Reforming for “all” or for “some”: Misalignment in the discourses of education reformers and implementers

The ways in which the language of reformers intersects with and informs reform implementation is important to our understanding of how education policy impacts practice. To explore this issue, we employed critical discourse analysis (CDA) to analyze the language used by a 21st century skills-focused...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sarah Winchell Lenhoff, Jasmine B. Ulmer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Arizona State University 2016-10-01
Series:Education Policy Analysis Archives
Subjects:
Online Access:https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2273
_version_ 1818291477589000192
author Sarah Winchell Lenhoff
Jasmine B. Ulmer
author_facet Sarah Winchell Lenhoff
Jasmine B. Ulmer
author_sort Sarah Winchell Lenhoff
collection DOAJ
description The ways in which the language of reformers intersects with and informs reform implementation is important to our understanding of how education policy impacts practice. To explore this issue, we employed critical discourse analysis (CDA) to analyze the language used by a 21st century skills-focused reform organization to promote its program alongside the language that local actors used to explain its implementation. We examined source materials, field notes, interview data, and publicly available organizational data collected over a five-year period to critically examine how discourse 1) illustrated alignment between the stated and implicit audience for the school reform program and 2) shaped subsequent implementation. Analyses suggest the reform organization promoted itself through a discourse that all students in all reform schools were being prepared for college, career, and civic life. There was a significant misalignment, however, in the discourses regarding the appropriate student audience for the reform. Local actors questioned whether the reform program 1) was suitable for all students and 2) provided necessary supports for all students in all schools. This misalignment led to uneven implementation and resulted in some educators dismissing the goals of the program as unrealistic. Given that educational agencies have considerable freedom to choose among diverse reform programs, our analysis suggests it is important to understand the discourses through which reform organizations advertise models, implementers justify adoption, and educators respond.
first_indexed 2024-12-13T02:44:41Z
format Article
id doaj.art-b66910dfbfc04944b6bfffeccb2d4909
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1068-2341
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-13T02:44:41Z
publishDate 2016-10-01
publisher Arizona State University
record_format Article
series Education Policy Analysis Archives
spelling doaj.art-b66910dfbfc04944b6bfffeccb2d49092022-12-22T00:02:13ZengArizona State UniversityEducation Policy Analysis Archives1068-23412016-10-0124010.14507/epaa.24.22731553Reforming for “all” or for “some”: Misalignment in the discourses of education reformers and implementersSarah Winchell Lenhoff0Jasmine B. Ulmer1Wayne State UniversityWayne State UniversityThe ways in which the language of reformers intersects with and informs reform implementation is important to our understanding of how education policy impacts practice. To explore this issue, we employed critical discourse analysis (CDA) to analyze the language used by a 21st century skills-focused reform organization to promote its program alongside the language that local actors used to explain its implementation. We examined source materials, field notes, interview data, and publicly available organizational data collected over a five-year period to critically examine how discourse 1) illustrated alignment between the stated and implicit audience for the school reform program and 2) shaped subsequent implementation. Analyses suggest the reform organization promoted itself through a discourse that all students in all reform schools were being prepared for college, career, and civic life. There was a significant misalignment, however, in the discourses regarding the appropriate student audience for the reform. Local actors questioned whether the reform program 1) was suitable for all students and 2) provided necessary supports for all students in all schools. This misalignment led to uneven implementation and resulted in some educators dismissing the goals of the program as unrealistic. Given that educational agencies have considerable freedom to choose among diverse reform programs, our analysis suggests it is important to understand the discourses through which reform organizations advertise models, implementers justify adoption, and educators respond.https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2273educational policyreformimplementationcritical discourse analysis
spellingShingle Sarah Winchell Lenhoff
Jasmine B. Ulmer
Reforming for “all” or for “some”: Misalignment in the discourses of education reformers and implementers
Education Policy Analysis Archives
educational policy
reform
implementation
critical discourse analysis
title Reforming for “all” or for “some”: Misalignment in the discourses of education reformers and implementers
title_full Reforming for “all” or for “some”: Misalignment in the discourses of education reformers and implementers
title_fullStr Reforming for “all” or for “some”: Misalignment in the discourses of education reformers and implementers
title_full_unstemmed Reforming for “all” or for “some”: Misalignment in the discourses of education reformers and implementers
title_short Reforming for “all” or for “some”: Misalignment in the discourses of education reformers and implementers
title_sort reforming for all or for some misalignment in the discourses of education reformers and implementers
topic educational policy
reform
implementation
critical discourse analysis
url https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2273
work_keys_str_mv AT sarahwinchelllenhoff reformingforallorforsomemisalignmentinthediscoursesofeducationreformersandimplementers
AT jasminebulmer reformingforallorforsomemisalignmentinthediscoursesofeducationreformersandimplementers