Interest in the study of scale has grown over the past three decades, yet it still suffers from a lack of conceptual clarity. Despite attempts at conceptualizing scale, there is still wide diversity in how the term “scale” is used. These differences matter. They impact how scale is studied, the strategies used to achieve scale, and the lessons we can draw across studies of the scale of innovations. In this article, we argue that scale is a polysemic and dynamic phenomenon. There are multiple, legitimate definitions of scale, and such definitions can shift over time, depending on the goals and needs of reformers. Drawing upon an extensive review of the literature, we present a typology of scale comprising four predominant conceptualizations in the literature. We detail the conceptualizations and discuss the affordances and challenges of each. We conclude by offering implications of the polysemic, dynamic nature of scale for researchers and reformers. Presenting this typology, we aim to spark new conversations about scale and to help guide future scale research and practice.

Professional development [PD] providers can shape how teachers understand and implement new policies. Yet we have a limited understanding of how providers develop the ideas they promote. We explore this by examining social capital among mathematics PD providers. Using social network and interview data, we identified providers in brokerage positions and analyze their interactions. We found that broker behavior varied by organizational setting. Brokers in school districts typically discussed logistical issues related to PD delivery, while brokers outside of districts often discussed substantive mathematical topics. When district brokers did access substantive information, they rarely shared it. We conclude that (1) the disconnect between accessing and sharing diminished district brokers’ ability to support PD in their districts and (2) the lack of substance diminished their ability to influence ideas about mathematics.

No abstract

No abstract

Background/context In recent years, opposition to accountability policies and associated testing has manifested in widespread boycotts of annual tests—mobilized as the “opt-out movement.” A central challenge facing any movement is the need to recruit and mobilize participants. Key to this process is framing—a discursive tactic in which activists present social issues as problems that require collective action to solve. Such framing often relies on compatible political and ideological commitments among activists and potential recruits. Yet the opt-out movement has successfully mobilized widespread boycotts in diverse communities. How have participants in the movement framed issues relating to testing and accountability? Purpose/objective/research question/focus of study I explore the discursive tactics of participants in the opt-out movement by analyzing how they frame issues related to testing and accountability over time. I ask two research questions: (1) What frames did participants in opt-out-aligned social media groups use to convince others that standardized accountability tests are a problem and build support for the movement? (2) To what extent and how did the deployment of frames change over time? Research design I conducted a mixed-methods study combining qualitative content analysis to identify frames and computational analysis to describe their co-deployment over time. Data collection and analysis I compiled a text corpus of posts to opt-out-aligned social media pages from 2010–2014. I analyzed posts using open coding to identify frames used by participants in online communities. Frames were categorized by their orientation—the general way in which they framed the problem of testing and accountability. I then analyzed the co-deployment of frames using network analysis and hierarchical clustering. Conclusions/recommendations The longitudinal analysis of frames reveals key differences in the frames used by participants. While more politically oriented frames—those characterizing testing as a social issue affecting the public schools at large—were common in early stages of the movement, less overtly political frames—those characterizing testing as an individual issue affecting children and local schools or a technical issue—became more prominent over time. Over time, socially oriented frames became decoupled from other frames, showing independent patterns of deployment. This suggests that the movement may have benefited from de-emphasizing politically oriented frames, but that it lacked an overarching shared narrative, which has the potential to limit how it might affect accountability policies and testing.