Several social processes guide and shape how school actors engage with high stakes state and district policies relative to mandated curriculum and instruction. In this article, we use rhetorical argumentation analysis to explore how stakeholders mobilize resources through argumentation and rhetorical appeals (logical, emotional, and authoritative). However, their mobilization process creates opportunities and constraints for the interpretation and implementation of mandated curriculum. Findings show that school actors use state policy as a resource to make logical and authoritative claims in their attempts to clarify conflicts between new curriculum ideas and their implicit schemas.