Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 1 Volume 26, Issue 2 November 20th, 2025 ISSN 1099-839X The Micropolitics of Literacy Curricula Adoption: An Exploratory Actor Network Theory Analysis of Curricula Adoption Jennifer Barrett-Tatum, Western Carolina University Roya Q. Scales Western Carolina University Margaret Vaughn Washington State University Elizabeth Y. Stevens Roberts Wesleyan College Sonia Kline Illinois State University Ann Van Wig Eastern Washington University Karen K. Yoder Goshen College, retired Debra Wellman Rollins College, Professor Emeritus Abstract: In the realm of literacy education, curriculum is driven by politics, finances, standardization, and accountability. How specified curricular materials make their way into the classroom often baffles educators. The one thing educators do know is that it "isn't the one we voted for." This study includes a review of literature on how curricula were historically adopted and provides a current view of how literacy curricula are selected across multiple states. To make this adoption process more visible and discernible, participants were interviewed and asked to BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 2 provide visual diagrams explaining the process. Actor Network Theory was utilized to examine not only the actors involved in the adoption process, but also the flow of decision-making and the hierarchies involved. While understandings of process and flow varied, the one consistent finding indicated that classroom educators were not the most essential actors in the adoption network. Keywords: Literacy curriculum, Curriculum adoption process, Literacy curriculum adoption, Actor Network Theory, ANT Citation: Barrett-Tatum, J., Scales, R. Q., Vaughn, M., Stevens, E. Y., Kline, S., Van Wig, A. Yoder, K. K., & Wellman, D. (2025). The Micropolitics of Literacy Curricula Adoption: An Exploratory Actor Network Theory Analysis of Curricula Adoption. Critical Issues in Education, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.14507/cie.vol26iss2.2308 Accepted: 04/18/2025 The Micropolitics of Literacy Curricula Adoption: An Exploratory Actor Network Theory Analysis of Curricula Adoption Although teachers prefer to have the autonomy to use their professional judgment to decide which literacy curriculum materials to use in their classrooms (e.g., Barrett-Tatum & Ashworth, 2021; Manak et al., 2022; Narayanan et al., 2024), teachers continue to be pressured to adhere to prescriptive curricula mandated by district-wide personnel (Lenski et al., 2016; Vaughn et al., 2020; Yeigh et al., 2017). Educational reform policies, such as No Child Left Behind in 2002, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, Race to the Top (RTT) of 2009, and the 2010 Common Core State Standards, led to standardization to the degree that Sulzer (2014) refers to as a “basalisation of today’s youth” (p. 135). The restoration of the Simple View of Reading and the requirements of “non-fail” curricula using the Science of Reading further constrains district leaders, administrators, and educators in their efforts to make autonomous decisions surrounding literacy curriculum adoption (e.g., Cervetti et al., 2020; Reinking et al., 2023; Schwarz-Franco, 2022). As of the end of 2024, half of the states have policies that require school districts to select from state pre-approved lists of published curricula that they believe adequately aligns with the Science of Reading (Peak, 2024). States’ departments of instruction have varying processes for how these initial lists are determined. For example, some states’ departments of instruction may create a panel of reviewers, while others have members of the superintendent's office review and select options. This would indicate an administratively selected list of reviewers who then begin the selection process by refining the initial lists of curricula. Our study seeks to question the level of choice and autonomy districts and schools hold to select their own curriculum as we wondered: At the heart of all the actors in the adoption network, who really chooses school literacy curricula? https://doi.org/10.14507/cie.vol26iss2.2308 BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 3 Narrowing and Refining Literacy Curricula A review of literature investigating educational stakeholders’ involvement in the process of literacy curriculum adoptions revealed a notably limited body of information. In our review of literacy journals, a total of 29 articles broached literacy curricular policies, with less than a third specifically addressing the actual adoption process. The processes of curricular adoptions were largely controlled at the state level, by limiting the options from which districts and schools might select. Tulley’s (1985) examination of the textbook adoption process in 22 states revealed that often the adoption processes occur at the state level to promote statewide uniformity of the curriculum and assure the quality of adopted texts. School districts select from a chosen few options named by the state. Fletcher et al.’s (2012) study further indicated state adoption criteria may include allowing only curricula with specified dimensions within their materials. These texts are examined for diversity components such as race and gender, in addition to positive pedagogical instructional strategies. Following Fletcher et al.’s study, Scudella (2013) reported the Education Commission of the States’ explanation of textbook selection by state, which indicated legislative language regarding processes involved. Eight states included language about citizens or the public participating in curriculum adoption processes. 13 states specifically addressed minority representation in laws about adopting curriculum materials. Localized Selections If curricular adoption decision-making did occur at the more localized levels, administrators, curriculum specialists, and administratively selected teachers were chosen to serve on adoption committees (Glatthorn et al., 2016). Those elected to have a “seat at the table” during curriculum adoption often found that the adoption lists provided for selection contained only basal programs, and that most often it was Title 1 schools who were able to adopt the least amount of supplemental curricular resources (Glatthorn et al., 2016). Allen and Seaman’s (2017) survey of 584 K-12 school districts across 48 states and the District of Columbia indicated which decision-makers were involved in curriculum adoption processes: these included teachers, district-level administrators, and principals. Additionally, approximately half of the districts included outside experts and parents, but few districts allowed them a say in the decision-making process. The widespread adoption of curriculum materials with Science of Reading (SoR) alignment (e.g., Doan et al., 2022; Falk-Ross et al., 2024; Peak, 2024), may leave teachers feeling overwhelmed at the multitude of resources, including challenges such as the difficulty in adapting instructional materials to meet students’ learning needs when implementing highly scripted literacy curriculum materials (Pak et al., 2020). This new era of SoR adoptions mirrors that experienced a decade ago with Common Core adoptions, illustrating teachers’ continued lack of flexibility and agency in implementing selected curriculum (Lenski et al., 2016; Timberlake et al., 2017; Yeigh et al., 2017). While many experienced and skilled educators continue to enact their own agency by adapting curricula to meet the needs of their learners, administrative focus on fidelity of curricula implementation make it increasingly challenging (Fogo et al., 2019; Thomas, 2024). As teacher educators, we often find ourselves sitting across from teacher candidates trying to negotiate the tightrope walking of our “best practices” expectations and the lived realities of the mandatory curricula implemented in schools (Vaughn et al., 2021; Young et al., 2017). However, while we note the poignancy of teacher enactment of reading curriculum, the focus of the present study is how literacy curricula and curricular BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 4 materials are adopted. Said another way, we wonder how specific curricula winds up in the hands of the teachers in the first place. This study extends our prior work (Vaughn et al., 2021) on decision-making processes for literacy curricula adoption processes across eight states in the United States. In this article, we focus on eliciting visual representations with principals, specifically asking participants to create, explore, and detail their understandings about literacy curricula adoption. Our aim in doing so is to contextualize the narrative surrounding literacy curricula adoption, specifically by using multiple modes to examine how principals viewed literacy curricula adoption in their respective schools and districts. Our guiding research question is: What insights can we gain from principals’ visual representations and understandings of literacy curriculum adoption and implementation processes? Theoretical Framework The research question bids us to examine the myriad of stakeholders at various hierarchical levels, the curricula being examined and adopted, as well as the interlocking network of adoption itself. As adoption processes are not always linear decision-making processes, we selected Actor Network Theory (ANT) as our guiding framework. ANT has undergone diverse interpretations across multiple fields since Callon and Latour’s (1981) publication on interpreting macro-systems, but has taken root in education and education policy analysis studies. For this study, we describe ANT as related to Payne’s (2017) assemblages that focus on emergent and fluid networks of material objects, discourses, practices, and people. This is an ideal framing for the study of literacy curricula (both conceptual and concrete), the people who evaluate and adopt them, the discourses around the evaluation and adoption processes, and the state/district/school practices related to the process of literacy curricula adoption. To best represent the actors and the network of curriculum adoptions, we selected ANT Analysis Diagrams (AADs) for administrative representation of the adoption process (Payne, 2017). The AADs are intended to help study and understand the process and interactions of the actors rather than focus on the result of the process (Law & Singleton, 2013; Payne, 2017). The use of visual diagrams paired with participants’ descriptions of the diagram and the process helped us to better understand the agency, or lack thereof, of the actors within. Visual diagramming methodologies (Pauwels, 2011; Rose, 2016) informed data collection and analysis. Visual diagrams were essential to answering our research question because, as Ganesh (2011) notes, they “can be used to elicit individuals’ understandings of a specific idea or construct” (p. 237), as well as support research analysis of actors networking within a process system (Payne, 2017). Diagrams were non-algorithmic, with prompts allowing openness in the use of pictures and/or words as participants drew processes. Specifically, this study uses visual diagrams (i.e., AADs) representations created by participants to study the actors and flow of the process in districts’ curriculum adoption and implementation processes. Methodology In this qualitative multi-case study (Miles et al., 2020), we used purposive sampling to recruit principals based on varied regional locations of the United States that were within a two- hour drive from the researcher conducting the in-person interview. This study targeted elementary school-level administrators as they are the actors who function as the middle persons between districts and schools, and therefore, hold insider knowledge of curriculum adoption processes. Thus, participating principals were within the bounded system of cases for this study BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 5 (i.e., purposefully selected cases). Further, the researchers had previously conducted some research or pre-service teacher supervision in these participating principals’ schools and were familiar with the workings of the district, school, and literacy curricula. Six public elementary school principals from five states (i.e., California, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina) agreed to participate. North Carolina is the only state to have two participating principals, as requested by the superintendent for district-level IRB permission. Principals’ years of experience as administration ranged from 2 – 17 years. Schools were located across rural, suburban, and urban settings, and ranged in enrollment from a small school with 2,500 students to a large school with 9,926 students. While all were considered elementary schools, grade levels represented in schools varied, including one school containing 3rd-5th primary grades, three schools containing K-5th grades, and two with K-8th grades. To protect anonymity while not assuming gender identity, we assigned gender neutral pseudonyms to all participating principals. See Table 1 for participants’ demographics. Table 1 Participant demographics Principal State Years of Principal Experience School Enrollment School Ryan CA 8 193 K-5 Sam NY 2 520 K-5 Alex SC 3 648 3-5 Andy IL 10 425 K-5 Jamie NC 17 492 K-8 Connor NC 7 569 K-8 Each researcher conducted an in-person, audio-recorded interview with the participating principal, which was later transcribed. The final question in the interview was to explain the adoption process of literacy curricula at the district and school level by creating an illustrated diagram. They were then prompted to explain their diagram and their thoughts behind its construction. Hence, interview questions focused on principals’ creating and explaining the visual representations. Each researcher scanned their participant’s visual representation and uploaded that file to a password-protected online site. Transcribed interviews were uploaded to that same site. We followed Miles et al.’s (2020) standards for quality of conclusions in qualitative work by attending to the overall trustworthiness of this research. To address dependability, we described in detail the process of AAD’s in ANT using this theory to guide analysis of all data, as described below. To address reliability in coding, all data were jointly coded by the authors and compared against the theoretical tenants described above. BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 6 Data Sources & Analysis Data sources included researcher-initiated visuals created during individual audio- recorded interviews and the interview transcripts. We asked principals to show: ● How literacy curriculum materials (including programs) are chosen in their school district; ● Who makes these decisions and why; and ● What are the processes and pathways of decision-making? We left these questions broad in nature, and we did not ask participants to delineate any structures beyond their school building. Additionally, we asked that the diagrams be hand-drawn, “to emphasize the working nature” of the system’s process (Payne, 2017, p.124). Diagram development must take into context the knowledge level and possible biases of the interpreter, thus influencing not only what is drawn but the language used around it (Glazer, 2011; Meza et al., 2022). The complexity of this development was evident when principals commonly stated that they were not artists and tended to say how difficult it was to put such a complicated process into a drawing, though they verbalized the process as they drew and after diagram completion. Visual diagramming methodologies (Pauwels, 2011; Rose, 2016) informed data collection and analysis. Visual diagram (i.e., AADs) representations were researcher-initiated, where participants were prompted to respond to interview questions indicating curriculum adoption processes. Visual diagrams were selected because they “can be used to elicit individuals’ understandings of a specific idea or construct” (Ganesh, 2011, p. 237), as well as support research analysis of actors’ networking within a process system (Payne, 2017). Diagrams were non-algorithmic, with prompts allowing openness in the use of pictures and/or words as participants drew processes. We did not rate the quality or artistic components of the visual representations. Instead, we focused on content and descriptions. That is, we considered how principals’ words in the interview transcripts and their visuals worked in conjunction to explain literacy curriculum adoption processes. The first two authors coded data together using ANT assemblage analyses. Diagrams were analyzed for the ANT concepts that appear in Table 2. Table 2 ANT Analysis Coding Concepts Concept Codes Defined Actors Human subjects or bodies of governance involved in adoption process, whether involved in decision process or influenced by others Hierarchies Positions of power, situations of control or decision-making that influences other actors Flow Trajectories and directionality of materials, decisions, discussion processes Materials Items involved in adoption process or that influence the process Purpose/Guiding Intentions The “why” behind people, places, items, or movement in decision-making that was either drawn in diagram or verbally paired with drawings First, we noted the above ANT concepts from within each visual and then compared the concept codes across visuals. Next, we overlaid each principal’s interview transcript that BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 7 described their process for diagram creation with the diagram itself. We added direct quotations to the diagrams based on creation descriptions. Finally, we used in vivo coding (Miles et al., 2020) to identify repeated words, phrases, and elements presented in visuals as they were paired with transcripts where principals described their visuals. Findings Visual representations and transcripts worked together to convey deeper meanings than just analyzing each in isolation (Ganesh, 2011; Miles et al., 2020; Pauwels, 2011; Rose, 2016). Subtle nuances in visuals were overlooked until we read the transcripts and noted items that were discussed but not drawn. The same was true for the drawings; items were added but not described within the discussion. In conjecture, the diagrams and creation discussions provided a more complete portrayal of how curricula adoption processes work across states. Principals organized their visuals through notably different designs. The wide variation in diagramming included flowcharts, concept clouds with relational concept arrows, and ecological models. Throughout coding, we were struck by visual representations, noting the complexity of actors, relationships, hierarchical control, and actor interaction flow or pathways. We identified larger themes around the objective purpose of adoption and decision intentionality, essential actors, and hierarchical trajectories. Essential Actors Interestingly, students were often named the most essential actor within the network by principals, yet were the only actors with zero decision-making abilities. Regardless of the number of stakeholders involved in the diagrams, students represented the common actors within all the networks. Multiple principals’ visual representations and transcripts placed students at the center of the literacy curriculum adoption process, and although some visuals lacked reference to students, interview transcripts described students as the focus of the adoption process. Yet, students were given no power or action within the flow of decision-making. The actors with the most power in the network were district administrative gatekeepers. These administrative figures were often represented as actors of significant power by providing them with a symbol that represents power, such as a crown or a key. For example, Andy from Illinois described the district’s director as the gatekeeper and the curriculum council in a cloud (see Figure 1) and explained: She’s (district curriculum director) going to be the one who talks to our salespeople. She’s the gatekeeper, so I’ll give her a key. She’s the key to what curriculum gets to the curriculum council… She’s going to say, hey, there’s probably thousands of curricula that’s available to be purchased by districts…obviously we can’t have our council looking at all of those... I guess that she selects certain ones that are approved by her, approved by her team, to be options to be chosen to be purchased for the district. BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 8 Figure 1 Visual Representation Illustrated by Principal Andy from Illinois Andy speculated that a hidden hierarchy within the district related to the curriculum director and council clouded the teachers’ understanding of the adoption process by stating that there were pervasive underground networks of power structures in place for literacy curriculum adoption. This was often represented in multiple diagrams through multiple arrows flowing both to and from essential actors. Principals’ use of metaphors in visuals and in transcripts further illuminated the complexity of relationships, control, and interactions involved throughout literacy curriculum adoption processes. For instance, in South Carolina, Alex indicated that it was the reading coaches that held considerable positions of power for literacy curriculum adoption and implementation, which principals acted as the enforcing body (see Figure 2). While schools were provided a list of options and were allowed “a quote unquote vote” for their preference, the district selected the list of curricula from a pre-approved state list. The district relied heavily on reading coaches to create the options list for teachers because they are viewed as experts and trusted professionals. Alex stated: Oftentimes the assistant superintendent will go directly to them [reading coaches] and say ‘you’re trained on this, this needs to be happening, meet with your principal.’ Then sometimes it goes this way. [Assistant superintendent] tells us and then I’ll call my BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 9 reading coach in... I think there’s a lot of collaboration that does take place here. And teachers can go directly to our reading coach as well. Alex’s explanations describe the reading coaches as experts who serve as needed across the school district, selecting curricula and resources, and providing regularly scheduled professional development sessions. School leaders expected the information shared by the coaches to be fully implemented in reading instruction. This flow of power between actors creates a network in which administration is mostly informed about curricula choices through discussions with the reading coaches, and then acting as enforcers for the coaches (decision-making actors), while classroom teachers have more passive roles of selecting from a narrowed menu and enacting their selected mandated curricula. In connection with the ANT assemblages, it is not only the actors that matter, but also the flow or trajectories of materials, power, and messages being passed amongst their actors. Figure 2 Visual Representation Illustrated by Principal Alex from South Carolina Hierarchical Trajectories Findings revealed the complexity of relationships, control, and interactions involved throughout literacy curriculum adoption processes, illustrating the interconnectedness among all involved. While all actors were connected, the pathways of power, choice, and voice were not BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 10 always equitable. Four principals’ diagrams and discussions highlighted hierarchical trajectories within the state's process for providing approved lists, a process in which the power of selection began at the top (state office) and trickled down, while two of the principals described district systems that had a more circular process focused on a common goal. Given the complexities of district bureaucracy, connections between actors are represented in diagrams and described in transcripts to illustrate the flow and trajectories of decision-making and decision-making powers. Top-Down Flow Illustratively, Ryan in California sketched the literacy adoption process and stated that decision-makers were in a silo (see Figure 3). Ryan pointed out the humanities team as part of the superintendent’s leadership team, which also includes the deputy superintendent and the chief academic officer. Ryan said: These are kind of the three head honchos, way up at the top… decision-makers, supervisors. Then you have the humanities team, which I drew it as a circle, it could sort of be seen as a silo though. So, they’re like one agency within the district. They’re not in the same building as these folks, they’re all the way across town. The humanities team is made up of supervisors and program administrators, and then teachers on special assignment. Figure 3 Visual Representation Illustrated by Principal Ryan from California BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 11 Ryan further explained that the large urban district had a prevailing practice of administration hand-selecting school leaders to be on the district teams. Ryan summarized that these leaders were noted as having micro political connections, while other classroom teachers were on the periphery because they were not selected by the administration and either did not know they could ask, or did not feel they could ask, to be on the leadership teams. Ryan pointed to the drawn silo and stated: The reason I drew these arrows is that these people [teacher leaders on the humanities team] then become the sellers and the messengers and send it back to schools. The strategy behind that is a good one. The strategy is teachers listen to teachers better than if these folks up here [superintendent, deputy superintendent, chief academic officer] are delivering the message. While the silo metaphor and power structures explain which actors have power and how they may elect to contain or disseminate the power. In Ryan’s above figure, the flow of decision- making is manipulated by specific actors. For example, the literacy curriculum adoption process is initially driven by classroom teachers advocating for specific programs, but their request is brought forward to the district by a humanities team, who ultimately act as the decision-making body. Once decided, teacher leaders on the humanities team task school principals in the district to assure professional development is provided to the schools’ teachers. Given the ongoing communication with the teacher leaders from the humanities team and schools, this indicates the complexity and interconnectedness of relationships and processes regarding literacy curriculum adoption. Circular Flow While power structures are noted in the visual representations and in the interview transcripts, two principals specifically pointed out the importance of collaboration and ongoing dialogue among stakeholders for intentional processes regarding literacy curriculum adoption. This was evident in two of the visual representations and supported by transcripts. Sam in New York drew a continuous circle with students at the center (see Figure 4) to represent the continual back and forth circular flow of decision-making across actors, and stated: So as the state determines what kids need, in the middle, then they’ll keep telling us, we’ll develop our curriculum, and then we’ll implement, and as we’re implementing, we are monitoring, revising, and assessing, but it’s all got to be centered around the student. BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 12 Figure 4 Visual Representation Illustrated by Principal Sam from New York Figure 4 shows the constant nature of curriculum adoption and implementation as a never-ending circular journey. While the state has expectations in the form of standards, those standards are frequently revised as policies shift. The expectations inform curriculum alignments and guidance for instructional practices. Sam explained that teachers are provided with district- wide professional development that accompanies information about changes to standards, but teachers have the autonomy to make decisions about how they teach. District curriculum specialists influence the curriculum and professional development by creating curriculum alignment and guidance documents to relay information that helps classroom teachers and administrators implement instructional practices that support the state standards, monitor BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 13 students’ learning, revise instructional practices to better support students’ learning, and assess learning. Assessment data within and across schools in the district then provides policymakers with information that leads to further shifts in the expectations (standards). Hence, the process is ongoing. Sam’s visual representation and interview transcript indicated the interconnectedness of actors and power pathways throughout the adoption process. Similarly, Connor in North Carolina drew and explained the necessity of two-way dialogue among school leaders, teachers, and district-wide professional learning communities for influencing instruction that benefits students (see Figure 5). Connor stated: That’s a mouth. They’re talking. So here are teachers, talking. We’re watching and listening. They’re talking amongst each other, and they can go to any one of us (principal, assistant principal, lead teacher) and ask stuff. Or it could be the lead teacher says something and she’s bringing it back here [to the principal and assistant principal]. Or it could be that we go back [to the teachers] and say, “Hey, we found this.” Everybody’s talking and listening. It could also be something we observe, like this teacher needs help learning how to do guided reading so the lead teacher goes in to observe and coach. The two principals and districts that have more of a circular flow tend to have more student focused diagrams. This would indicate that the districts and all the actors share in an intentionality that whatever curriculum is adopted needs to meet the needs of the children and the children’s learning outcomes. Figure 5 Visual Representation Illustrated by Principal Connor from North Carolina BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 14 Discussion Findings indicate that complex relationships among essential actors, trajectories within the hierarchy, and the flow of control/power heavily influence what materials are adopted and used for literacy curricula. We wondered who ultimately held the authority for curriculum adoption and implementation processes. That is, when it comes to literacy curriculum, who is really driving the cart? The state for limiting the selection? The district and administration for selecting who sees the materials and who votes? Or the teachers and reading specialists who make requisitions? While districts directed adoption, each participant described the literacy curriculum adoption process as being driven by mandates or standards/expectations. This indicates the pervasiveness of accountability pressures and the unspoken fear of being considered a school where students are not achieving at or above grade level, based on mandated standardized tests (Hussar et al., 2020). Standardized testing and big-name testing companies might then be considered the most influential actors of them all within the adoption network. Findings from this study indicate that educators have the least selection power based on hierarchies and trajectories of decision-making. Yet, educators continue to advocate and take power in their own day-to-day practices (Hinnant-Crawford, 2016) by deciding what and how they may use curriculum materials in their classrooms (Lenski et al., 2016; Theodorou et al., 2017; Yurdakul, 2015). This is supported by a few of the principals in this study indicated that teachers have flexibility to decide which literacy curriculum materials to include in their instruction, as long as the state- or district-required programs are taught. Mandated programs were considered by some principals to be a way to ensure every child got the same instruction, which would presumably lead to higher test scores (Dennis, 2017). Administration sometimes indicated that they believe in teacher autonomy while also touting teaching programs to fidelity. For example, Jamie from North Carolina described the provided phonics and guided reading programs as being taught with fidelity and conducted walk- throughs to ensure that fidelity. However, teachers were permitted to add to the literacy programs once fidelity was met. This was true in other schools, too, with the checklists of what school leaders were looking for being present during reading instruction and extra opportunities on the side during additional instructional time that was often dedicated to differentiation and intervention. Administrators addressed issues of differentiation and meeting diverse learning needs through curricular use and fidelity. Conclusion & Implications We gleaned valuable insight into the curriculum adoption processes across five states in the United States through examining principals’ visual representations paired with interview transcripts. When paired, these data sources noted a complexity of actors, relationships, hierarchical control, and actor interaction flow or pathways. While principals shared commonalities in hierarchies and communication, the interactions and issues of control among actors differed. Some principals described how their districts featured top-down curriculum adoption processes with gatekeepers and silos, and others described circular journeys and back- and-forth communication. Regardless of location, students remained the essential actors, i.e., the center of the process. While our study was limited to at least one principal from each of the five states, patterns of power and locus of control among specific stakeholders are evident. Curriculum adoption processes are a complex series of interactions between the current research and trends in BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 15 education, literacy-based policies, national corporations, for-profit corporations, state Departments of Education, district and school administration, and classroom teachers. While the research presented here is not a representation of how all states navigate this process, several commonalities related to top-down administrative decision-making are evident. Often, teachers across America turn to each other after new textbook adoptions and ask, “Who selected these materials?” As teachers, we were often told that a panel of our peers selected the text, or the school did, when we all voted. Yet when we asked our peers, almost no one claimed to have voted for adopted texts. In an era of accountability and fidelity, teachers want a say in the curricular resources that are being mandated (Schwarz-Franco, 2022). Professionally trained educators may seek resources, but not necessarily in a way that narrows or restricts what they see as viable, high-quality options. Indeed, those who hold the voting power are most often those at the state department who have created the initially refined list. From there, it is most common that administrators and district and school levels select which curricula they wish their district to select from and who they wish to be voting members for curricular adoption. In some instances, administrators felt that actors needed to be “in the know” before joining the table. With this revealed, it is our hope that awareness and clarity from this study will support educators to become more active agents within their own schools and districts and that literacy researchers may adopt an activist stance in local and national literacy policies. Administrators should design more open and equitable ways for all educators to select their schools' literacy curricula. We hold that not only should all stakeholders in the literacy curriculum adoption process have a voice in the process, but that those that implement the curricula have a voice at the beginning, middle, and end of the adoption process. References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). What we teach: K-12 school district curriculum adoption process, 2017. Babson Survey Research Group. Barrett-Tatum, J., & Ashworth, K. (2021). Moving educational policy to educators’ lived reality: One state’s trickle-down, bottom-up pathway to literacy intervention reform. Journal of Educational Change, 22, 355-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09392-1 Callon M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How do actors macrostructure reality. In K. Knorr & A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Towards an integration of micro and macro sociologies (pp. 277-303). Routledge. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Palincsar, A. S., Afflerbach, P., Kendeou, P., Biancarosa, G., Higgs, J., Fitzgerald, M. S., & Berman, A. I. (2020). How the reading for understanding Initiative’s research complicates the simple view of reading invoked in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S161-S172. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.343 Dennis, D. V. (2017). Learning from the past: What ESSA has the chance to get right. The Reading Teacher, 70(4), 395-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1538 Doan, S., Kaufman, J. H., Woo, A., Tuma, A. P., Diliberti, M. K., & Lee, S. (2022). How states are creating conditions for use of high-quality instructional materials in K–12 classrooms: Findings from the 2021 American instructional resources survey. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-13.html https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09392-1 https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.343 https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-13.html BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 16 Falk-Ross, F., Gormley, K. A., & McDermott, P. (2024) Examining the evidence for selecting reading programs in a large urban school system. The Language and Literacy Spectrum, 34(1), Article 1, 1-20. Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D, & Levin, D. (2012). Out of print: Reimagining the K-12 textbook in a digital age. State Educational Technology Directors Association. Fogo, B., Reisman, A., & Breakstone, J. (2019). Teacher adaptation of document-based history curricula: Results of the reading like a historian curriculum-use survey. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(1), 62-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1550586 Ganesh, T. G. (2011). Children-produced drawings: An interpretive and analytic tool for researchers. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of visual research methods (pp. 214-240). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268278.n12 Glatthorn, A. A., Jailall, J. M., & Jailall, J. K. (2016). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested. Corwin. Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.605307 Hinnant-Crawford, B. (2016). Education policy influence efficacy: Teacher beliefs in their ability to change education policy. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 7(2), 1. Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., Smith, M., Bullock Mann, F., Barmer, A., and Dilig, R. (2020). The condition of education 2020 (NCES 2020-144). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2013). ANT and politics: Working in and on the world. Qualitative Sociology, 36, 485-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-013-9263-7 Lenski, S., Larson, M., McElhone, D., Davis, D. S., Lauritzen, C., Villagómez, A., Yeigh, M., Landon-Hays, M., LeJeune, M., & Scales, W. D. (2016). What teachers want: A statewide survey of reading and English language arts teachers’ instructional materials, preferences, and practices. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(3), 237-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2016.1156202 Manak, J., Bollinger, C. B., Shimek, C., Barrett-Tatum, J., & Wellman, D. (2022). Comprehensive literacy instruction within classroom contexts: Teachers’ perceptions of best practices for literacy. Current Issues in Education, 23(2), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.14507/cie.vol23iss2.2029 Meza, J. A. D., Castro, M. L. C., & Vivas, R. V. J. (2022). The diagram as a mediator in collaborative learning: A conceptual review. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100634 Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage. Narayanan, M., Shields, A. L., & Delhagen, T. J. (2024). Autonomy in the spaces: teacher autonomy, scripted lessons, and the changing role of teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 56(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2023.2297229 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1550586 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1550586 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268278.n12 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.605307 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-013-9263-7 https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2016.1156202 https://doi.org/10.14507/cie.vol23iss2.2029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100634 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2023.2297229 BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 17 Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & García, E. S. (2020). The adaptive challenges of curriculum implementation: Insights for educational leaders driving standards-based reform. AERA Open, 6(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420932828 Payne, L. (2017). Visualization in analysis: Developing ANT analysis diagrams (AADs). Qualitative Research, 17(1), 118-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116661229 Pauwels, L. (2011). An integrated conceptual framework for visual social research. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of visual research methods (pp. 3- 23). Sage. Peak, C. (2024, Nov. 18). New reading laws sweep the nation following Sold a Story. APM Reports. Retrieved from https://www.apmreports.org/story/2024/11/18/legislators- reading-laws-sold-a-story Reinking, D., Hruby, G. G., & Risko, V. J. (2023). Legislating phonics: Settled science or political polemics? Teachers College Record, 125(1), 104-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231155688 Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials (4th ed.). Sage. Scudella, V. (2013). State textbook adoption. Education Commission of the States. Schwarz-Franco, O. (2022). Necessarily free: Why teachers must be free. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 41(3), 325-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-021-09814-4 Sulzer, M. (2014). The common core state standards and the "basalisation" of youth. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 13(1), 134-154. Theodorou, E., Philippou, S., & Kontovourki, S. (2017). Caught between worlds of expertise: Elementary teachers amidst official curriculum development processes in Cyprus. Curriculum Inquiry, 47(2), 217-240. doi:10.1080/03626784.2017.1283591 Thomas, R. S. (2024). BACKTALK: Finding the sweet spot between curriculum fidelity and teacher agency. Phi Delta Kappan, 106(4), 54-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217241304835 Timberlake, M. T., Thomas, A. B., & Barrett, B. (2017). The allure of simplicity: Scripted curricula and equity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.017 Tulley, M. A. (1985). A descriptive study of the intents of state-level textbook adoption processes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 289-308. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737007003289 Vaughn, M., Parsons, S. A., & Massey, D. (2020). Aligning the science of reading with adaptive teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S299-S306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.351 Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Stevens, E. Y., Kline, S., Barrett-Tatum, J., Van Wig, A., Yoder, K. K., & Wellman, D. (2021). Understanding literacy policies across contexts: A multi-state examination of literacy curriculum decision-making. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(3), 333-352. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2019.1683233 https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420932828 https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116661229 https://www.apmreports.org/story/2024/11/18/legislators-reading-laws-sold-a-story https://www.apmreports.org/story/2024/11/18/legislators-reading-laws-sold-a-story https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231155688 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-021-09814-4 https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217241304835 https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217241304835 https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217241304835 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.017 https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737007003289 https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.351 BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 18 Yeigh, M. J., Villagómez, A., Lenski, S. J., McElhone, D., & Larson, M. L. (2017). Teachers’ professional judgment in contrast with policy mandates: Instructional material adoption and students’ needs. Northwest Journal of Teacher Education,12(2), Article 5, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.15760/nwjte.2017.12.2.5 Young, J. R., Scales, R. Q., Grisham, D. L., Dobler, E., Wolsey, T. D., Smetana, L., Chambers, S., Ganske, K., Lenski, S., & Yoder, K. K. (2017). Student teachers’ preparation in literacy: Cooking in someone else’s kitchen. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(4), 74-97. Yurdakul, B. (2015). Perceptions of elementary school teachers concerning the concept of curriculum. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 125-139. Author’s Notes Jennifer Barrett-Tatum Western Carolina University jabarrett@email.wcu.edu Roya Q. Scales ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3368-1880 Western Carolina University rqscales@wcu.edu Margaret Vaughn ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8832-8366 Washington State University margaret.vaughn@wsu.edu Elizabeth Y. Stevens ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5885-7891 Roberts Wesleyan College Stevens_Elizabeth@roberts.edu Sonia Kline Illinois State University skline@ilstu.edu Ann Van Wig Eastern Washington University avanwig@ewu.edu Karen K. Yoder Goshen College, retired kkyoder@yahoo.com Debra Wellman ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1747-8794 Rollins College, Professor Emeritus dwellman@rollins.edu https://doi.org/10.15760/nwjte.2017.12.2.5 mailto:jabarrett@email.wcu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3368-1880 mailto:rqscales@wcu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8832-8366 mailto:margaret.vaughn@wsu.edu https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5885-7891 mailto:Stevens_Elizabeth@roberts.edu mailto:skline@ilstu.edu mailto:avanwig@ewu.edu mailto:kkyoder@yahoo.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1747-8794 mailto:dwellman@rollins.edu BARRETT-TATUM ET AL.: THE MICROPOLITICS OF LITERACY CURRICULUM ADOPTION Current Issues in Education, 26(2) 19 More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Current Issues in Education is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University . https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/