Volume 3 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Research - Page 9

Journal of K-12 Educational Research 7 perceptions of school district superintendents on eight different themes. These themes were drawn from the work of Cookson (1994), Markowitz (2001), and Engel (2000). These eight themes represent two different interpretive metaphors each containing four components. Procedures and Data Analysis Semi-structured interviews were conducted utilizing an interview protocol meant to give participants an opportunity to reflect on each metaphor dimension individually. This qualitative data was then analyzed utilizing NVivo 12 to identify major category nodes, parent nodes, child nodes, and theme nodes. These nodes and findings were used to answer the following research questions. (RQ1) How do Texas public school superintendents align with two different educational reform metaphors (democracy and market)? (RQ1A) How do Texas public school superintendents align with the market metaphor dimension of autonomy? (RQ1B) How do Texas public school superintendents align with the market metaphor dimension of choice? (RQ1C) How do Texas public school superintendents align with the market metaphor dimension of competition? (RQ1D) How do Texas public school superintendents align with the market metaphor dimension of productivity? (RQ1E) How do Texas public school superintendents align with the democracy metaphor dimension of association? (RQ1F) How do Texas public school superintendents align with the democracy metaphor dimension of connection? (RQ1G) How do Texas public school superintendents align with the democracy metaphor dimension of communication? (RQ1H) How do Texas public school superintendents align with the democracy metaphor dimension of growth? Results The Market dimension Autonomy found respondents identified positively with the dimension with 57% of their comments, reflecting a desire for increased levels of autonomy in the relationship between school districts and the relationship between managerial layers within the district. Respondents identified negatively with the dimension of Autonomy 43% of the time, representing a 14% disparity between positive and negative associations. Negative associations surrounding the dimension of Autonomy centered primarily around managerial leadership within school districts and a desire to limit Autonomy for subordinates at the classroom level. The Market dimension Choice was viewed positively by superintendents. In terms of percentages, 70% of superintendent responses favored the Market dimension of Choice while 30% did not. This represented a 40% disparity between responses with the majority of participant references responding favorably to the dimension of Choice. Two commonalities among participant responses pertained to the ability of larger school districts to provide adequate choices and a desire for all districts to offer additional choices to students and families in the future. Smaller districts envisioned themselves as handicapped in terms of educational choice offerings while all districts expressed an interest in expanding choice options in the future. The Market dimension Competition did not demonstrate a favorable alignment with superintendent responses. The corresponding percentages were 27% of responses supportive of the Competition dimension with 73% of responses demonstrating opposition to Competition in education. Participants tended to differentiate between student competition, campus competition, and competition for students among educational providers. While participants generally favored Competition among students and traditional ISD campuses, participants were generally opposed to charter schools, citing concerns about funding, admission standards, financial oversight, and comparability with traditional public schools. The Market dimension Productivity was the third market dimension with which superintendents aligned favorably. The corresponding percentages were 60% alignment and 40% non-alignment. This dimension emphasizes the goal of education in primarily economic and financial terms exclusively. Superintendents generally struggled to outline educational outcomes that were not primarily oriented around future productivity of students: earning potential, tax paying abilities, and job attainment. The Democracy dimension Association showed high levels of alignment with superintendents. The percentages included 98% alignment and only 2% non-alignment. The researcher