutional setting of their learning• How of policy as implemented


• Develop specific actionable recommendations that might make the policy more effective– Propose adjustments to the district’s improvement

strategies – the how of policy– Testable conjectures about:

• Envisioned improvements in principal’s practices• The means of supporting that learning

• Design experiment at the level of a large school district

Generality of the Learning Design Perspective on Policy

• District B:– District leaders conceptualized instructional

improvement in terms of supporting (and motivating) others’ learning

– Explicit vision of high-quality mathematics instruction

– Coherent set of improvement strategies


• Claim: Perspective is also useful when:– Policymakers conceptualize instructional

improvement in terms of disseminating information about intended practices

– Policy specifies only intended results/outcomes• Increase in student mathematics achievement (test

scores)


• Teachers’ initial instructional practices + initial student test scores

• Consequences of the policy– Changes in the institutional setting of teaching

• Supports, incentives, accountability

• Changes in teachers’ instructional practices + resulting student test scores• Explain why teachers changed their practices in

the ways documented

Policymaking at Multiple Levels

• Principals were the targets’ of district policy• Principals made policies that targeted

teachers (and math coaches)


• What: Vision for teachers’ instructional practices– Form rather than function view

• How: Means of achieving vision– Observed classroom and communicated

expectations– Met with math coach regularly• In some schools, focused on teachers’ instructional

practices


• Teachers’ made policy that targeted students– What: Vision for students’ mathematical practices• Instructional goals

– How: Means of achieving the vision• Instructional practices


• Network of policy makers - each makes policy in a setting shaped by others’ policy making efforts– District leaders

• National policy Discourses– Principals

• National policy Discourses• District leaders’, leadership specialists’, and mathematics

specialists’ policymaking– Teachers

• National policy Discourses• Principals, mathematics coaches’, and mathematics specialists’

policy making efforts

Process of Policy Implementation

• Dominant perspective– A single policy travels down through the

education system• Distortion, resistance

• Learning design perspective– Policymaking at multiple levels of the education

system• Develop policy vision and attempt to achieve it • Situated reorganization of practices

Usefulness Revisited

• The learning design perspective an an analytical lens

• Initial indications that it might be useful in the practice (of policymaking)

Usefulness Revisited

• District leaders’ view instructional improvement as a process of:– Supporting others’ learning– Disseminating information about desired practices

and pressing for compliance

• Extent to which mathematics specialists viewed as a valued resource

Documents

Reconceptualizing Policy as Designs for Supporting Learning Paul CobbKara Jackson Vanderbilt University