This article examines how leaders in public, private, and hybrid educational systems manage competing pressures in their institutional environments. Across all systems, leaders responded to system-specific puzzles by (re)building systemwide educational infrastructures to support instructional coherence and framed these efforts as rooted in concerns about pragmatic organizational legitimacy. These efforts surfaced several challenges related to educational equity; leaders framed their responses to these challenges as tied to both pragmatic and moral organizational legitimacy. To address these challenges, leaders turned to an array of disparate government and nongovernment organizations in their institutional environments to procure and coordinate essential resources. Thus, the press for instructional coherence reinforced their reliance on an incoherent institutional environment.
AnnammaS. A.JacksonD. D.MorrisonD. (2017). Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using a dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 20(2), 147–162.
2.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.
3.
AustinJ. E.GrossmanA. S.SchwartzR. B.SuesseJ. (2006). Managing at scale in the Long Beach Unified School District. Harvard Business School Publishing.
4.
BallS. J. (2008). The education debate. The Policy Press.
5.
BlaushildN. L. (2019). Meeting system-level expectations and students’ needs: Exploring the intersection of educational infrastructure building and teacher decision making in three public-school systems [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Northwestern University.
6.
Boards of Cooperative Educational Services. (2017). About us. Boards of Cooperative Educational Services of New York State. https://www.boces.org/about-boces/
7.
BrykA. S.SebringP.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. Q. (2009). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. The University of Chicago Press.
8.
BurchP. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. Routledge.
9.
Bush-MecenasS.MarshJ. A. (2018). The DIVE approach: Using case-ordered meta-matrices and theory-based data displays to analyze multiple case study data. In LochmillerC. R. (Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 33–56). Palgrave MacMillan.
10.
CappsR.FixM.MurrayJ.OstJ.PasselJ. S.HernandezS. H. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. The Urban Institute.
11.
CohenD. K.BhattM. P. (2012). The importance of infrastructure development to high-quality literacy instruction. Future of Children, 22(2), 117–138.
12.
CohenD. K.MoffittS. (2009). The ordeal of equality: Did federal regulation fix the schools?Harvard University Press.
13.
CohenD. K.PeurachD. J.GlazerJ. L.GatesK. E.GoldinS. (2013). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. The University of Chicago Press.
14.
CohenD. K.SpillaneJ. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 18(3), 3–49.
15.
CohenD. K.SpillaneJ. P. (2019). Educational system building. Educational Policy, 33(6), 807–811.
16.
CohenD. K.SpillaneJ. P.PeurachD. J. (2018). The dilemmas of educational reform. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 204–212.
17.
ColyvasJ. A. (2012). Performance metrics as formal structures and through the lens of social mechanisms: When do they work and how do they influence?American Journal of Education, 118(2), 167–197.
18.
CrowsonR. L.DealT. E. (2020). Microlevel sources of institutional change: New insights into the legitimacy imperative. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(4), 439–448.
19.
DeeT. S.JacobB. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.
20.
DiamondJ. B.Posey-MaddoxL. (2020). The changing terrain of the suburbs: Examining race, class, and place in suburban schools and communities. Equity & Excellence in Education, 53(1–2), 7–13.
21.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
22.
DowdA. C.BensimonE. M. (2015). Engaging the “race question”: Accountability and equity in U.S. higher education. Teachers College Press.
23.
Dudley-MarlingC.BurnsM. B. (2014). Two perspectives on inclusion in the United States. Global Education Review, 1, 14–31.
24.
GayG. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.
25.
GolannJ. W. (2015). The paradox of success at a no-excuses school. Sociology of Education, 88(2), 103–119.
26.
GrissomJ. A.EgaliteA. J.LindsayC. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
27.
HonigM. I.HatchT. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.
28.
HopkinsM.LowenhauptR.SweetT. M. (2015). Organizing English learner instruction in new immigrant destinations: District infrastructure and subject-specific school practice. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 408–439.
29.
HopkinsM.SpillaneJ. P.JakopovicP.HeatonR. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 200–224.
IshimaruA. M. (2019). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations with families and communities. Teachers College Press.
33.
JenningsJ. L.BearakJ. M. (2014). “Teaching to the test” in the NCLB era: How test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 381–389.
34.
JohnsonS. M.MariettaG.HigginsM. C.MappK. L.GrossmanA. S. (2014). Achieving coherence in district improvement: Managing the relationship between the central office and schools. Harvard Education Press.
35.
KoballH.JiangY. (2018). Basic facts about low-income children: Children under 9 years, 2016. National Center for Children in Poverty.
36.
KraatzM. S. (2009). Leadership as institutional work: A bridge to the other side. In LawrenceT. B.SuddabyR.LecaB. (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 59–91). Cambridge University Press.
37.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
38.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
39.
LeachmanM.MastersonK.FigueroaE. (2017). A punishing decade for school funding. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
40.
LevitasR. (2013). Utopia as method: The imaginary reconstitution of society. Springer.
41.
MaitlisS.ChristiansonM. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125.
42.
MarshJ. A.KerrK. A.IkemotoG. S.DarilekH.SultorpM.ZimmerR.BarneyH. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. RAND Corporation.
43.
MarshJ. A.WohlstetterP. (2013). Recent trends in intergovernmental relations: The resurgence of local actors in education policy. Educational Researcher, 42(5), 276–283.
44.
MaxwellJ. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–300.
45.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordM. S. (2016). Recognizing the political in implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 233–242.
46.
McFarlandJ.HussarB.ZhangJ.WangX.WangK.HeinS.DilibertiM.Forrest CataldiE.Bullock MannF.BarmerA. (2019). The condition of education 2019 (NCES 2019-44; pp. 1–396). U.S. Department of Education.
47.
McHenry-SorberE.CampbellM. (2019). Teacher shortage as a local phenomenon: District leader sensemaking, responses, and implications for policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(87), 1–33.
48.
MehtaJ. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980—2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.
49.
MehtaJ.FineS. (2015). Bringing values back in: How purposes shape practices in coherent school designs. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 483–510.
50.
MilesM.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE.
51.
MilesM.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). SAGE.
52.
NasirN. S.BangM.YoshikawaH. (2021). Reimagining American education: Possible futures: What might we accomplish in 25 years?Phi Delta Kappan, 103(2), 54–57.
53.
NeumerskiC. M.CohenD. K. (2019). The heart of the matter: How reforms unsettle organizational identity. Educational Policy, 33(6), 882–915.
54.
PeurachD. J.CohenD. K.SpillaneJ. P. (2019). Governments, markets, and instruction: Considerations for cross-national research. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(4), 393–410.
55.
PeurachD. J.CohenD. K.YurkofskyM.SpillaneJ. P. (2019). From mass schooling to education systems: Changing patterns in the organization and management of instruction. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 32–67.
56.
PeurachD. J.FosterA. T.LyleA. M.SeeberE. R. (2021). Democratizing educational innovation and improvement: The policy contexts of improvement research in education [CPRE Working Papers]. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/27
57.
PeurachD. J.NeumerskiC. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379–420.
58.
PeurachD. J.YurkofskyM. M.BlaushildN.SutherlandD. H.SpillaneJ. P. (2020). Analyzing instructionally focused education systems: Exploring the coordinated use of complementary frameworks. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(4), 336–355.
59.
PeurachD. J.YurkofskyM. M.SutherlandD. H. (2019). Organizing and managing for excellence and equity: The work and dilemmas of instructionally focused education systems. Educational Policy, 33(6), 812–845.
60.
PolikoffM. S. (2012). Instructional alignment under No Child Left Behind. American Journal of Education, 118(3), 341–638.
SchneiderJ.BerkshireJ. (2020). A wolf at the schoolhouse door: The dismantling of public education and the future of school. The New Press.
64.
SchwartzH. L.DilibertiM. K. (2021). School districts have expanded their nonacademic services for 2021–2022, while academic offerings remain much the same: Selected findings from the third American School District Panel survey. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA956-4.html
65.
SkibaR. J.ArredondoM. I.WilliamsN. T. (2014). More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 546–564.
66.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. (1990). Systemic school reform. Journal of Education Policy, 5(5), 233–267.
67.
SpillaneJ. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63–87.
68.
SpillaneJ. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How local schools misunderstand policy. Harvard University Press.
69.
SpillaneJ. P.AndersonL. (2014). The architecture of anticipation and novices’ emerging understandings of the principal position: Occupational sense making at the intersection of individual, organization, and institution. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1–42.
70.
SpillaneJ. P.SeeligJ. L.BlaushildN. L.CohenD. K.PeurachD. J. (2019). Educational system building in a changing educational sector: Environment, organization, and the technical core. Educational Policy, 33(6), 846–881.
71.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
72.
SundermanG. L. (2010). Evidence of the impact of school reform on systems governance and educational bureaucracies in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 226–253.
ThomasM. S.CrosbyS.VanderhaarJ. (2019). Trauma-informed practices in schools across two decades: An interdisciplinary review of research. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 422–452.
75.
TurnerE. O. (2020). Suddenly diverse: How school districts manage race and inequality. The University of Chicago Press.
76.
United States. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The National Commission on Excellence in Education.
77.
WeastJ. (2014). Confronting the achievement gap: A district level perspective. In McCartneyK.YoshikawaH.ForcierL. B. (Eds.), Improving the odds for America’s children: Future directions in policy and practice (pp. 101–120). Harvard Education Press.
78.
WeberK.GlynnM. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1639–1660.
79.
WeiX. (2012). Does NCLB improve the achievement of students with disabilities? A regression discontinuity design. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(1), 18–42.
80.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE.
81.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
82.
WeissR. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. The Free Press.
83.
WeltonA.Zamani-GallaherE. (2018). Facilitating institutional change for racial equity in the educational pipeline. Teachers College Record, 120(14), 1–8.
84.
WilliamsonP.HoppeyD.McLeskeyJ.BergmannE.MooreH. (2020). Trends in LRE placement rates over the past 25 years. The Journal of Special Education, 53(4), 236–244.
85.
WongV. C.WingC.MartinD.KrishnamachariA. (2018). Did states use implementation discretion to reduce the stringency of NCLB? Evidence from a database of state regulations. Educational Researcher;47(1), 9–33.
86.
WoulfinS.GabrielR. E. (2020). Interconnected infrastructure for improving reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S109–S117.
87.
YinR. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
