Background: No single course has generated as much contentious policy debate as Algebra I. It serves as a critical gatekeeper to college and career readiness, often creating obstacles for historically marginalized students. As school districts redesign mathematics policies to align with Common Core State Standards (CCSS-M), local leaders must navigate complex instructional decisions. Leaders in one urban district initiated a multiyear effort to redesign its secondary mathematics pathways and access to algebra in response to changing standards. Purpose: This study examines how district leaders socially constructed the needs of various educational constituencies during internal decision-making and how these constructions influence the design of influential mathematics policy. This paper contributes to the field of education research by highlighting the connection between local policy and the deliberative processes through which district leaders shape their collective efforts. Drawing on social construction theory, it underscores how the way constituent groups are defined can influence policy design in education. Given that much educational decision-making occurs outside the public’s view, this work draws attention to a key influence on the process and outcome of important policy design. Research Design: We conducted a longitudinal qualitative case study over 2.5 years in the Cypress School District, a racially and socioeconomically diverse urban district serving more than 50,000 students. Our data corpus included 14 observed task force meetings (totaling 372 hours of observation), 101 interviews with 49 central office staff, and 1,826 documents, including 22 drafts of the policy under development. We identified 899 references to stakeholder groups and used a combination of inductive and deductive coding to analyze how district leaders rhetorically constructed these groups as targets of design, voice, and persuasion. We traced how these constructions evolved alongside the drafting of policy documents, allowing us to map discourse to specific decision points and revisions in the policy. By triangulating observational data, interviews, and policy artifacts, we were able to capture how internal deliberations shaped both the process and substance of instructional policymaking. Conclusions: District leaders, individually and collectively, made sense of the needs and interests of diverse constituent groups, including students, parents, teachers, school leaders, other district leaders, and school board members. They positioned these groups as (1) targets for their design efforts, (2) salient perspectives to give “voice” to within meetings, and (3) potential audiences to be informed or persuaded. Policymakers weighed the perceived needs of Black and Latinx families who had been ill-served by past policies; teachers, school leaders, and district leaders who were constructed as leading implementers in different policy solutions; affluent parents who would argue for access to advanced coursework for “mathematically gifted” children; and members of the elected school board who would need to be convinced to vote for the final policy. Weighing the needs of these different constituent groups formed the basis for the district’s eventual approval of the course pathways policy. We argue that constituent group construction is a key influence on the process and outcome of important policy design in local school districts.
Farrell et al. (Wed,) studied this question.