v22n50 Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 6/10/2014 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 6/18/2014 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 6/18/2014 SPECIAL ISSUE Politics, Policies, and Practices of Coaching and Mentoring Programs education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 22 Number 50 June 23rd 2014 ISSN 1068-2341 Charting the Research on the Policies and Politics of Coaching Sarah L. Woulfin University of Connecticut USA Citation: Woulfin, S.L. (2014). Charting the Research on the Policies and Politics of Coaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 (50). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n50.2014. This article is part of EPAA/AAPE’s Special Issue on Politics, Policies, and Practices of Coaching and Mentoring Programs, Guest Edited by Dr. Sarah Woulfin. Abstract: Facing relentless pressure to improve student achievement, many states and districts are using coaching as a policy lever to promote changes in practice. This special issue centers on the policies and politics of coaching, and this editorial commentary highlights what we know about the role of coaches and coaching in the field of education. Then I introduce and synthesize the special issue’s seven empirical contributions. Taken together, these papers, using qualitative and quantitative methods, attend to the implementation of diverse coaching models. These papers surface novel findings on the coaching of both teachers and principals and have implications for scholars, reformers, and practitioners. Finally, I make recommendations for future research on coaching that is grounded in theory and which would advance our understanding of both educational policy and change. Keywords: Coaching; Student achievement; Policies; Politics epaa aape E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 22 N o. 50 2 Mapeando la Investigación sobre las Políticas y la Política del Coaching Resumen: Frente a la presión incesante por mejorar el rendimiento estudiantil, muchos estados y distritos están utilizando el coaching como una palanca política para promover cambios en la práctica. Esta cuestión se centra especiales sobre las políticas y la política de entrenamiento y este comentario editorial destaca lo que sabemos sobre el papel de los entrenadores y de entrenamiento en el campo de la educación. Entonces introduzco y sintetizar siete contribuciones empíricas de la edición especial. Tomados en conjunto, estos documentos, utilizando métodos cualitativos y cuantitativos, asisten a la aplicación de diversos modelos de coaching. Estos papeles superficiales nuevos hallazgos sobre la dirección técnica de los profesores y directores y tienen implicaciones para los eruditos, reformadores, y los profesionales. Por último, hago recomendaciones para la investigación futura en el entrenamiento que se basa en la teoría y que permitan avanzar en nuestra comprensión tanto de la política educativa y el cambio. Palabras-clave: Entrenamiento; El logro del estudiante; Políticas; política Mapeando a Pesquisa sobre as Políticas e a Política de Treinamento Resumo: Diante da pressão implacável para melhorar o desempenho dos alunos, muitos estados e municípios estão usando o coaching como uma alavanca política para promover mudanças na prática. Este especial centros de emissão sobre as políticas e as políticas de treinamento, e este comentário editorial destaca o que sabemos sobre o papel de treinadores e treinamento no campo da educação. Então eu introduzir e sintetizar sete contribuições empíricas da edição especial. Tomados em conjunto, estes documentos, usando métodos qualitativos e quantitativos, atenta para a implementação de diversos modelos de coaching. Estes papéis tona novas descobertas sobre o treinamento de professores e diretores e têm implicações para os estudiosos, reformadores e profissionais. Finalmente, fazer recomendações para futuras pesquisas sobre coaching que é fundamentado na teoria e que avançam nossa compreensão tanto política educacional e mudança. Palavras-chave: Treinamento; O desempenho do aluno; políticas; política Introduction The last two decades have witnessed a dramatic upsurge in policymaking in the United States related to improving both instruction and educational outcomes. High profile policies—from the standards movement of the 1990s to today’s Race to the Top—have placed instructional improvement squarely at the center of reform efforts. Accountability pressures—such as standards, instructional materials, and high stakes testing—try to influence what is taught and how teachers instruct their students (Anagnostopoulos & Rutledge, 2007; Booher-Jennings, 2005; Diamond, 2007; Hoffman, Assaf, & Paris, 2001). However, even under the force of these policies, there remains a disconnect between policy and what happens within classrooms. Under relentless pressure to improve student achievement, many states and districts have turned to coaching as a mechanism to connect policy’s ideas with changes in practice (Annenberg Institute, 2004; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Wei, et al, 2009). For example, as part of Reading First, a branch of No Child Left Behind, the seven states with the largest student populations (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio) adopted reading coaches. In their foundational work on coaching as a promising tool for instructional improvement efforts, Joyce & Showers (1980) declared that, in comparison to transient and superficial attempts to Policies and politics of coaching 3 promote teachers’ professional learning, coaching offers “hands on, in-classroom assistance with the transfer of skills and strategies to the classroom” (p. 380). Coaches take on a variety of other roles in the education system, including supporting principals with data analysis, meeting with novice teachers, and delivering intervention services to students (Bean, 2004). Reformers and practitioners frame coaching as a strategy to provide teachers with content-specific, targeted and contextualized learning opportunities. Furthermore, coaching has spread across the field of education, yet many questions remain about its theory of action, enactment, and outcomes. More research is needed on the relationship between forces from the macro-level and coaches’ activities on the ground. Specifically, researchers should attend to how educational policies define and promote coaching as well as the relationship between coaches’ position and their interactions with teachers. This EPAA Special Issue includes articles exploring the policies structuring coaching programs, the implementation of those programs, and the politics of coaches’ work. The empirical articles in this issue share findings on studies of contemporary coaching programs. These articles on coaching will speak to policymakers, reformers, and educators and will contribute to broader discussions about the potential of policy levers to improve classroom practice and educational outcomes. This editorial commentary begins by reviewing what we know about the role of coaches and coaching in the education system and then introduces the Special Issue’s contributions. I conclude by making recommendations for future research on coaching that is grounded in theory and with pressing implications for policy and practice. Role of Coaches and Coaching in the Education System At the school level, teachers’ knowledge and skill, plus their will to change, influence responses to reform (Coburn, 2004; Cuban, 1993). It has become apparent that conventional forms of teacher development, such as workshops and drive-by training sessions led by external consultants or experts, rarely produce lasting change (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Cohen, 1990). Consequently, policymakers and practitioners concur that it is necessary for teachers to have deep, situated opportunities for ongoing professional learning. Coaching, as a practice in which coaches facilitate contextualized learning opportunities for teachers and principals, responds to these issues (Bean, 2004; Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Coaches can develop educators’ understanding of a reform, aspects of instruction, and provide guidance on the technical and practical details of implementation (Bean, 2004; Coburn & Woulfin, 2012). Perhaps more importantly, coaches play a structural role in reducing the individualism of teachers and their teaching. I argue that coaches break down the egg crate structure of schools by working within different teachers’ classrooms and linking teachers with one another (Lortie, 2002). Coaches can play both educative and political roles. Coaches’ educative role involves activities to support teachers’ ongoing professional learning. For instance, coaches serve as facilitators of reform by engaging teachers in ongoing and highly contextualized professional development (Bean, Draper, Hall,Vandermolen, & Zigmond, 2010; Poglinco, Bach, Hovde, Rosenblum, Saunders, & Supovitz, 2003; Zigmond & Bean, 2006). These professional development activities include coaches observing teachers’ classrooms, providing feedback on instruction, conducting demonstration lessons, working with groups of teachers to examine student data, and facilitating professional development sessions (Bean et al., 2003; Dole, 2004; Deussen, Coskie, Robinson, & Autio, 2007). However, coaches can also play a political role vis a vis instructional policy (Coburn and Woulfin, 2012; Deussen, 2007). Coaches’ political role involves pressuring teachers to respond to policy in a particular way. As political actors, coaches promote a policy’s ideas and practices in order to motivate change in a certain direction. E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 22 N o. 50 4 Within many reform efforts, coaches are uniquely positioned as intermediaries. Coaches are positioned between the district and school levels (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). At the district-level, coaches may directly receive information from central office administrators about instructional materials, testing, and budgetary issues. At the school-level, coaches can support teachers inside and outside of their classrooms. Since coaches occupy a boundary spanning position, they have access to an array of ideas about reading instruction. These ideas have the potential to influence coaches’ work. By mediating policy messages and motivating other educators to change their practice, coaches link policy and practice (Coburn, 2004; Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Spillane, 2004). Contributions of the Special Issue The papers in this special issue attend to the practices of coaching both teachers and administrators, while also considering the policy context, including state and district level structures and initiatives. The first three papers focus on how coaches develop and support teachers. These papers use qualitative methods, including interview and observation data, to document the microprocesses of coaching. First, Mudzimiri, Burroughs, Luebeck, Sutton, & Yopp provide a micro-level account of math coaches’ work to improve both instruction and student learning. They shine light on coaches’ interactions with teachers and encourage further research on the daily work of coaches. This paper also shares suggestions highly relevant to educational leaders. Second, Feldman, Anderson, & Minstrell draw on data from a 5-year study of science coaching in order to explicate how the coach- teacher relationship matters. This manuscript draws on concepts from organizational theory, including organizational trust, to emphasize the importance of coaches building trust while working to promote changes in the quality of science instruction. Finally, Berg & Mensah’s paper also deals with the teacher-coach relationship as it intersects with science reform. In particular, they hone in on the issues experienced by elementary teachers while teaching science. This paper shares qualitative data on how coaching played a role in helping teachers resolve specific dilemmas of teaching. Several papers grapple with principal coaching and use learning theory to showcase how coaches play a role in effecting change. These papers carefully attend to the nature and characteristics of the policy context. First, Matsumura & Wang draw upon sensemaking theory to analyze how principals interpret the instructional practices which coaches promoted in their schools. These researchers situate the study in a high-stakes accountability policy environment and emphasize the role of assessment and student data in reform. Matsumura & Wang carefully track how principals position their coach, arguing that this influences coaching practices and, ultimately, the implementation of a literacy reform. Second, Huguet, Marsh, & Farrell also attend to school-level administrators in their piece on coaching practices. Their use of sociocultural learning theory guides their analysis of how coaches attempt to raise teachers’ capacity to use data. In addition, they clearly argue that coaches are also involved in mediating political dynamics of implementation. In contrast, the third paper, authored by Lochmiller, uses an economic lens and quantitative methods. Lochmiller utilizes the cost feasibility approach in order to estimate the cost of providing coaching to novice principals in Washington State. This paper shines light on the resources required to enact coaching policy and also makes suggestions for equitable ways to distribute coaches across a state. Finally, one article moves outward to the district level. Mangin’s piece, Capacity Building and Districts’ Decision to Implement Coaching Initiatives, reports on district level activities related to coaching. This scholar also deploys concepts from organizational theory to explain the decision making activities of district administrators. This piece martials evidence from qualitative data obtained across Policies and politics of coaching 5 20 school districts. In this way, Mangin issues an important reminder of the role of districts in spreading and supporting coaching policies and practices. Future Directions for Coaching Research In the following section, I share suggestions for future research on the policies and politics of coaching. The majority of this issue’s papers squarely target the enactment of coaching within a specific context. This attention to coaching activities helps us see how coaches promote reform efforts, coupling policy with practice. Scholars should continue to grapple with issues of context, including factors at the state, district, and school levels. For example, how does a state’s approach to instructional policy influence coaching efforts? And, how do coaches within different types of districts work with teachers? Furthermore, researchers should design studies comparing the implementation of various coaching models within a single district. This type of research could reveal how the structures and routines espoused by a form of coaching shape daily practices of coaches and their interaction with other educators. Several of this issue’s papers use theory concerning how adults learn, develop, and change to illuminate the educative dimension of coaching by. Specifically, sensemaking theory permits researchers to hone in on how coaches interpret policy messages and work to shape teachers’ understanding of policies and programs (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002; Woulfin & Coburn, 2011). I argue that another set of theories should also be applied to issues of coaching. It would be fruitful to use micropolitics and framing theory to grapple with the political branch of coaching. Micropolitics, in particular, would highlight how coaches deal with the ambiguity of serving as an administrator or fellow teacher (Ball, 1987; Blase, 2005; Flessa, 2009). Additionally, this theory would help explore questions regarding the role of conflict in coaching. What is the nature of coaching when there’s disagreement about how to proceed or when coaches are mediating contentious issues regarding policy and program changes? Second, framing theory provides tools for studying precisely how coaches deliver policy messages to teachers. This could reveal how coaches work strategically with resistant teachers in an effort to promote change (Benford & Snow, 2000; Coburn, 2006; Scott, 2001). More research is needed that grapples with how coaches motivate and persuade educators in different roles (Fligstein, 2001). This would help us answer questions about how principal coaches can motivate school leaders to adopt new methods of teacher evaluation. Conclusions The research on the policies and politics of coaching has implications for policymakers, reformers, and practitioners at multiple levels of the education system. In particular, this research can extend our understanding of how to build the capacity of teachers and school and district leaders to implement complex reforms. This research can help us understand how to increase the skill of educators to couple policy to practice. Finally, this scholarship can encourage reformers and educational leaders to design contextualized and meaningful opportunities for professional learning that is both relevant and collaborative. It is vital that scholars interested in coaching turn attention to the intersection of coaching with policy associated with teacher evaluation and Common Core. How are coaches teaching teachers about the Common Core standards and associated instructional approaches? It is also critical to determine if coaches are taking on an evaluative role as enactors of evaluation policy. Specifically, how are coaches being deployed as observers in contemporary educator evaluation systems? And, to what extent, are coaches differentiating their coaching in order to work with E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 22 N o. 50 6 teachers deemed lower-performing by these evaluation systems? I argue that researchers should carefully consider the impact of these shifts in coaching on coaches’ role as developers of teachers. These forms of research could yield valuable findings related to teacher development, school reform, and the education policy process. References Anagnostopoulos, D., & Rutledge, S. (2007). Making sense of school sanctioning policies in urban high schools: Charting the depth and drift of school and classroom change. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1261-1302. Ball, S. J. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. London: Routledge. Bean, R. M. (2004). The reading specialist. New York: Guilford Press. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611 Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "educational triage" and the texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002231 Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700302 Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.008 Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343- 79; 343. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of mrs. oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737012003311 Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019001003 Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio,E. (2007). "Coach" can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in reading first. (). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Diamond, J. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high- stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003804070708000401 Policies and politics of coaching 7 Dole, J. A. (2004). The changing role of the reading specialist in school reform. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 462–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.57.5.6 Flessa, J. (2009). Educational micropolitics and distributed leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 331-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01619560902973522 Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00132 Hoffman, J., Assaf, L., Paris,S. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in texas, tomorrow? Reading Teacher, 54(5), 482-92. Instructional coaching. (2004). (). Providence: Annenberg Institute. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The message of research. Educational Leadership, 37(5), 379. Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Poglinco, S. M., Bach, A. J., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J. A. (2003). Heart of the matter: The coaching model in america's choice schools. (). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387 Woulfin, S. L., & Coburn, C. E. (2011). Policy implementation: The pathway from reading policy to classroom practice. In R. Bean, & A. Dagen (Eds.), Best practices of literacy leaders in schools (). New York: Guilford Press. E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 22 N o. 50 8 About the Guest Editor Sarah Woulfin University of Connecticut Sarah.Woulfin@UConn.edu Sarah Woulfin is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. She studies the relationship between education policy, leadership, and instructional reform. Using lenses from organizational sociology, she investigates how leaders influence teachers’ responses to reform efforts. In her doctoral work at the University of California, Berkeley, she focused on institutional theory, policy implementation, and coaching. She has published in the American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) and Reading Research Quarterly. Currently, she is an associate editor for Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ). She is also on the executive steering committee of the Districts in Research and Reform SIG at AERA. From 2009-2012, Dr. Woulfin served as the program chair for AERA’s Organizational Theory Special Interest Group. As a former urban public school teacher and reading coach, she was dedicated to strengthening students’ reading and writing skills to promote educational equity. As a scholar, her commitment to raising the quality of instruction motivates her research on how policy influences—and is influenced by—administrators and teachers. Policies and politics of coaching 9 SPECIAL ISSUE Politics, Policies, and Practices of Coaching and Mentoring Programs education policy analysis archives Volume 22 Number 50 June 23rd 2014 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non- commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A2 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to Gustavo E. Fischman fischman@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 22 N o. 50 10 education policy analysis archives editorial board Editor Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University), Rick Mintrop, (University of California, Berkeley) Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University) Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Gary Anderson New York University Sarah Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Samuel R. Lucas University of California, Berkeley Angela Arzubiaga Arizona State University Maria Martinez-Coslo University of Texas, Arlington David C. Berliner Arizona State University William Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder Robert Bickel Marshall University Tristan McCowan Institute of Education, London Henry Braun Boston College Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley Eric Camburn University of Wisconsin, Madison Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Wendy C. Chi* University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss University of Melbourne Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio Arnold Danzig Arizona State University Noga O'Connor University of Iowa Antonia Darder University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign João Paraskveva University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Laurence Parker University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Chad d'Entremont Strategies for Children Susan L. Robertson Bristol University John Diamond Harvard University John Rogers University of California, Los Angeles Tara Donahue Learning Point Associates A. G. Rud Purdue University Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Felicia C. Sanders The Pennsylvania State University Christopher Joseph Frey Bowling Green State University Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley Melissa Lynn Freeman* Adams State College Kimberly Scott Arizona State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of Minnesota Dorothy Shipps Baruch College/CUNY Gene V Glass Arizona State University Maria Teresa Tatto Michigan State University Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Harvey Goldstein Bristol University Cally Waite Social Science Research Council Jacob P. K. Gross Indiana University John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Eric M. Haas WestEd Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Kimberly Joy Howard* University of Southern California Ed Wiley University of Colorado, Boulder Aimee Howley Ohio University Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University Craig Howley Ohio University John Willinsky Stanford University Steve Klees University of Maryland Kyo Yamashiro University of California, Los Angeles Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo * Members of the New Scholars Board Policies and politics of coaching 11 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores. Asociados Alejandro Canales (UNAM) y Jesús Romero Morante (Universidad de Cantabria) Armando Alcántara Santuario Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México Fanni Muñoz Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Imanol Ordorika Instituto de Investigaciones Economicas – UNAM, México Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez Universidad de Murcia, España Maria Cristina Parra Sandoval Universidad de Zulia, Venezuela Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Jose Joaquin Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile Monica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Paula Razquin UNESCO, Francia María Caridad García Universidad Católica del Norte, Chile Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Raimundo Cuesta Fernández IES Fray Luis de León, España Daniel Schugurensky Universidad de Toronto-Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, Canadá Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Orlando Pulido Chaves Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Colombia Inés Dussel FLACSO, Argentina José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia Rafael Feito Alonso Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México Verónica García Martínez Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, México José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Francisco F. García Pérez Universidad de Sevilla, España Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Edna Luna Serrano Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, México Aida Terrón Bañuelos Universidad de Oviedo, España Alma Maldonado Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados, México Jurjo Torres Santomé Universidad de la Coruña, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México Antoni Verger Planells University of Amsterdam, Holanda José Felipe Martínez Fernández University of California Los Angeles, USA Mario Yapu Universidad Para la Investigación Estratégica, Bolivia E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 22 N o. 50 12 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Associados: Rosa Maria Bueno Fisher e Luis A. Gandin (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Paulo Carrano Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Luciano Mendes de Faria Filho Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil Alicia Maria Catalano de Bonamino Pontificia Universidade Católica-Rio, Brasil Lia Raquel Moreira Oliveira Universidade do Minho, Portugal Fabiana de Amorim Marcello Universidade Luterana do Brasil, Canoas, Brasil Belmira Oliveira Bueno Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona, Portugal Gaudêncio Frigotto Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Pia L. Wong California State University Sacramento, U.S.A Alfredo M Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brasil Sandra Regina Sales Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Petronilha Beatriz Gonçalves e Silva Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brasil Elba Siqueira Sá Barreto Fundação Carlos Chagas, Brasil Nadja Herman Pontificia Universidade Católica –Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Manuela Terrasêca Universidade do Porto, Portugal José Machado Pais Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal Robert Verhine Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brasil Wenceslao Machado de Oliveira Jr. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brasil Antônio A. S. Zuin Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brasil