[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-591328-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-591328-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","toward-dissolving-the-institutionalization-of-othering-organizational-conditions-that-support-shared-responsibility","Toward Dissolving the Institutionalization of “Othering”: Organizational Conditions that Support Shared Responsibility","","Federal entitlement policies such as Title III and the IDEA expand multilingual learners and students with disabilities access to public schools, yet their implementation can persistently “other” the very groups meant for integration. Using social network surveys and semi-structured interviews from an urban district across 18 months, the study examines whether central office leaders share responsibility for literacy and math instructional decisions. Results show that regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive institutional forces continue to separate special populations leaders from content-area leaders.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/toward-dissolving-the-institutionalization-of-othering-organizational-conditions-that-support-shared-responsibility/591328/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/toward-dissolving-the-institutionalization-of-othering-organizational-conditions-that-support-shared-responsibility/591328.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"eBook King","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-09","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":26},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What problem does the article address about federal education policies?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"It argues that while Title III and the IDEA promote access, they have been implemented in ways that continue to “other” multilingual learners and students with disabilities.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How did the authors study organizational conditions in the district?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The study draws on social network surveys and semi-structured interviews collected over 18 months in one urban district.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What did the authors find about shared responsibility in instructional decision-making?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Even with efforts to promote joint work, institutional dimensions (regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive) continued to separate special populations leaders from content-area leaders.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},591328,1792295118,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":26,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962088006270,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","AERA Open  \nJanuary-December 2024, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1–18 DOI: 10. 1177/23328584241298253  \nArticle reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)© The Author(s) 2024. [https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero)  \nToward Dissolving the Institutionalization of “Othering”: Organizational Conditions that Support Shared Responsibility  \nJennifer R. Cowhy  \nUniversity of Arkansas  \nLok-Sze Wong  \nUniversity of North Texas  \nMegan Hopkins  \nUniversity of California, San Diego  \nFederal entitlement policies like Title III and the IDEA help grant multilingual learners (MLs) and students with disabilities (SWDs) access to public schools. Yet they have operated in ways that continue to “other” the very student populations they intend to integrate. Drawing on social network surveys and semi-structured interviews collected from one urban district over  \n18 months, we ask: To what degree do central office leaders share responsibility for instructional decision-making in literacy and math? And, how did organizational conditions disrupt or perpetuate the “othering” of MLs and SWDs among central office staff? Leveraging a conceptual framework of critical social network analysis and institutional theory, we found that, despite efforts to promote joint-work and shared responsibility across central office departments, regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive dimensions of the institutional environment continued to “other” special populations leaders from contentarea leaders and, thus, the core of instructional decision-making.  \nKeywords: Case studies, educational policy, equity, in-depth interviewing, leadership, mixed methods, multilingual education, organization theory/change, social network analysis, special education  \nPublic K–12 schools in the United States were not designed for—and indeed once intentionally excluded—non-white students as well as students with disabilities (SWDs) and students identified as English Learners, whom we refer to as“multilingual learners”(MLs) .1 Building on the larger civil rights movement for racial justice and following Brown v. Board of Education (1954), advocates for linguistically diverse children and children with disabilities argued that segregating or excluding these students from a public education was a violation of their Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, as well as a violation of the Civil Rights Act (Chen, 2018; Harry & Ocasio-Stoutenburg, 2020; Skrentny, 2002; Voulgarides, 2018) . Rebuking the thencommon belief that these students did not deserve access to, or did not have capacity to engage in, a meaningful, free, and public education, Congress passed the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act which was later reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act or“IDEA,” and the 1968 Bilingual Education Act, which  \nbecame Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Harry & Ocasio-Stoutenberg, 2020; Weise & García, 2013) .  \nOn the one hand, IDEA and Title III help to grant SWDsand MLs equitable access to public education and draw attention to the unique needs of these student groups (Garver, 2022) . On the other hand, these laws are often implemented in ways that continue to “other” the very students they intended to integrate (Ferri & Connor, 2005; Garver, 2022) . For example, services for SWDs and MLs are often provided in separate classrooms apart from the general student population, serving to segregate rather than integrate these students (Cruz & López, 2020; Gándara, 2020; Kangas & Cook, 2023) . Further, for students dually identified as MLs and SWDs, language-and special education-related services often come into conflict, with one given priority and students being grossly underserved (Kangas, 2018) . Complicating the “othering” that occurs when applying externally defined categories, SWDs and  \nCreative Commons","cbCainlHTYzCvaMD","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainlHTYzCvaMD","pdf",1092748,18,"English","# Background and Policy Context\n# Research Questions and Method\n# Conceptual Framework and Findings\n# Implications for Organizational Change","[{\"question\":\"What problem does the article address about federal education policies?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that while Title III and the IDEA promote access, they have been implemented in ways that continue to “other” multilingual learners and students with disabilities.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the authors study organizational conditions in the district?\",\"answer\":\"The study draws on social network surveys and semi-structured interviews collected over 18 months in one urban district.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the authors find about shared responsibility in instructional decision-making?\",\"answer\":\"Even with efforts to promote joint work, institutional dimensions (regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive) continued to separate special populations leaders from content-area leaders.\"}]","Toward Dissolving the Institutionalization of “Othering”: Organizational Conditions that Support Shared Responsibility | PDF",1792071603,45]