Districts As Institutional Actors in Educational Reform

Educational Administration Quarterly http://eaq.sagepub.
com/
Districts as Institutional Actors in Educational Reform

Andrea K. Rorrer, Linda Skrla and James Joseph Scheurich Educational Administration Quarterly 2008 44: 307 DOI: 10.1177/0013161X08318962 The online version of this article can be found at: http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/44/3/307
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
University Council for Educational Administration
Additional services and information for Educational Administration Quarterly can be found at: Email Alerts: http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/44/3/307.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jul 16, 2008

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013
What is This?
Educational Administration Quarterly Vol. 44, No. 3 (August 2008) 307-358
Districts as Institutional Actors in Educational Reform

Andrea K. Rorrer Linda Skrla James Joseph Scheurich
Purpose: Intermittent attention to the district as the unit of study has left a void in our understanding of the complexities associated with the ability of district-level leaders to contribute to successful, systemic educational reform. In this article, the authors address this void by providing a narrative synthesis of previous findings, proposing a theory of districts as institutional actors in systemic reform with the goal being to increase achievement and advance equity, and suggesting areas of future research that extend our understanding of districts as institutional actors in educational reform and build our knowledge of reform that improves achievement and advances equity. Proposed Conceptual Argument: The four roles of districts evident in research to date are (a) providing instructional leadership, (b) reorienting the organization, (c) establishing policy coherence, and (d) maintaining an equity focus. These four roles, which are interdependent, variably coupled, and coevolving through a nonlinear process, serve as a foundation for the authors proposed framework of districts as institutional actors in improving achievement and advancing equity. Implications for Research and Practice: The discontinuous and limited nature of previous research has contributed to the lack of theoretical advancement with regard to a research-based understanding of district reform and thus to a lack of research-based guidance for district leaders to follow to create systemically districts that improve achievement and advance educational equity for all children. The framework presented here contributes toward the resolution of these issues by developing an intentional, coherent, and integrated framework of districts as institutional actors in reform. Keywords: district reform; systemic reform; institutional actors; improving achievement; educational equity
n general, school reform, school improvement, and school effectiveness research over the past two decades often has overlooked, ignored, and even dismissed the potential of districts as substantial contributors to
DOI: 10.1177/0013161X08318962 2008 The University Council for Educational Administration
307
308
Educational Administration Quarterly
systemic reform.1 In fact, a consistent theme among many scholars has been the argument that responsibility for and control of reform efforts should be located at the individual school level. Smith and ODay (1990), for example, clearly emphasized this point. In their view, schools are the basic unit of change, and school educators (teachers and principals) are not only the agents, but also the initiators, designers, and directors of change efforts (p. 235). Chester Finn (1991), a key proponent of the school as the center of reform movement, stated emphatically that districts are inconsequential. He pronounced, The school is the vital delivery system, the state is the policy setter (and chief paymaster), and nothing in between is very important (p. 246; see also Doyle & Finn, 1984). Although this viewpoint has gained widespread acceptance in policy, research, and practitioner circles, respectfully, we disagree.2 In this article, we explain our contrasting viewthat districts are vital institutional actors in systemic educational reform.3 Specifically, we explore the how the district as an organized collective is bound by a web of interrelated and interdependent roles, responsibilities, and relationships that facilitate systemic reform. This inquiry emerged from a reflection on our own research that focuses on districts that have made progress in addressing inequities in student performance coupled with a consideration of other scholars research on districts and the multitude of existing district-level initiatives. As will be discussed further in our methodology section, three overarching questions guided our inquiry: (a) What roles have districts served in reform? (b) What role could districts serve to improve achievement and advance equity systemically? and (c) What would be the nature of district-level change necessary to systemically improve achievement and advance equity? We discuss our findings related to this inquiry in the three main sections. First, we provide the results of our narrative synthesis of previous research on districts and their role in educational reform, including initiatives undertaken, processes used, and outcomes achieved. Next, using the narrative synthesis of research as a foundation, we address the second and third question of this inquiry (i.e., What role could districts serve in systemic, systematic reform to improve achievement and advance equity, and what would be the nature of district-level change necessary to do so?). In this section, we propose a theory of districts as institutional actors in systemic educational reform, including reform that results in increasing achievement and advancing equity.4 Finally, we conclude with suggestions for future research and analysis to extend our understanding of the districts role as institutional actors in educational reform.
Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS
309
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS ON DISTRICT ROLES IN REFORM Smith and ODay (1991), in their seminal work Systemic School Reform, identified two waves of U.S. educational reform and advanced a compelling argument for what has since become known as a third wave of reform. The first wave of reform, which they explained occurred from 1983 to 1986, sought mainly to expand or improve educational inputs (longer school day, increased requirements for graduation, better teachers) and ensure competency in basic skills (graduation tests, lock-step curricula, promotional criteria) (p. 233). Many of these initiatives were associated with the so-called top-down reforms. The second wave of reform, which they identified with the latter 1980s, was characterized by an emphasis on decentralization, professionalization, and bottom-up change key concepts, as reformers focus[ed] on the change process and on active involvement of those closest to instruction (p. 234). Smith and ODay pointed out that the limitations of these earlier reform waves were addressed by a third approach that would combine the top-down and bottom-up approaches of the first two waves. The third wave of reform was one comprised of a coherent systemic strategy . . . one which can set the conditions for change to take place not just in a small handful of schools or for a few children, but in the great majority (pp. 234-235). This third wave, which emphasized national standards and tests, grew in prominence and importance throughout the 1990s and, arguably, substantial portions of it continue to the present day.5 Remarkably, the role of the local school district in reform was underemphasized in all three of these reform waves. Instead, research emphasis has been directed toward the efforts of schools, teachers, state and federal policy-making bodies, private groups and industries, and even university schools of education. Indeed, research studies on districts over the past 20 years have been relatively fewer in number and discontinuous compared to research on schools as the center of reform. Nonetheless, some individual scholars have recognized the districts potential to enable and enhance reform efforts, including those initiated from within the district as well as those mandated from the state and federal levels (i.e., Berman, 1986; Bridges, 1982; Bryk, 1999; Elmore, 1993; Massell, 2000; Marsh, 2000; Oakes, 1987). Elmore (1993), for instance, argued that districts are frequently relegated to context. Concurring with Smith and ODay about the focus of previous research on schools as the unit of state policy action and intervention, he raised a central issue relevant to our inquiry and the status of todays strong state educational policy environment:
310
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY
If states play a more aggressive role in setting goals, outlining curriculum requirements, underwriting teacher education and professional development consistent with these goals and requirements, and monitoring individual schools based on how well students are learning academic content, what role will local districts play? (p. 98)
Given that districts continue to function as the dominant local governance structure for U.S. schooling, the neglect by many researchers, practitioners, and policy makers alike to acknowledge the nested (Cuban, 1984) nature of schools within districts and the districts instrumental role in systemic reform seems remarkable. Accordingly, here we turn our attention to the research that does exist and focus on the potentially vital role of the district in reform, as it has been considered since 1984 when Cubans (1984) research prompted some renewed attention to the district. After all, as Cuban maintained, the disregard for the district as a significant and powerful force represents a void in the research on educational reform, one that
implicitly ignores the pivotal role that school boards and superintendents play in mobilizing limited resources, giving legitimacy to a reform effort and the crucial interplay between central office and school site that can spell the difference between implementation success and failure. (p. 12)
We then extend our discussion beyond what role districts have served in reform to what role districts could serve, including the nature of change, in educational reform, particularly reform aimed to improve achievement and advance equity.
METHOD OF NARRATIVE SYNTHESIS Given the nature and scope of existing research on districts, including this research being sporadic, varied in focus, and heterogeneity in methods, we chose a narrative synthesis (Mays, Pope, & Popay, 2005; Popay et al., 2006; Popay, Rogers, & Williams, 1998)6 as the appropriate method to conduct the review of the districts role in systemic reform. Using narrative synthesis as our methodology permitted us to be interpretive, inductive, and integrative in our analysis (Jensen & Allen, 1996; Mays et al., 2005; Noblit & Hare, 1988). In an effort to increase the transparency of our process, here we provide details on our method of conducting this narrative synthesis. Mays et al. (2005) provided six iterative stages for a narrative synthesis that were utilized for this review. These iterative stages include (a) identifying
311
the broad focus of the review and searching for and mapping available evidence, (b) specifying the review question, (c) selecting studies to include in the review, (d) extracting data and appraising study quality, (e) conducting the synthesis, and (f) reporting and disseminating the results of the review (p. 4). Consistent with the methodology of a narrative synthesis, the findings from each of the studies selected for review were juxtaposed with one another (Popay et al., 2006, p. 7), then presented as a narrative, or a textual approach to the process of synthesis to tell the story (p. 5). First, we chose not to use a preexisting framework that stipulated the role of districts in reform. Instead, consistent with the methodology of a narrative synthesis (Popay et al., 2006), prior research was explored and interrogated to address the main review question (i.e., What roles have districts served in reform?). This question guided our comprehensive search through journals, books, and policy and research reports for empirical studies and conceptual, review, and position papers. In mapping available evidence, we note that research to date frequently depicts the districts role as a single discrete function or initiative. Restricting our analysis to studies such as these, which are narrow in their scope though informative and important, would have limited our quest for comprehensive understanding of the districts collective and complex role in reform. Consequently, our narrative synthesis was not limited to research that focuses on the districts role in mitigating, implementing, and/or evaluating only specific reform efforts, for example, standards-based reform (Sipple & Killeen, 2004) or mathematics reform (Spillane, 2000). Instead, for the purpose of this narrative synthesis, we cast a wider net and utilized the traditional conceptualization of districts as operationalized by scholars to date. That is, the district may refer to the superintendent, school board, and/or midlevel/central administration as well as to the district as an organizational unit. As will be more fully explained in a later section focused on a theory of districts as institutional actors in systemic reform, we pose a different conceptualization of the district: an organized collective constituted by the superintendent; the board; the central office-level administration; and principals, who collectively serve as critical links between the district and the school for developing and implementing solutions to identified problems (Land, 2002; McLaughlin, 1990). Next, we selected research for this narrative synthesis. Specifically, we collected empirical or conceptual pieces on districts roles reported since 1984, which is the time frame dating back to the first wave of systemic reform identified by Smith and ODay (1991). This time period was characterized by sporadic but gradually increasing interest in the district (albeit less than on schools) as a central participant in educational reform. The studies or
312
conceptual pieces included in this narrative synthesis had to focus explicitly on the district as the unit of analysis and include some aspect of districts role in reform. Thus, studies that actually focused on schools as the unit of analysis or center of reform were eliminated. Three electronic databases (EBSCO Host, Education Full Text, and JSTOR) were used to identify potential articles initially. Keywords used to conduct the search included school district, local education agencies, school system, superintendents, school board, and central office combined with additional key words such as change, reform, improvement, and effectiveness. In addition, we used an ancestry approach, which uses the reference list of studies selected for inclusion in the synthesis to identify relevant studies or reports, such as books, that may have been missed in the initial search. Furthermore, we searched policy center publications for reports on school districts. This search led to published work by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) and the McKenzie Group, Inc., for instance. In the end, a total of 81 peer reviewed/refereed articles (n = 52), book/book chapters (n = 4), policy and research-related reports (n = 16), and other pieces (n = 9) fit the criteria outlined above and informed the final narrative synthesis of research on the districts role in reform. (See Appendixes A, B, and C.) We recognize, as Popay et al. (2006) suggested, that the trustworthiness of the synthesis will depend on both the quality and the quantity of the evidence base it is build on (p. 15). Thus, we primarily relied upon empirical scholarship (i.e., research that uses qualitative, quantitative, and survey methods) to conduct our extensive review. Specifically, 62 empirically based articles, 12 conceptual, 3 syntheses of previous research, and 4 other types of scholarship were used in this synthesis. Consequently, empirically based research published in peer-reviewed journals was considered to have met the general standards and criteria for validity and reliability and/or trustworthiness and credibility associated with the respective methods chosen by the researchers. Although we acknowledge that previously published research articles have met the general conditions associated with their respective methods, we recognize that there are potential limitations to any empirical study, regardless of the methods employed.7 That said, Gilbody, Whitty, Grimshaw, and Thomas (2003) emphasized that systematic reviews, such as this one, offer the least biased method of summarizing research literature (p. 3149). We extracted and classified data from the scholarship included in the narrative synthesis with respect to focus of study, methods and design, general findings, and recommendations as well as their relevance to the review
313
question (Popay et al., 2006). This process permitted us to become thoroughly acquainted with the body of research on districts overall. The next step was thematic analysis (Popay et al., 2006) of the focus of the studies included. Our analyses of these foci produced four broad themes, initially coded as leadership, policy, organization and culture, and equity-orientation. These themes were further distinguished by the specific activities and/or processes engaged in by the districts in the studies that were identified under these themes. In our analysis, these themes reflect the essential roles of districts in educational reform: providing instructional leadership, reorienting the organization, establishing policy coherence, and maintaining an equity focus. Further consideration was given to how the findings from each study related to one another within and between themes, including what were the variations in the studys findings and how each study explained the districts role or illustrated the districts contribution to the initiatives identified. This step resulted in particular studies being cited for contributions within multiple themes. We present the results of our narrative synthesis in the next section. In the section following this review, we use the narrative synthesis of research as a foundation to address the second and third questions of this inquiry (i.e., What role could districts serve in systemic, systematic reform, particularly reform to improve achievement and advance equity, and what would be the nature of district-level change necessary?). In doing so, we propose a theory of districts as institutional actors in systemic reform. Our proposed theory is a natural extension of the narrative synthesis. As Popay et al. (2006) indicated, Theory building and theory testing is a neglected aspect of systematic reviews (p. 12). In particular, these scholars noted, Systematic reviews can contribute to developing and testing the limits of theories, by examining how contextual or temporal variables moderate outcomes (p. 12).
FOUR ESSENTIAL ROLES OF DISTRICTS IN REFORM As noted in the previous section, four essential roles for districts in educational reform emerged from our analysis of research on districts conducted over the past 20 years. Before turning to the subsequent discussion of how districts could engage in change and utilize these roles to systemically implement reform, particularly reform aimed at improving achievement and advancing equity concurrently, here, we elucidate these four roles. These roles are (a) providing instructional leadership, (b) reorienting
314
the organization, (c) establishing policy coherence, and (d) maintaining an equity focus. Together, these roles envelop aspects of district leadership, management, values and norms, operation, and governance. Providing Instructional Leadership First, instructional leadership is an essential role of districts identified by previous research. The concept of instructional leadership gained prominence with Ronald Edmondss (1979) effective schools research. It was a cornerstone of the seven correlates Edmonds identified as present in schools he termed effectivethose at which equal proportions of students identified as high-, middle-, and low-income achieved mastery of the basic curriculum.8 Cuban (1984) was one of the first scholars to extend the implications of the effective schools researchs focus on instructional leadership to the district.9 He explained, With the mounting interest in using effective schools research, the older model of a school chief knowledgeable about both curriculum and instruction and visible in the schools beyond the symbolic tour is reasserting itself (p. 146). Though interest in effective schools research as it related to districts declined substantially after 1990, scholars continued to reference instructional leadership as a key role. Interestingly, however, although it has widespread popularity as a concept, a single, unified, and an agreed-upon definition of instructional leadership does not exist. For instance, consider the following informative descriptions of instructional leadership at the campus or principal level. Greenfield (1987) said that instructional leadership refers to actions undertaken with the intention of developing a productive and satisfying working environment for teachers and desirable learning conditions and outcomes for children (p. 60). More recently, Blas and Blas (2000), who were more prescriptive, identified seven behaviors associated with principals who serve as instructional leaders. These behaviors included making suggestions, giving feedback, modeling effective instruction, soliciting opinions, supporting collaboration, providing professional development opportunities, and giving praise for effective teaching. There has been a similar struggle in research focused on instructional leadership at the district level to find a coherent, or agreed-upon, definition. Despite this, the view of superintendents has progressed from one depicted in terms of its supervisory-only duties to depictions as head teacher to now the instructional leader.10 Recent research on instructional leadership at the district level now requires that attention be given to multiple facets of instruction and learning well beyond communicating the district mission and simply being knowledgeable of instructional effectiveness. Moreover,
315
instructional leadership at the district level has evolved as a collective responsibility of the superintendent and central office administrators, as evidenced by the scope of research on districts. Despite the general lack of agreement on exactly what constitutes instructional leadership at the district level, two elements of it appear consistently in the research and are frequently cited as being essential:
generating will (Berman, 1986; Daresh, 1991; Elmore & Burney, 1997; Firestone, 1989b; Jacobson, 1986; McLaughlin, 1987) and building capacity (Firestone, 1989b; Fuller & Johnson, 2004; Honig, 2003; Jacobson, 1986; Massell, 2000; McLaughlin, 1987; Sclafani, 2001; Spillane & Thompson, 1997).
These two elements of the instructional leadership rolegenerating will to reform and capacity to do sohelp districts bridge organizational development and policy implementation. McLaughlins (1990) reflection on RANDs Change Agent Study emphasized this point. She noted, What matters most to policy outcomes are local capacity and will. The local expertise, organizational routines, and resources available to support planned change efforts generate fundamental differences in the ability of practitioners to plan, execute, or sustain an innovative effort (pp. 12-13). Fundamentally, generating will and building capacity are key to sustaining reform, particularly when resources for reform implementation diminish. Together, these attributes reflect Dareshs (1991) conception that instructional leadership among superintendents and principals requires proactive administrative behavior (p. 109). Generating will. As McLaughlin (1987) indicated, will and support can be manifested as the attitudes, motivation, and beliefs that underlie an implementors response to a policys goals or strategies (p. 172). Yet the type of will necessary to initiate or sustain reform to improve performance districtwide does not arise automatically nor simply in response to external environments.11 Berman (1986) explored how districts generate will to influence the implementation of legally mandated reforms. Whereas the primary impetus for will remains debated, the necessity of it in successful reform implementation is not disputed. For instance, echoing Bermans research on districts that generate will to implement legally mandated reforms, McLaughlin (1987, 1990) indicated that federal and state level policies were unlikely to produce systemic reform without will. She (1990) emphasized the districts importance in generating will versus its reliance on any one policy to drive successful reform:
316
Thus, although teachers in a site may be eager to embrace a change effort, they may elect not to do so, or to participate on only a pro forma basis, because their institutional setting is not supportive. Consequently, the enthusiasm engendered little because of insufficient will or support in the broader organizational environment, which is hard to orchestrate by means of federal (or state) policy. (p. 13)
Firestone (1989b) further expanded this point. He indicated that will was the commitment to a decision. Jacobsons (1986) description of an effective rural district exemplified this commitment, which occurred even at the risk of creating opposition within the community (p. 19). Jacobson differentiated between effective and ineffective districts in terms of generating will for reform and being actively engaged. From his research, he asserted,
[The] effective superintendent viewed his job as requiring him to educate his community and school board about the educational services they should want. He actively worked to raise community expectations as to what students could achieve and then worked to ensure that his faculty and students met those expectations. (p. 20)
Again, those who have studied district instructional leadership, such as McLaughlin and Jacobson, emphasize how districts generating will to reform is an example of proactive administrative behavior (Daresh, 1991) aimed at improving teaching and learning. Daresh (1991) expanded the link between will and instructional leadership. He noted that instructional leadership is reliant upon the existence of commitment to improve teaching and learning, commitment to the people with whom district leaders work, continuous focus on teaching and learning, sensitivity to the perspective of others, self-awareness, and consistent personal behavior. In addition, previous research illustrates that district instructional leaders generate will by being personally engaged in all aspects of instruction and instructional-related reform (Bjrk, 1993; Bredeson, 1996; Daresh, 1991; Firestone, 1989b; Jacobson, 1986; Murphy & Hallinger, 1986; Petersen, 1999) and establishing the vision, focus, and goals to support instruction (Bjrk, 1993; Bredeson, 1996; Daresh, 1991; Floden et al., 1988; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; Murphy & Hallinger, 1986; Petersen, 1999; Purkey & Smith, 1985). Building capacity. Providing instructional leadership requires more than simply generating will. Districts must couple this will intentionally with capacity building. Capacity building reflects the districts ability and capability to enact its will. Firestone (1989b) defined capacity as the
317
wherewithal to actually implement [the decision]. The capacity to use reform is the extent to which the [school] has the knowledge, skills, personnel, and other resources necessary to carry out decisions (p. 157). With this in mind, let us turn our attention to how districts provide instructional leadership by building capacity. Over the past two decades, many researchers (e.g., Sipple & Killeen, 2004) have documented what districts do to increase the ability and capacity (e.g., knowledge, skills, personnel, and other resources) of teachers, principals, central office administrators, superintendents to implement reform to improve instruction, including reforms aimed at improving standards, and aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Firestone (1989b), for instance, noted that building capacity requires three primary actions: mobilizing personnel, developing functions related to change (providing and selling a vision, obtaining resources, providing encouragement and recognition, adapting standard operating procedures, monitoring the reform effort, and handling disturbances), and making district and school linkages (district consistent application of pressure on schools, targeted support, increased participation by teachers). Similarly, Berman (1986) suggested that the ability of the district to build capacity depends on the districts managerial competence . . . the supportiveness of its organizational culture . . . and the difficulty of the problems facing the district (p. 52). Reflecting Firestones (1989b) description of capacity and Jacobsons (1986) and Dareshs (1991) earlier examples of active engagement, Spillane and Thompsons (1997) study of nine Michigan districts revealed the importance of districts acquiring knowledge specific to the instructional science and mathematics reforms chosen for implementation. They concluded, The LEAs capacity to support ambitious instructional reform [is] primarily as a capacity to learn the substantive ideas at the heart of the new reforms and to help teachers and others within the district learn these ideas (p. 199). Spillane and Thompsons comparison also resulted in identifying and classifying three types of variances related to local capacity building. Variances in capacity were attributed to the districts human capital (i.e., knowledge, commitment [will] and disposition), social capital (i.e., knowledge of local reformers, professional networks, trust and collaboration, norms and habits), and physical capital (i.e., time, staffing or labor, and materials). Recently, Honig (2003) refined the idea of capacity building even further. In her research on district central office administrators roles in the implementation of school-community partnerships, she identified threshold conditions and capital as two necessary elements for district capacity building. Intentionality, designation of boundary spanners, and preemptive
318
policy actions were among the threshold conditions necessary to build capacity particular to central office organization. Similarly to Spillane and Thompson (1997), Honig noted the capital that central office administrators relied on to build capacity included central office administration knowledge of their schools and policy and organizational systems at large, their socio and political ties and relationships with schools and other systems (e.g., community partners, government agencies), and their administrative tools such as their ability to structure the workday and their workload. From research on districts to date, then, we can conclude that district instructional leadership builds capacity by coordinating and aligning work of others through communication, planning, and collaboration (Bjrk, 1993; Bredeson, 1996; Daresh, 1991; Floden et al., 1988; Massel, 2000; McLaughlin, 1992; Murphy & Hallinger, 1986; Purkey & Smith, 1985); monitoring goals, instruction, and efforts to improve instruction, including increasing data accessibility, availability, and transparency and accountability (Bjrk, 1993; Bredeson, 1996; Fuller & Johnson, 2004; Massell, 2000; McLaughlin, 1992; McLauglin & Talbert, 2003; Murphy & Hallinger, 1986; Petersen, 1999; Purkey & Smith, 1985; Rorrer, 2001; Sclafani, 2001; Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson, 2000); and acquiring and targeting support for instruction, including securing human and fiscal resources (Bjrk, 1993; Bredeson, 1996; Floden et al., 1988; Massel, 2000). Reorienting the Organization Reorienting the organization is a second essential role of districts in reform identified from our narrative synthesis of previous research. In this role, districts refine organizational structures and processes and alter district culture to align with their educational reform goals. For example, as the findings of studies reviewed here demonstrate, a range of opportunities exist for districts to reorient the organization to support improved teaching and learning. According to prior research, accomplishing this requires
refining and aligning organizational structures and processes (Cawelti, 2001; Corcoran, Fuhrman & Belcher, 2001; Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet, & Yoon, 2002; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003); and changing the district culture (Elmore & Burney, 1997; McLaughlin, 1992; Pajak & Glickman, 1989).
Overall, these organizational elements are illustrative of how shifts in structures and processes to support systemic reform must be aligned with refined beliefs, expectations, and norms. In the following discussion, we address
319
how changes in organizational structures, processes, and cultures, particularly professional norms, have been depicted in district-level research to date. In doing so, we are able to reveal the intertwined nature of these two elements of reorienting the organization. Refining and aligning organizational structure and processes. Many of the districts actions within this category have to do with structural and organizational changes made to align district operations with goals for improvement. Among the first researchers to point to the importance of refining district structures to support instruction were Kent Peterson, Joseph Murphy, and Philip Hallinger (1987), who studied 12 California districts characterized by student achievement scores . . . higher than predicted based on student characteristics (p. 82). Utilizing their previous empirical and conceptual work, Peterson et al. demonstrated how their study districts used locally developed mechanisms to control, coordinate, and assess the technical core activities (instruction, curriculum, goal setting, principal selection and evaluation, and funding) of the districts. Similarly, George Petersen (1999) reported that five instructionally focused California superintendents in districts with greater than average performance on state achievement tests articulated a vision, integrated that vision into the districts mission, and took a proactive stance in creat[ing] an organizational structure that supported their vision and role as instructional leader. These organizational structure changes included district leadership exerting more control over and involvement in decision making and reform implementation, increasing attention and resources (time and money) to the curriculum and instruction, hiring or replacing persons to support the mission, and monitoring the technical core. These activities demonstrate the intentionality Honig (2003) associated with her description of central office functions in reform. Another structural change, decentralization, which was one aspect of Petersens (1999) findings, appears to be a significant aspect of districts efforts to implement reform by reorienting the organization. For instance, Kirp and Driver (1995) illustrated that organizational alignment can be achieved through decentralized decision making, particularly when districts are of manageable size. They noted that this organizational structure permitted professional leadership [to be] free to craft policy without fear of constant second-guessing and that under these conditions the goals of the school chief translate into practice on the ground (p. 599). They provided the example of Kenneth Hill, who served as superintendent for 11 years in Redwood City, which was one of their case studies:
320
[He] made it his mission to redesign the organizations structure for making decisions. Hills ambition, as he has described it, was to move away from a structure that was very authoritarian to one that was working towards a high degree of decentralization and to persuade principals, teachers, and parents to develop home-grown ideas about how to improve their own schools. (p. 599)
As illustrated by this superintendents story, organizational realignment to support improved instruction, including changes in decision-making authority, required shifts in control or at least in the nature of control. Firestone (1989a) agreed. He noted that decentralizing and increasing participation from others throughout the district, particularly teachers, promoted upward communication, built ownership, and developed capacity. He did warn, however, of the considerable amount of time required to make the necessary decisions in this model, the possible infringements of preexisting conflicts, and the nature of participation as possible deterrents to successful reform implementation. As alluded to previously, other research has focused on factors such as district size as means of structural organizational reform. For instance, Hannaway and Kimball (1997), Wenglinsky (1997), and Driscoll, Halcoussis, and Svorny (2003) demonstrated that the districts ability to provide (or not provide) organizational support or build capacity for instructional improvement may be influenced by the district size and the way the district is configured. For instance, Hannaway and Kimball reported that small districts often had limited access to technical assistance, had lower levels of understanding, and struggled with reform implementation resulting in less initial progress.12 Similarly, these scholars found that, although high-poverty districts generally had higher levels of access to technical assistance for their federal programs, these districts also struggled with early reform efforts, such as standard setting and alignment, which, as discussed earlier, are cornerstones of instructional leadership. In the end, these scholars demonstrated that reform understanding and progress on implementation increased as district size increased. Importantly, they declared, Districts are major players in standards based reform. Moreover, larger districts may not be part of the education problem; they may in fact, be part of the solution (Hannaway & Kimball, 1997, p. 18). One year later, Hannaway and Kimball (1998) again spoke to the effects of district size on instructional improvement, emphasizing that smaller districts and large districts with higher percentages of students in poverty had increased difficulties in implementing standards-based reform due to difficulties facilitating reform implementation. In contrast, Driscoll et al. (2003) demonstrated the effects of district size on student achievement in California. They found that
321
as district size increased achievement declined according to the Academic Performance Index. Together, the district-size research suggests that as districts consider reorienting organizational structure and processes, they should also attend to how district support will be distributed and aligned, including determining sufficient uses of human resources and ways to maximize economies of scale (Kirp & Driver, 1995; Petersen, 1999). Corcoran et al. (2001), whose research on evidence-based reform indicated that districts that implemented reforms that lacked coordination, alignment, and coherence with district goals and expectations were less effective and had more difficulty scaling-up their reforms, underscored the findings of Peterson et al. (1987) reported earlier. Specifically, Corcoran et al. described a framework for the district role in instructional improvement based on their research in three large urban districts. Their framework illustrated how the district could refine and align organizational processes through strategic decisions. Moreover, this framework included three broad categories of strategic decisions in organizations seeking to improve performancedesign and adoption, coordination and support of reform, and replication of reform (scaling up) (Coburn 2003). Desimone et al.s (2002) research further illustrated the necessity of attention to organizational structure and processes in reform. They used a national probability sample of Eisenhower Professional Development Program districts to examine the effects of district practice on professional development. They indicated that districts alignment, coordination, continuous improvement efforts, and stakeholders (i.e., district, school, and teachers) involvement in planning and development determined the success of professional development in influencing reform implementation. Numerous other studies (e.g., CPRE, 1998; Joftus et al., 2000; Shields & Knapp, 1997) also supported the importance of the districts role in developing and providing needs-based support, including professional development, to staff and schools. Pajak and Glickman (1989), who conducted a comparative case study of three Georgia districts that had maintained improvements in student achievement from 1982 to 1985, identified instructional dialogue, an infrastructure of support that prompted the dialogue, and varied sources of instructional leadership as important elements of district processes that supported reform. Instructional dialogue, which is evident in direct, engaging, ongoing, and transparent talk, became a process for ensuring that reform activities were aligned with instructional goals (see also Rorrer, 2001). In districts such as the successful ones they studied, Teachers viewed peers and supervisors as working with them, not on them, to help improve instruction (p. 62). Varied sources of instructional leadership reflect a dispersion of leadership similar to the decentralization efforts mentioned
322
previously. Thus, district infrastructure supported the progression of schools from where they were to higher levels of achievement. In addition, although not pervasive in recent research, incentive structures have appeared in earlier research on districts as an important component of the district structure and organization. Purkey and Smith (1985) argued that districts can provide incentives to schools, mandates with consequences, and mandated changes with incentives. Analogously, Elmore (1993) affirmed,
Local districts . . . should have incentives, at least in theory, to provide benefits to whole communities, hence to improve several schools within a community, and thus a stronger incentive than states to see that successful practices in one setting are propagated to others. (p. 105)
Changing the district culture. Another attribute of reorienting the organization that emerged from the research on districts is changing district culture (norms, expectations, and values). For example, McLaughlin (1992) argued for the importance of the district changing its culture as a means to supporting reform: The relationships between teacher and districts that are powerful influences on teachers and teaching have little to do with hierarchical structure and controls and everything to do with the norms, expectations, and values that shape the district professional community (p. 35). Importantly, McLaughlins research considered the districts normative influences on the work of schools and teachers, particularly the ways in which culture can influence norms that support equity. With relation to changing district culture, she emphasized the districts normative influence in establishing policies and goals that embraced diversity; in providing open, clear lines of communication; in exemplifying a district leadership style that use[d] cultural authority to communicate, reinforce, and monitor[ed] district goals and norms of conduct (p. 35); in providing professional development with high expectations; and in regarding the professionalism of teachers as valuable. Pajak and Glickman (1989) further underscored how normative expectations are necessary for promoting a professional community that supports instructional reform:
There is really nothing surprising about the inventiveness and commitment of educators who care deeply about the work they are doing and the students whose lives they are touching. What is important is to create district expectations of professional dialogue and support so that educators in all positions in a school system can share in that inventiveness and express that commitment. (p. 64)13
Furthermore, Elmore and Burneys (1997) research illustrated that superintendents and other district leaders are responsible for generating this culture
323
of commitment in internal and external constituents to improving teaching and the student performance of all children. Specifically, Elmore and Burney (1997), whose work substantiated a focused, multistage, systemwide effort for change, explained that the district they studied served as an example of what districts can achieve, particularly with respect to improved instructional practice.14 Their often-cited depiction of New York Citys Community School District #2s work with professional development and instructional improvement captured national attention by empirically illustrating how reorienting the organizational processes and structures and changing the culture can enhance reform. For instance, their findings included sharing expertise, generating ideas through people working together, and setting clear expectations and then decentralizing. Establishing Policy Coherence From our narrative synthesis of the literature on the districts role in reform, establishing policy coherence emerged as a third dimension of the district role. This part of the role also has two secondary attributes:
mediating federal, state, and local policy (Elmore, 1993; Firestone, 1989a, 1989b; Honig & Hatch, 2004; Kirp & Driver, 1995; Knapp, 1997; Massell, 2000; Mayo & McIntyre, 2003; Purkey & Smith, 1985; Rorrer, 2006; Rorrer & Skrla, 2005; Spillane 1996); and aligning resources (Desimone et al., 2002; Elmore, 1993; Firestone, 1989a; Price, Ball, & Luks, 1995; Spillane & Thompson, 1997; Wenglinsky, 1997).
District leaders are involved in multiple dimensions of the policy process, and they are responsible for linking policy to needs and desired outcomes. As the research evidence suggests, establishment of this type of policy coherence occurs both through alignment with external demands and through an alignment with internally generated demands (Rorrer, 2002). Also, Honig and Hatch (2003), for instance, reflected this in their definition of coherence at the district level. Coherence, they noted, is
a process of negotiation whereby school leaders and central office administrators continually craft the fit between external policy demands and schools own goals and strategies, and use external demands strategically to inform and enable implementation of those goals and strategies. (p. 19)
In other words, coherence is not simply achieved through implementation of a federal, state, or local policy. Instead, policy coherence occurs as district leadership molds policies into district-specific derivatives, which represent an amalgam of external policy and internal goals and strategies.
324
Mediating federal, state, and local policy. As Firestone (1989b) reported, Once one accepts the discontinuities in the policy process, uniformity of response to central policy becomes less critical and one can take advantage of local variation (p. 22). Despite the advantages of local adaptation of policy in reform implementation, as argued by Firestone and others, local variation in responses has led to speculation about the districts influence on teaching and learning or instructional improvement (Elmore, 1993). Although there continues to be attention to the role of the school as the primary sphere of influence, additional evidence indicates the significant value in exploring the districts role of establishing district-level policy coherence within the context of reform implementation and the macro-environment. Firestone (1989a), for example, initiated the discussion of districts and district leaders as innovators, expanders, resistors, and passive implementers, whereas others have suggested that the district acts as a policy mediator (e.g., Knapp, 1997; Rorrer & Skrla, 2005; Spillane, 1996) with regard to federal, state, and local policy. Illustrating such links between district instructional leadership and policy coherence, Firestone explained how districts adapt state policy for their purposes:
In some districts, leaders will share a belief that they can shape what happens in and to their districts. They will have a long-range vision of where they want their districts to go. Their own actions and decisions will be monitored to ensure that they contribute to this long-range vision. Moreover, state policies will be interpreted in light of this vision. Policies that fit it will be embraced; others will be opposed or an effort will be madeboth locally and in the state capitolto get modifications to fit the local vision (Hall, 1987b). (p. 156)
Similarly, Spillanes (1996) case study research expanded upon Firestones findings and refined the role of districts as implementors of state reading policy. He indicated that district administrators were not simply implementing or carrying out the states policy directives; rather, district administrators took a proactive policy-making stance, defining policy problems and developing their own instructional policies (p. 65). In addition, our own research (Rorrer & Skrla, 2005) on the adaptation of state accountability systems to increase equity demonstrated that district leaders retained discretionrelative to will and capacity and to changes in the organizational structureto influence the implementation of state accountability policies. To that end, district leaders actively shaped and engaged in the implementation of state accountability policies by integrating, rather than imposing accountability into the core aspects of organizational relationships, culture, policies, and practices.
325
Kirp and Driver (1995) also highlighted the importance of the policy makers role and underscored their recognition of the important role of districts in policy adaptation. For example, they explained,
Defining and redefining practice . . . has to be done locally. But this process takes place in a context framed by policymakers who have begun to realize that setting this dynamic in motion and situating it within sensible bounds, not insisting on adherence to the minutest particulars, is what they can do best. (p. 609)
In this case, policy makers see local districts as sites for policy mediation that enhance policy implementation through adaptation. Consequently, the districts role becomes cast as a productive role, rather than a subversive one. Spillane (1996) further articulated the districts significant role in influencing policy implementation and establishing coherence between the local district and the state. He asserted:
First, local districts matter in that their instructional policy-making efforts have the potential to undermine state policymakers efforts to streamline the instructional guidance system by concentrating instructional policy making at the state level (and at the school building). . . . Second, school districts policy-making initiatives matter in that they influence state policymakers efforts to broadcast their messages for instructional reform to school practitioners. . . . Third, districts matter in that they influence state-level efforts to increase the coherence of the instructional signals that are sent to school practitioners from within the school system. (p. 83)
This depiction is salient because it again illustrates the interest and agency that the districts possess and the ways that districts can deploy them. Spillanes (1996) perspective of the districts relationship to state-level policy described above was consistent with Elmores (1993) outline of the role of districts regarding federal policy. Elmore suggested four roles that districts could play as units of local governance in a federal system. These roles included mobilizing support and buffering policies from other levels of government; developing and testing new policy ideas; balancing developmental, allocative, and redistributive functions across levels of government; and adapting policies from other levels of government to local needs and circumstances (pp. 118-119). Elmore further highlighted the importance of their political and buffering roles. He explained,
One possible reason for the continued existence of local districts is that they provide a means of mobilizing political support for public schools at a level where their impact is immediate and a valuable buffer against precipitous shifts in state and national policy that are inconsistent with local preferences. (p. 103)
326
Consequently, establishing policy coherence lends itself to garnering support for the districts schools amidst a turbulent external environment. Purkey and Smith (1985) summed up this notion in their description of the roles of the school board and superintendent. They noted, The role of the board of education and the superintendent is to set the direction for the districts schools in a manner that blends local and state or national interests (p. 374). Adding to this same idea, Mayo and McIntyres (2003) research, which specifically supported Hannaway and Kimballs findings discussed earlier in re-orienting organizational structures and processes, illustrated that the ability to blend local and state context further establishes coherence for districtlevel reform efforts. Their research indicated that superintendents in districts within states with high stakes testing spent more time on instructional leadership than their peers in states with low stakes testing. More precisely, they reported that as the percentage of students in poverty increased in highstakes testing states, superintendents were likely to spend even more time on instructional leadership, whereas similar results were not found in lowstakes testing states. Importantly, this type of research further illustrates how state and federal policy alone is not predictive of the intensity or quality of the districts response, a finding similar to McLaughlins findings. Instead, how districts mediate local, state, and federal policy to enhance local reform efforts requires both interest and agency (will) and is layered within a context that positions the district to continuously negotiate its legitimacy (Rorrer, 2002, 2006) as it attempts to develop policy coherence. Aligning resources. The second attribute of establishing policy coherence as a role for districts in reform is aligning resources with identified district needs. In this area, researchers (Clune, 1994; Desimone et al., 2002; Hannaway & Kimball, 1997; Lankford & Wyckoff, 1995; Picus, 1994; Price et al., 1995; Roza & Hill, 2004; Wenglinsky, 1997) have suggested that money matters primarily to the degree that it affords or provides resources to support teaching and learning, albeit often indirectly.15 For instance, aligned district policy about the use of fiscal resources permits districts to provide supplemental programs, administrative inputs, professional development, and material resources as well as to acquire teacher and leadership talent and to increase salaries and compensation. In an environment driven by a bang for the buck mindset, acquiring, aligning, and distributing human resources consistent with reform goals, including central office administrators as well as teacher quality, is an oft-overlooked, underrecognized element of the districts role in reform. As reported earlier, Spillane and Thompsons (1997) research, however, emphasized the value of talent in terms of human and social capital:
327
There may be some connection between the financial resources available to a district and the human and social capital it can mobilize for reformrich districts may hire more knowledgeable and sociable administrators and teacher-leaders as well as other teachersbut if so, it will be the superior human and social capital they hire or develop, not the material resources themselves, that position them to get still richer in capacity for reform. (p. 199)
Hannaway and Kimball (1998) and Wenglinsky (1997) also argued for the importance of increased spending on central office as a means for increasing capacity for reform. For instance, Wenglinsky, who contended with the unresolved debate regarding the effects of resources on achievement, determined that when more money is spent on it, the central office is better able to make allocative decisions (p. 232). Recent research further suggests that larger districts often have an easier time aligning resources and supports to reform goals. Similarly, Desimone et al. (2002) determined that larger districts were able to utilize alignment strategies and more easily engage in continuous improvement efforts because they have a greater ability to integrate professional development with standards and assessments, benefit from economies of scale, provide access to expertise and potentially additional staff, and cofund programs (pp. 1297-1298) consistent with reform goals and efforts. Hannaway and Kimball (1997) also indicated that smaller districts have less capacity, including financial capacity, to understand and implement reforms. As the research in this area illustrates, aligning resources is indicative of the will (commitment) of the district to their reforms, contributes to the development of capacity to enact reform, and improves the likelihood of reform success and sustainability. Firestone (1989a) emphasized this point and suggested that the coherence between resources and needs reveals a districts organizational purpose, values, and desired outcomes. Price, Ball, and Luks (1995) similarly demonstrated the influence of district leaders in aligning resource allocation policy at the local level. They concluded,
Administratorsthe central office or in buildingsare in positions of power to affect the marshalling of resources around particular agendas. They allocate funds for materials, professional development, and staff. They influence teachers priorities, in the form of concern and time. Thus, what they care about and understand can have crucial consequences for the development of any particular reform agenda. (p. 32)
This point, thus, further illustrates the value of establishing coherence between available supports and resources and instructional leadership (e.g., will and establishing the vision, focus, and goals).
328
Who benefits most from either newly acquired or redistributed resources remains a matter of substantial importance, and disagreement. Yet increasingly, attention is given to the districts efforts to align resources to district adopted goals and objectives. An alignment between resource distribution and utilization, on one hand, and district purpose and goals, on the other, serves as a remedy to previously unimaginative uses of money (Odden & Clune, 1994, p. 6). Moreover, this alignment presents opportunities for vertical equity (Berne & Stiefel, 1994) and adequacy (Clune, 1994).16 As Rodriguez (2004), who considered the future of vertical equity in school finance, underscored, It is not yet time to abandon the concern for establishing standards for equity within the policies that frame and support our commitment to public education (p. 27).17 Maintaining an Equity Focus The fourth essential role for districts in reform that emerged from our research synthesis is maintaining an equity focus. Although we acknowledge that most research on districts has been interested in some element of improved instruction or outcomes, only recently has maintaining an equity focus become prominent as an explicit value in reform implementation or research focus. Arguably, educational institutions have successfully ensured inequity to date. In part, inequities in education have persisted due to larger societal inequities, particularly as they reflect and reinforce the inequities in society (Heck & Hallinger, 1999). This aspect of educational institutions has received considerable attention (e.g., Lopez, 2003; Lugg, 2003). Even though districts can, and have historically, institutionalized inequity, recent research has shown that districts are also capable of disrupting and even displacing (Rorrer, 2001; Skrla & Scheurich 2001) institutionalized structures and practices that perpetuate inequity in student achievement. Two separate but related attributes of the districts role in reform emerged within the category of maintaining an equity focus. These two attributes include
owning past inequity, including highlighting inequities in system and culture (Skrla & Scheurich, 2001; Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson, 2000; Togneri & Anderson, 2000); and foregrounding equity, including increasing availability and transparency of data (Cawelti, 2001; Hernandez, 2003; Koschoreck, 2003; Rorrer, 2001, 2006)
Together, these two attributes increase district attention to improving achievement for all children and, thus, maintaining an equity focus has
329
become a pivot point for reform. That is, districts reconsider and recast their roles in providing instructional leadership, reorient and aligning organizational structures and processes, and establish policy coherence with the ultimate goal of ensuring educational equity. The research in this area, albeit a modest collection of research, highlights the explicit nature of equity in the districts efforts aimed at improving teaching and learning to increase equity. Owning past inequity. The first attribute of the role for districts in maintaining an equity focus is their ability to own past inequities. Recent research on districts demonstrates progress in increasing achievement for all students and in narrowing achievement gaps in districts serving racially and economically diverse students. For example, Skrla et al. (2000) studied districts that had demonstrated substantial, sustained progress in closing achievement gaps within a strong accountability policy environment. Their research reinforced many of the themes previously addressed, including the district emphasis on instructional coherence and alignment, the importance of professional development, and equitable distribution of district resources. Significantly, however, findings from this research departed from previous studies when they described the prominent role of the state accountability system, local catalysts for equity, and a moral response of district leadership to revelations of past district inequity. This last findingthe leadership response to revelations of past inequitywas emphasized by the study authors as playing a critical role in the districts progress toward reform:
It is important to note that these superintendents [in the four study districts] did not choose to try to explain away the poor performance of groups of students. They did not endeavor to baffle their critics with confusing, jargonfilled explanations of low achievement. They did not blame low performance on parents, social service agencies, or anyone outside the district. They did not attempt to finesse the system by finding quick-fix substitutes for real improvements in student learning. They responded both to the state accountability system and to their local constituents with a sincere commitment to improve the learning of all students. (p. 20)
Thus, the superintendents in this study both recognized past inequity in student performance and took responsibility for it, rather than denying it or blaming external factors. Likewise, Togneri & Anderson (2003) who studied five high-poverty districts making strides in improving student achievementAldine (TX), Chula Vista (CA), Kent County (MD), Minneapolis (MN), and Providence (RI)asserted that one of the keys to progress in these districts was that districts had the courage to acknowledge poor performance and the will to seek solutions (p. 3).
330
Foregrounding equity. The other attribute of the role for districts in maintaining an equity focus is foregrounding equity. An example of the importance of foregrounding equity was provided by Caweltis (2001) study of six successful districts, three in Texas and one each in West Virginia, Idaho, and California, which identified high-performance traits of the districts. A key finding from this research was that these successful districts transcended the all students can learn rhetoric by operationalizing an equity-focused plan that included developing programs, policies, and teaching strategies that lead to higher levels of achievement; by decentralizing management and budget and monitoring results; by aligning curriculum with assessments; by developing consistent teaching strategies; and by committing to research-based planning for improvement. During that same year, Rorrer (2001) also profiled two districtsNorthside Independent School District in Texas and Wake County Public Schools in North Carolinathat had demonstrated significant progress in raising performance for all students, particularly students eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch and students of color. Central to these districts evolution was the role of district leadership in disrupting inequity. Using a window of opportunity created by leaders with a commitment to equity, district leaders exercised a sense of agency, created a culture of equity coupled with excellence, and implemented a calculated process to achieve equitable opportunities and outcomes. In these districts, district leaders, who often recounted stories that described the source of their commitment, insisted that equity was at the forefront of instructional and policy discussions and of decision making. Hernandez (2003), in her doctoral dissertation, also emphasized the central role of districts in maintaining a focus on equity. She conducted a case study of a Texas district that had completely eliminated achievement gaps between and among racial and economic student groups on the Texas state achievement tests. Hernandez framed her analysis of the districts transformation using four sources of theory from earlier research: organizational learning (Senge, 1990), effective schools correlates (Edmonds, 1979; Lezotte, 1991), Total Quality Management (Deming, 1986), and Focused Equity Practices (Skrla et al., 2000). All four sources of theory that informed her analysis, notably, supported the importance of foregrounding the district goal of educational equity. According to current research, then, districts that maintain an equity focus understand that a move toward equity is political, potentially contentious, and often riddled with conflict (Rorrer, 2006). Yet to institutionalize equity, districts must consciously or deliberately attract attention to the degree of inequity that exists and respond to the attention of others, (Rorrer, 2001,
331
p. 304). As revealed by participants in the two districts that participated in this research, districts did not foster any illusions, hide the problems, or ignore the issues (p. 293). Accordingly, policy makers and communities, who maintained a degree of power and influence over decisions to allocate resources, were reminded of purpose and goals to increase equitable access and outcomes in the district. Moreover, inequity in policies, practices, structures, and school and student outcomes in the district were unveiled and made transparent. For example, evaluation and research, which compared the performance of students based on Free and Reduced Lunch status to peers not participating in the program, was conducted, posted publicly, referenced, and served as a basis for decision making at the district and school level. Districts appeared to decide that they must increase attention to equity while maintaining both internal and external support for changes that will ensure greater equity and that they must inform their constituents of the status of all students as a critical aspect of achieving this goal. Koschoreck (2003) made a similar observation about the successful district he studied. He asserted,
The district underwent the philosophical changes that brought everyone to focus on success for all children. . . . This coming together of one mind toward a vision of high achievement levels for all students has provided the fundamental impetus for change in Aldine ISD. (pp. 172-173)
IMPROVING ACHIEVEMENT AND ADVANCING EQUITY: A THEORY OF DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS IN SYSTEMIC REFORM As evidenced by the accumulated research synthesized here, scholars who have studied districts over the past two decades have framed their studies in varied ways. Some have viewed districts in the context of organizational theory and have focused on structural and functional characteristics of districts (e.g. Corcoran et al., 2001; Firestone, 1989b; Floden et al., 1988; Peterson et al., 1987). Others have approached the study of districts primarily as a study of district leaders, focusing on superintendents or central office actions in the work of reforming their districts (e.g., Honig, 2004; Kirp & Driver, 1995; Mayo & McIntyre, 2003; Petersen, 1999; Pitner & Ogawa, 1981). Still others have viewed instruction as the prime dimension of interest and have concentrated specifically on what districts do to influence teaching and learning (e.g., Desimone et al., 2002; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Another group of
332
scholars has taken a more eclectic approach and has produced checklists of characteristics of successful districts (e.g., Cawelti, 2001; CPRE, 1998; Joftus et al., 2000; Shields & Knapp, 1997). More recently, a few researchers have focused specifically on the educational equity dimension of district improvement efforts (e.g., Rorrer, 2001; Skrla et al., 2000). Individually, these previous lines of research have been informative. Yet overall, they leave us without an understanding of the complexity intrinsic in district-level, systemic reform. Here, we shift our discussion to the elevated status of the district as an institutional actor in educational reform, particularly reform aimed at improving achievement and advancing equity. First, we clarify our characterization of the district as an institutional actor. Next, we discuss a theory of district as a primary and central player in systemic reform. The four roles (i.e., providing instructional leadership, reorienting the organizational structure and processes, establishing policy coherence, and maintaining an equity focus) identified in on our narrative synthesis of previous research are pivotal to this theory of the districts role in systemic reform poised to improve achievement and advance equity. Finally, we propose a research agenda that aims at exploring the complexity of the district as an institutional actor in educational reform. Districts as Institutional Actors Clearly, given the research synthesis presented above, districts do matter. The subsequent question for us, then, is this: Based on the above research synthesis, how could districts serve in reform to improve achievement and advance equity systemwide? We believe an answer to this question lies in the consideration of the district as an institutional actor and how they can enact their roles identified here to achieve systemic reform. Cahns (1995) differentiation between institutional actors and noninstitutional actors helps illustrate our depiction of districts as institutional actors. An institutional actor, he noted, influences an institution (such as education) from within, particularly by influencing the development and implementation of solutions to identified problems (p. 201).18 As institutional actors, districts have an organized interest in (Wong & Jain, 1999) and unique ability to be the carriers and creators of institutional logics (Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000, p. 20).19 That is, their role in improving achievement and advancing equity, in this instance, is connected to their collective identity and their ability to create change by altering institutional scripts that tacitly and explicitly govern behavior of organizational members.
333
As the previous synthesis of extant literature indicates, researchers frequently use the superintendent, midlevel administrators, or the school board as proxies for the district. For the purpose of the following discussion, we use district to represent an organized collective constituted by the superintendent, the board, the central office-level administration, and principals, who collectively serve as a network and critical link to uniting the district and the schools in ways to both develop and implement solutions to identified problems (Land, 2002; McLaughlin, 1990). Similarly, Spillane (2000) also considered a broader definition of the district. He noted that district leadership is made up of those district administrators, curriculum specialists, and lead teachers who, by virtue of formal position or informal role, are actively involved in developing and implementing district policies, particularly in response to state and national standards, about mathematics education (p. 142). Individually, the superintendent, the board, the central office-level administration, and the principals are organizational actors.20 Collectively, however, they constitute an institutional actor bound by a web of interrelated roles, responsibilities, and relationships. As such, the district has the power, authority, and influence to provide educational services that are equitable beyond the single school or islands of excellence (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). To be clear, institutional actors differ from organizational actors because they are an organized collective.21 Ogawa (1994) illustrated this differentiation and underscored our use of institutional actor to characterize school districts, as defined previously. As he explained, institutional actors tend to be organizations, because organizations rather than individuals possess the resources that are needed to support a campaign of institutionalization. In addition, these actors are often linked by networks, which facilitate coordination and regulation of members (p. 545).22 The networks and relationships between actors within the district contribute to their collective nature. In turn, the district, as an institutional actor, is able to amplify the manner in which it enacts the four roles previously identified to achieve systemic reform. Consequently, as Morgeson and Hofmann (1999) supported, the district represents more than the sum of all individual actions.23 They noted, As interaction occurs within larger groups of individuals, a structure of collective action emerges that transcends the individuals who constitute the collective (p. 252). Similarly, Wong and Jains (1999) discussion of a unitary actor model reveals how the actions of institutional actors may be further accelerated. In a unitary actor model, one institutional actor joins with other institutional actors to address particular issues or concerns. In their research, they described how institutional actors, such as the city mayor and the school system, formed a unitary actor
334
model and came together to focus on programmatic strategies that enhance[d] the outcome performance of the schools and on management improvement, which increase[d] the cost-efficiency of the system (p. 218). The role of districts as institutional actors in educational reform is further augmented by their institutional status generally. For instance, Salisbury (1984) noted that highly complex organizations, such as districts, can be constructed as an institution.24 Our distinction of districts as an institution is rooted further in the work of Selznick (1957). He noted that an institution is a natural product of social needs and pressuresa responsive, adaptive organism (p. 5) that serves a purpose beyond that of the administrative organization. In doing so, Selznick explained, an institution moves beyond the formal rules and objectives (p. 5) that characterize an administrative organization by becoming infused with value (p. 40). The assertion that districts carry an institutional status, then, is complementary to our contention of districts as institutional actors. Arguably, this added dimension is what provides districts the power and leverage to create change that reflects equity as a value, as illustrated in the fourth role identified by the narrative synthesis. Consequently, we see that districts are then positioned to serve as more than hosts for reform, which they are so often identified as, or simply the legal and fiscal agents responsible for carrying out states educational obligations (Sipple & Killeen, 2004, p. 462). Instead, districts existence as institutional actors with institutional capacity permits the district to extend its roles and function beyond implementation to expansion and escalation of reforms tethered to a value commitment, such as equity. Given this conceptualization, districts successful with increasing achievement for all students and advancing equity will maintain an equity focus, wherein equity becomes both a defining, explicit value and a desired outcome. And this value commitment, which again is consistent with the districts institutional role, becomes a tipping point for change. That is, as it becomes central and embedded in the culture, this value is the impetus and foundation for shifting norms, policies, and structures and for helping organizational members determine how they interpret their tasks, devise solutions, and make decisions (Boin, 2004, p. 4) in ways that contrast to an inequitable status quo. Consequently, as an institutional actor with institutional capacity, the district can execute the four rolesproviding instructional leadership, reorienting the organization, establishing policy coherence, and maintaining an equity focusin a way that assures the defining value (equity) is reflected authentically (Selznick, 1957). In the following discussion, we build upon previous research and
335
Establishing Policy Coherence: Mediating Federal, State, and Local Policy & Aligning Resources
Providing Instructional Leadership: Generating Will & Building Capacity
Reorienting the Organization: Refining Organizational Structure and Process & Changing the District Culture
Maintaining an Equity Focus: Owning Past Inequities & Foregrounding Equity
Interact Relationship
Figure 1. Districts as Institutional Actors in Improving Achievement and Advancing Equity: A Theory of Systemic Reform
illustrate how the district as an institutional actor may enact the four roles for systemic reform aimed at improving achievement and advancing equity. Districts as Institutional Actors in Systemic Reform: Variable Coupling and Nonlinearity To date, the quest to capture organizational change has (mis)led many scholars to (mis)represent this phenomenon using cause-effect relationships neatly presented in simple graphic forms (Piehl, 1974). So eager to have found the key to unlocking the mysteries of an organization, organizational scholars have documented and frequently essentialized the elements necessary for substantive and core changes to occur. As a result, linear explanations have dominated the discourse, as well as expectations for practice.25 Again, our synthesis of previous research indicates that districts serve in four essential roles in reform: (a) providing instructional leadership, (b) reorienting the organization, (c) establishing policy coherence, and (d) maintaining an equity focus. We have provided Figure 1 to illustrate how we propose districts as institutional actors may engage in these four
336
essential roles purposefully to create reform aimed at improving achievement and advancing equity systemically. Importantly, this framework is useful in illuminating what we believe has been a vulnerability in the previous research on districtsa lack of focus on the interdependence and interrelatedness of these roles. The proposed theory for districts as institutional actors in systemic reform presented here was developed using the processes described by Dubin (1976) and Weick (1995) combined with an inductive analysis of extant research on districts.26 As Dubin noted, A theory tries to make sense out of the observable world by ordering the relationships among elements that constitute the theorists focus of attention (p. 26). To determine relationships between roles that have not previously been explored fully, we returned to prior research and followed Weicks plan for developing theory. He explained that theorizing entails activities like abstracting, generalizing, relating, selecting, explaining, synthesizing, and idealizing (p. 389). Therefore, the proposed framework represents both what we currently know from extant research on districts as well as the ideal for positioning districts as institutional actors in educational reform to increase achievement and advance equity. Our argument here is grounded in three assumptions. First, we believe that a key to understanding the roles districts serve in improving student achievement and advancing equity lies in deliberately setting aside our longings for a precise, one best solution and abandoning random, isolated efforts to systemic educational reform and, instead, attending to what can be learned from the complexity and adaptability of districts as well as the interdependence of the roles they enact. Second, districts have an indispensable role, as institutional actors, in educational reform. Purkey and Smiths (1985) description of districts as nested layers (Purkey & Smith, 1983) in which actions at the higher layers can help determine conditions in lower layers (p. 376) captures this notion. Third, the proposed theory of districts as institutional actors in systemic reform is predicated on the idea that change at a system level is nonlinear and complex and that their roles and efforts must be variably coupled. These assumptions underlying our framework are strengthened by Thorngates (1976) assertion that it is impossible for a theory of social behavior to be general, accurate, and simple simultaneously (pp. 134-135). Variable Coupling To fully explicate the variability in coupling, nonlinearity, and complexity necessary to enact a theory of districts as institutional actors in systemic
337
reform aimed at improving achievement and advancing equity, we build upon Weicks (1976) work of loosely and tightly coupled systems. This work is particularly relevant with respect to how it exemplifies districts ability to both empower and exert control as a complex system while performing the four roles. Clearly, the depiction of educational organizations (i.e., districts and schools) as loosely coupled systems has been institutionalized while the prospect for tight coupling has been diminished. Yet a tension remains in research and practice between centralization and decentralization of power and influence and between tightly coupled and loosely coupled systems. Some scholars (Crowson & Morris, 1985; Cuban, 1984) have addressed the need to consider an alternative to the view of schools and districts as loosely coupled systems. Cuban (1984), for instance, demonstrated this tension in his description of districts 20 years ago. He noted that many districts do not exist simply as loosely coupled systems:
Often superintendents begin on a pragmatic, ad hoc basis with, for example, goal setting and test analysis. They then become aware of the crucial need to achieve a match among curriculum objectives, promotion policies, district goals, and test items. Or in the overhaul of staff evaluation, a school board member or central office administrator will ask if the new instruments and procedures should be keyed in to district goals for student performance, thus forging another linkage. Though serendipity plays a part, the drift toward organizational tautness is unmistakable. (p. 134)
With Cubans example in mind, we find Weicks invitation to consider that a tight coupling in one part of the system can occur only if there is loose coupling in another part of the system and that it may be the pattern of couplings that produces the observed outcomes (p. 10) as significant and relevant. In particular, this pattern of coupling to which Weick referred provides the foundation for our argument for a variably coupled system. In fact, the ability to variably couple the four roles distinguishes our proposed theory of how districts could successfully systemic reform, particularly reform aimed at improving achievement and advancing equity. Moreover, the variability in coupling between roles permits districts to be more responsive to their political, social, and economical contexts. Lotto (1983) has been one of the few scholars to emphasize variable coupling in an approach similar to ours. In fact, her depiction of variable coupling clarifies its application to our framework for districts as institutional actors in reform. She explained,
338
In a variably coupled world, effectiveness is related not to achieving a uniform level of coupling, but to achieving variability and matching coupledness to events, elements, and participants. Thus, from this perspective the effective organization is flexible and adaptive, able to sustain both tight and loose couplings as demanded by the situation. (p. 374)
She added that effectiveness was dependent on diversity of couplings, congruence between expected and actual couplings, and leadership flexibility consistent with the coupling required. Given her explanation, we see that simply relying on a loosely coupled system, which is marked by its inherent flexibility and adaptability (Weick, 2001), is problematic. Take, for instance, districts where equity has not been a priority. In these districts, characteristics such as flexibility and adaptability are potentially detrimental, particularly to the systems ability to coordinate, promote, diffuse, and institutionalize efforts aimed at advancing equity. Selznick (1957) further illustrated the necessity for variance in how the roles of districts may be coupled when educational equity is an explicit goal. He emphasized,
When top leadership cannot depend on adherence to its viewpoint, formal controls are required, if only to take measures that will increase homogeneity. On the other hand, when the premises of official policy are well understood and widely accepted, centralization is more readily dispensable. (p. 113)
More recent research (Rorrer, 2001) indicated that districts successful in increasing equity maintained a similar philosophy: Increased flexibility (loose coupling) must be accompanied by increased accountability (tight coupling) for desired outcomes. Selznicks conclusion provides a point of reference for districts whose aim is to advance equity. If equity is not a collective value, as illustrated in our discussion of the district as an institutional actor, and the district begins to foreground it, the district may have to increase centralization and tighten control between roles to maintain this focus and achieve this outcome. Peters and Waterman (1982) also supported the notion that tight control over core values allows loosely coupled systems to survive and cohere through idiosyncratic local adaptations (Weick, 1995, p. 113). Obviously, there are dangers to increased centralization and tight coupling. For instance, these two characteristics are associated with authoritarian leadership and as a means for more control. Emphatically, we do not believe, nor does the literature support, either of these as a means for systemic change. Cuban (1984) highlighted the risk faced by districts who have attempted tight coupling as their primary means of facilitating reform. He observed, District officials pursuing policies that fasten individual schools snugly to the central
339
office believe they have found just the right hammer to pound in a nail (p. 134). This type of response would remove the necessary element highlighted by the role to establish coherence. That is, snugly (or arbitrarily) utilizing tight coupling extinguishes the advantage of local adaptiveness. Nonlinearity Over time, support for considering the principle of nonlinearity in change has grown (Anderson, 1999; Casti, 1994; Daft & Weick, 1984; Lewin & Volberda, 1999), particularly within complexity theory. Although Fullan (1996) previously argued that with nonlinearity came fragmentation, the previously identified scholars indicated that a shift from linearity to nonlinearity requires a concurrent shift between simplistic and parsimonious explanations to explanations that encapsulate the complexity and interrelatedness inherent in the system. For example, in a nonlinear system, change is often circular (Allport, 1924, in Weick, 1979). Our proposed framework for systemic reform to improve achievement and advance equity reflects these principles. The complexity becomes obvious in characteristics such as elements that overlap multiple roles, similar to those evident in our synthesis of extant literature. Whereas some may view this as a weakness in design, we argue instead that elements that overlap provide evidence of the frameworks strength to absorb the complexity necessary for educational reform for equity. Nonlinearity is a necessary element of the application of variable coupling to our model and its subsequent potential effectiveness, particularly to improve achievement and increase equity systemically. The feedback loops create opportunities for practices, policies, or structures in one role to be altered, specifically increasing alignment and coherence, as a result of changes the other roles. The double interacts (Weick, 1979), or feedback loops, promote reciprocal and multidirectional changes in the roles. As a result, coevolution (Hoffman & Riley, 2002; Lewin & Volberda, 1999) among the roles occurs and further reinforces the district as an institutional actor in systemic reform. In particular, systemic reform becomes dependent on how the district as an organized collective (rather than relying solely on the efforts of the superintendent) enacts the interrelated roles to achieve the desired outcomes. Daft and Wiginton (1979) explained it this way:
Another source of complexity is that boundaries between some variables are indefinite. In human groups, variables may be fused together in varying degrees so that variables do not have clear identities. Moreover, variables are clustered in ways which we do not understand. Rather than a single cause having a single effect, changing one element in such a cluster affects the whole conglomerate. (p. 186)
340
Anderson (1999) further explained the value added aspect of nonlinearity in a complex system. He concluded,
In nonlinear systems, intervening to change one or two parameters of a small amount can drastically change the behavior of the whole system, and the whole can be very different from the sum of the parts. Complex systems change inputs to outputs in a nonlinear way because their components interact with one another via a web of feedback loops. (p. 217)
For illustrative purposes, changes in maintaining an equity focus influences changes in instructional leadership, which, in turn, influences subsequent actions to maintain an equity focus, reorient the organization, or establish policy coherence. Consequently, the roles coevolve with one another. Weick (1979) explained,
When we say that an organization acts we mean to emphasize that double interacts, not solitary acts, are the raw materials that are assembled into processes. We also mean to emphasize that it is the assemblage, the pattern of interacts, that determines the outcomesnot the personal qualities of single individuals. (p. 35)
Weicks example demonstrates how the nonlinearity complements the variable coupling of our proposed framework for districts in systemic reform. The nonlinearity characteristic of the system promotes an almost completely constant system of change.27 As small successive changes can result in larger cumulative effects (Hoffman & Riley, 2002), change occurs sufficient in scope to challenge teachers and kindle interest, but not so ambitious that they required too much too soon (McLaughlin, 1990, p. 12). Change can occur as the districts perpetually scan (collect data), interpret (give data meaning), and learn (take action) (Daft & Weick, 1984). As the districts sensitivity to its alignment or dissonance among its roles with its value commitments and intended goals occurs, changes become more acute and simultaneous. Moreover, the feedback loop in our framework is an asset with the variable coupling suggested earlier and positions this model to have applicability in multiple settings (see Whetten, 1989) because of its sensitivity and responsiveness to the districts surrounding context.
THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH ON DISTRICTS The role of districts as institutional actors we have proposed remains to be confirmed (or denied). To date, researchers and practitioners alike seem to have been more content with recommendations for isolated practices
341
within discrete reform areas (e.g., mathematics) or roles (e.g., instructional leadership) than eager to seek a coherent model for how a district is likely to have the greatest influence and impact on increasing achievement for all students and advancing equity through systemic reform. In addition, we believe the field would be well served to avoid the single solution nature of inquiry that has been characteristic of a large portion of previous inquiry on districts. Consistent with the framework for systemic reform presented, we suggest that future research explore the complexity, interrelatedness, and nonlinearity of the districts roles and the ways that together these roles position the district as an institutional actor in reform. As stated previously, we do not anticipate that all changes to be made in the four domains of our proposed model for district reform would be rapid or permanent. Instead, we propose that changes in the district would be characterized as a gestalt, or by an indivisible nature (Schulman, 1975), that leads to continuous refinement of actions through double interacts of scanning, interpretation, and learning (Daft & Weick, 1984). We anticipate that this type of change requires educational leaders to alter their conceptualization of how and why changes should occur and instead, as Schulman (1975) suggested, overcome thinking small. As Schulman explained, overcoming thinking small is a major necessity in developing the imagination and receptivity closely associated with organizational innovation (p. 1357). The type of innovation that we have described here also requires a shift in how researchers explore the districts comprehensive and collective role. To this end, we now suggest a research agenda poised to test the proposed framework and its applicability to the district enacting its four roles as an institutional actor, particularly aimed at improving achievement and advancing equity. This line of inquiry will provide empirical evidence to further our understanding and refine our knowledge of districts as institutional actors in systemic reform. First, future research on district reform will need to use longitudinal (Lewin & Valberda, 1999; Whetten, 1989) and comparative case studies, including the creation of data-rich case histories (Daft & Wiginton, 1979; Orton & Weick, 1990; Piehl, 1974) that capture the social, political, and economic context of districts. Whetten (1989) provided a rationale for longitudinal and comparative case studies of districts that vary in their composition, contexts, and efforts. He explained,
In the process of testing the ideas [theory] in various setting, we discover the inherent limiting conditions. In the absence of this breadth of experimental evidence, we must be realistic regarding the extent of a theorists foreknowledge of all the possible limitations on a theorys applicability. (p. 492)
342
Piehl (1974) noted the shift necessary by researchers. In particular, he explained that this requires a researcher to
collect a much larger amount of data than he has traditionally collected in the past. Second he must engage in an open-minded search for indications of the nature of the underlying relationships, avoiding the simplistic assumptions that tend to minimize effort. (p. 765)
Consequently, expanding future research on districts as institutional actors using these type of case studies will permit us to explore the complexity and nonlinearity inherent in the proposed theory of districts in systemic reform. This research requires a broader base of data on districts; one that includes both qualitative and quantitative evidence of leadership, organizational, and policy efforts and associated outcomes of these efforts. Next, we suggest that future inquiry into the role of districts, particularly those that utilize longitudinal and comparative case studies, explore explicitly the variable coupling between and among the four essential roles of districts as institutional actors, which we have described. Specifically, research is needed into the identity, separateness, and boundaries of the elements coupled (Weick, 1976, p. 4). How do the four roles converge and under what conditions do they converge to improve achievement and advance equity? As roles coevolve, or develop in relation to one another (Hoffman & Riley, 2002), how do their interrelatedness and interactions produce exponential effects associated with the proposed model of change? Research on how the four roles coevolve in this framework requires attention to the nonlinearity, feedback, and multidirectionality of change in the proposed model. How do roles overlap in practice? In fact, earlier work by Meyer (2002) and Ogawa and Scribner (2002) forecasted this proposition. For instance, as Meyer noted, There are developments in education theory and practice that point to the emergence of hybrid models of organizations that capture the advantages of centralization and coordination produced by hierarchy while attempting to harness the advantages or more decentralized organizational structures (p. 518). This particular line of inquiry might reveal how district roles can be tightly coupled, decoupled, and loosely coupled (Orton & Weick, 1990; Weick, 1976), and under what circumstances, to improve achievement and advance equity. The goal of these initial areas of future research is, though, not to delineate specific patterns or emphatic recommendations of how to become a successful district; instead, these data would help illuminate general patterns of relationships (Daft & Wiginton, 1979). Furthermore, as Morel and Ramanujam (1999) noted, Organizations are now routinely viewed as dynamic systems of adaptation and evolution that
343
contain multiple parts which interact with one another and the environment (p. 278). Despite this acknowledgement and much speculation, very little is known about how the external environment specifically influences the district an institutional actor that is enacting the four roles interdependently. Given this, we suggest that future research further explore how districts negotiate external and internal influences (Rorrer, 2006), such as macro-level changes (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993), and how these influences affect the four roles concurrently and responsibilities of the districts in improving instruction and advancing equity. Consistent with this suggestion, for example, would be research that focused on how districts develop a critical mass among diverse internal and external stakeholders to support (i.e. actively work toward) these efforts. Wong and Jains (1999) research on unitary actor models provides another point of interest in this arena. For instance, how do multiple institutional actors and even noninstitutional actors converge to help or hinder district reform efforts? Moreover, as districts begin to foreground equity, how do districts negotiate the change process? After all, a change in the explicit value commitment to one that maintains an equity focus would likely create an organizational crisis (Selznick, 1957). This type of crisis, however, presents a window of opportunity to alter other roles. Consequently, how do districts, as Scott (1995) suggested, behave strategically, sometimes conforming but often negotiating, protesting, resisting, and hiding from the dictates of regulatory and symbolic systems (p. xxi) that have perpetuated inequities in education? In particular, how does this negotiation affect the districts enactment of their four essential roles in reform towards improving instruction and advancing equity? Finally, to fully understand and appreciate the potential of districts as institutional actors to disrupt inequity and serve in roles that, instead, promote equity and social justice, future research must be addressed from and embedded in multiple, critical perspectives and broad methodological approaches. Multiple perspectives and approaches are necessary, as Van de Ven and Poole (2005) explained, to get a thorough understanding of the buzzing, blooming, and confusing dynamics often observed in organizational changes (p. 1396). We recognize that this suggestion requires consideration of the influence of the broader social, political, and economical context of districts adapt, as noted in the previous research recommendation. After all, as DiMaggio (1995) noted, The reception of a theory is shaped by the extent to which a theory resonates with the cultural presuppositions of the time and of the scientific audience that consumes it (p. 394). As evidenced in the discussion of the fourth role of districts in reform, some previous research has demonstrated a commitment to these same goals
344
through proxies (e.g., achievement scores, changed cultures, alternative policies and structures) as powerful evidence of improved instruction and equity. Yet much of the previous research on district efforts has been void of the implications of leadership, organizational, and policy initiatives for educational equity and social justice. This void is evident frequently in the neutral stance (i.e., language, analytical frameworks, description of findings) taken toward district efforts. As a result, this research does not attend to the complexity of inequity and fails to address whether current efforts actually result in greater disparities in access, outcomes, and/or power. Therefore, future research must investigate the transformative nature (Foster, 1989; Quantz, Rogers, & Dantley, 2001) of leadership, organization, and policy by utilizing perspectives beyond the traditional frames that have been applied thus far to the study of districts. For instance, critical analysis (Ball, 1994) is needed of how districts center educational equity and social justice in providing instructional leadership, reorienting the organization, or establishing policy coherence. We can direct our attention to the research of scholars such who are among those scholars who as guides in this endeavor. Although a critical race theory (CRT) (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) perspective has been used increasingly to analyze other aspects of education such as Chicana/o student experiences in higher education (Delgado-Bernal, 2002; Villalpando, 2003) and more recently the politics of education (Lpez, 2003), it has not been used to explore the districts institutional role, as it has been described here. Yet as Parker and Lynn (2002) asserted, Linking CRT to education can indeed foster the connections of theory to practice and activism on issues related to race (p. 18). Thus, we suggest that future research further utilize critical perspectives in analyzing districts as institutional actors in improving instruction and advancing equity.
Appendix A Published Sources Included in Narrative Synthesis (N = 81)

Peer Reviewed/ Refereed Articles 52 Empirically Based 63 Books/Book Chapters 4 Conceptual 12 Policy or Research Center Report 16 Synthesis of Research 3 Other
10 Other 4
345
Appendix B Narrative Synthesis References by Type of Article (N = 81)

Types of Articles Synthesis of Research Knapp (1997) Land (2002) Marsh (2000)
Empirically Based Rorrer & Skrla (2005) Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson (2000) Skrla & Scheurich (2001) Blas & Blas (2000)
Conceptual Berman (1986) Berne & Stiefel (1994) Cuban (1984) Daresh (1991)
Other Murphy (1988) (review) Purkey & Smith (1985) (review) Reavis (1946) (historical) Lezotte (1991) (consultant materials)
Bredeson (1996) Bryk (1999) Cawelti (2001) Clune (1994) Corcoran, Fuhrman, & Belcher (2001) Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE; 1998) Crowson & Morris (1985) Desinone, Porter, Birman, Garet, & Yoon (2002) Driscoll, Halcoussis, & Svorny (2003) Edmonds (1979) Elmore & Burney (1997) Firestone (1989a) Firestone (1989b) Floden et al. (1988) Fuller & Johnson (2004) Hallinger & Heck (1996) Hannaway & Kimball (1997) Hannaway & Kimball (1998) Harris (1988) Hernandez (2003)
Elmore (1993) Greenfield (1987) Honig & Hatch (2004) Lpez (2003) Lugg (2003) Odden & Clune (1998) Rodriguez (2004) Bjrk (1993)
(Continued)
346
Appendix B (continued)
Types of Articles Synthesis of Research
Empirically Based Honig (2003) Honig (2004) Huang & Yu (2002) Jacobson (1986) Joftus (2000) Kirp & Driver (1995) Koschoreck (2001) Landford & Wyckoff (1995) Massell (2000) Mayo & McIntyre (2003) McLaughlin (1987) McLaughlin (1990) McLaughlin (1992) McLaughlin & Talbert (2003) McLaughlin & Talbert (1993) Murphy & Hallinger (1986) Oakes (1987) Ogawa (1994) Pajak & Glickman (1989) Petersen (1999) Peterson, Murphy, & Hallinger (1987) Picus (1994) Pitner & Ogawa (1981) Price, Ball, & Luks (1995) Rorrer (2001) Rorrer (2002) Rorrer (2006) Roza & Hill (2004) Sclafani (2001) Shields & Knapp (1997) Sipple & Killeen (2004) Snipes, Doolittle, & Herlihy (2002) Spillane (1996) Spillane (2000) Spillane & Thompson (1997) Togneri & Anderson (2003) Weiner (2003) Wenglinsky (1997)
Conceptual
Other
347
Appendix C Narrative Synthesis References by Source

Source of Article Book/Book Chapter Berman (1986) Policy or Research Center Report Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson (2000) Bryk (1999)
Peer-Reviewed Article Bredeson (1996)
Other Corcoran, Fuhrman, & Belcher (2001) (Phi Delta Kappan) Edmonds (1979) (Educational Leadership) Hernandez (2003) (Dissertation)
Rorrer & Skrla (2005)
Elmore (1993)
Skrla & Scheurich (2001)
Fuller & Johnson (2004)
Berne & Stiefel (1994)
Bjrk (1993)
Blas & Blas (2000)
Clune (1994)
Crowson & Morris (1985) Cuban (1984) Daresh (1991) Desinone, Porter, Birman, Garet, & Yoon (2002) Driscoll, Halcoussis, & Svorny (2003) Firestone (1989a) Firestone (1989b)
Cawelti (2001) National Staff Development Council Greenfield (1987) Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE; 1998) Elmore & Burney (1997)National College for School Leadership Hannaway & Kimball (1997)The Urban Institute Hannaway & Kimball (1998)U.S. Department of Education Joftus et al. (2000) The McKenzie Group, Inc. Marsh (2000) Massell (2000) McLaughlin & Talbert (2003) McLaughlin & Talbert (1993) Oakes (1987) Price, Ball, & Luks (1995)National Center for Research on Teacher Learning
Mayo & McIntyre (2003) (UCEA Paper) McLaughlin (1992) (Educational Leadership) Pajak & Glickman (1989) (Educational Leadership) Rorrer (2001) (Dissertation)
Shields & Knapp (1997) (Phi Delta Kapan) Lezotte (1991)
(Continued)
348
Appendix C (continued)
Source of Article Book/Book Chapter Policy or Research Center Report Roza & Hill (2004) Togneri & Anderson (2003)
Peer-Reviewed Article Floden et al. (1988) Hallinger & Heck (1996) Harris (1988) Honig (2003) Honig (2004) Honig & Hatch (2004) Huang & Yu (2002) Jacobson (1986) Kirp & Driver (1995) Knapp (1997) Koschoreck (2001) Land (2002) Landford & Wyckoff (1995) Lpez (2003) Lugg (2003) McLaughlin (1987) McLaughlin (1990) Murphy (1988) Murphy & Hallinger (1986) Odden & Clune (1998) Ogawa (1994) Petersen (1999) Peterson, Murphy, & Hallinger (1987) Picus (1994) Pitner & Ogawa (1981) Purkey & Smith (1985) Reavis (1946) Rodriguez (2004) Rorrer (2002) Rorrer (2006) Sclafani (2001) Sipple & Killeen (2004) Snipes, Doolittle, & Herlihy (2002) Spillane (1996) Spillane (2000) Spillane & Thompson (1997) Weiner (2003) Wenglinsky (1997)
Other
349
NOTES
1. Here we consider systemic reform similar to Knapps (1997) explanation. He provided this description of systemic reform: a class of policy strategies that go by various other names including alignment (Hill, 1995), coherent policies (Fuhrman, 1993) and standards based reform (McLaughlin and Shepard, 1995; Sykes & Plastric, 1993) (p. 228). 2. The authors wish to acknowledge others who share this perspective, many of whose work is cited here, others with whom we have engaged in conversations with around this topic, and others with whom we have participated in collaborative research, as well as districts that have participated in our individual research projects. 3. For a comparative analysis of other institutional actors in educational reform, see Timars (1997) analysis of the state education agencies and their institutional role and Ogawas (1994) analysis of policy actors, teacher union actors, academic actors as institutional actors in school-based management. Frequently, terms such as institutional agents and institutional entrepreneurs are used synonymously with institutional actors (Ogawa, 1994; Peters, 1999). 4. Although our own research focuses explicitly on increasing equity, this is not necessarily the primary goal of district reforms to date. However, we believe the conceptual framework proposed, because it is grounded in the districts overt role in infusing and institutionalizing equity as a foundation for reform efforts, has the potential to redefine how we consider the role of districts. See discussion of districts as institutional actors in this article. 5. Boyd (2000) has argued that a fourth and subsequent wave exists in the emergence of the school choice and charter school movement. 6. Popay et al. (2006) provided the most comprehensive guidance available on using narrative synthesis. Their guidance document was developed by authors who conducted an extensive review of methodological literature (p. 67) in an effort to increase the transparency and trustworthiness of systematic reviews involving narrative synthesis (p. 67). 7. For instance, many of the quantitative studies (e.g., Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet, & Yoon, 2002) relied on self-reported data by district administrators on surveys, data on local assessments, or evidence collected for local or state accountability systems, whereas many of the qualitative studies depended primarily on retrospective reconstructions of district change told by participants in research interviews or observations of what is occurring at the time (e.g., Rorrer, 2001; Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson, 2000). However, identification of districts that could be termed effective or even improving is highly problematic due to the large variety and endless volatility of assessment and accountability systems that yield various kinds of data about schools and student performance in various states (Linn, Baker, & Bettenbenner, 2002). 8. The seven correlates of effective schools research are clear school mission, high expectations for success, instructional leadership, frequent monitoring of student progress, opportunity to learn and student time on task, safe and orderly environment, and home-school relations (Edmonds, 1979). 9. Other research expanded the use of effective schools research to study districts including Fullans (1985) study of its implications for change strategies and processes; Purkey and Smiths (1985) consideration of its implications on district policy; Harriss (1988) discussion of the application of effective schools research augmented by local initiatives of constant innovation, autonomy, decentralization, and planned public relations; and Firestones (1989b) study of the implications of effective schools research on the monitoring process. 10. See Murphy (1988) for an overview of issues related to the definition of instructional leadership.
350
11. This finding is congruent with our position that districts as institutional actors maintain a degree of interest and agency that must be considered beyond the typical institutional argument. The latter is particularly true for the new institutionalism, which argues that institutions respond when their legitimacy is threatened. 12. Hannaway and Kimball (1997) conducted a large survey of districts (N = 2,700) and also conducted interviews with state officials to determine the understanding of Goals 2000, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and implementation of federal programs relative to standards-based reforms. 13. Districts are also commonly referred to as school districts and school systems. 14. More recently the success of District 2 in New York has been questioned. See Weiner (2003). 15. The effect of increased spending on instruction remains contested (see Huang & Yu, 2002). Building on the work of Wenglisky, Huang and Yu (2002) turned their attention to the question of district fiscal policy, specifically how district instructional spending and per pupil expenditures relate to student achievement. Addressing what they noted as methodological shortcomings in Wengliskys prior study, Huang and Yu extracted from and merged National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math performance data, Common Core Data from 1990, 1992, and 1996 and 1989-1990, 1991-1992, and 1995-1996, respectivelyand local sociodemographic data to conduct a two-level hierarchical modeling. Provocatively, the findings from their research suggested that increases in instructional funding, relative to the variables they studied from the district, did not result in increased mathematics achievement. 16. King, Swanson, and Sweetland (2005) suggested that vertical equity is an ideal state of adequacy (p. 17). These concepts address whether the system has the inputs and processes necessary for all students and schools to meet performance standards. 17. Alexander (2005) concluded that the question faced by policymakers who advocate moving toward an adequacy framework for funding schools is how to ensure that the requirement on which standards are based do not gravitate toward minimal expectations (p. 100). 18. Among the institutional actors in educational reform, we find districts, state and local school boards, state legislatures, state education agencies, Congress, and the courts. Parents, the media, political parties, and interest groups are among the noninstitutional actors who exert their influence from an external position to the institution. 19. According to Scott, Ruef, Mendel, and Caronna (2000), institutional logics are the cognitive maps, belief systems carried by participants in the field to guide and give meaning to their activities (p. 20). 20. See Honig (2004) for a discussion of central office-level administrators as organizational actors. 21. As stated in the introduction to this article, districts are institutional actors. Examples of organizational actors in districts include a superintendent, a principal, or a teacher. 22. Ogawa (1994) described the role of institutional actors (policy actors, teacher union actors, academic actors) in school-based management. 23. We would like to acknowledge a reviewer who posed this question for consideration. 24. Frequently, institution is used when organization is the focus. This compares to how the concept of organization actors is used when in reality the discussion centers on institutional actors, or vice versa. In fact, in much of the research on organizational analysis that uses institutional theory, few scholars clearly discriminate between an institution and an organization, often using the terms interchangeably. For the purpose of our discussion on districts as institutional actors, we feel it is worthwhile to discern the difference. Certainly, most are familiar with the use of the term institution to mean rules and structures that govern behavior or establish the way things are done. Scott (1994) has also provided a definition that resonates with
351
many organizational and institutional theorists. He defined institutions as symbolic and behavioral systems containing representational, constitutive, and normative rules together with regulatory mechanisms that define a common meaning system and give rise to distinctive actors and action routines (p. 68). Whereas this definition is highly appropriate for ascertaining what districts may institutionalize, these definitions do not reflect our framing of districts as institutions and institutional actors. 25. Linear models of change should be avoided; they are both unwarranted and misleading, according to Piehl (1974, p. 766). 26. Consistent with the activities described by Dubin and Weick in this part of our discussion, we concur with Mintzberg (1979), who noted, data dont generate theoryonly researchers do that (p. 584). 27. Almost completely constant has been used by astronomers to explain why we do not feel the earth spinning, although it is in perpetual motion.
REFERENCES
Alexander, N. (2005). Exploring the changing face of adequacy. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(3), 81-103. Allport, F. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216-232. Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Berman, P. (1986). From compliance to learning: Implementing legally-induced reform. In D. L. Kirp & D. N. Jensen (Eds.), School days, rule days: The legalization and regulation of education (pp. 46-62). Philadelphia: Falmer. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1994). Measuring equity at the school level. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 405-421. Bjrk, L. G. (1993). Effective schools-effective superintendents: The emerging instructional leadership role. Journal of School Leadership, 3(3), 246-259. Blas, J., & Blas, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 130-141. Boin, R. A. (with Christensen, T.). (2004, September). Reconsidering leadership and institutions in the public sector: A question of design? Study Group Public Sector Leadership, EGPA Annual Convention, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Boyd, W. L. (2000). The Rs of school reform and the politics of reforming or replacing public schools. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 225-252. Bredeson, P. V. (1996). Superintendents roles in curriculum development and instructional leadership: Instructional visionaries, collaborators, supporters, and delegators. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 243-264. Bridges, E. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state of the art, 1967-1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12-34. Bryk, A. S. (1999). Policy lessons from Chicagos experience with decentralization. In I. D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 1999 (pp. 67-99). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
352
Cahn, M. (1995). The players: Institutional and noninstitutional actors in the policy process. In S. Z. Theodoulou & M. A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 201-211). New York: Prentice Hall. Casti, J. (1994). Complexification. New York: HarperPerennial. Cawelti, G. (2001). Six districts, one goal of excellence. Journal of Staff Development, 22(4), 31-35. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). (1998). States and districts and comprehensive school reform (CPRE Policy Brief, RB-24-May). Philadelphia: CPRE, University of Pennsylvania. Clune, W. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational Policy, 8(4), 376-394. Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12. Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78-84. Crowson, R. L., & Morris, V. C. (1985). Administrative control in large-city school systems: An investigation in Chicago. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(4), 51-70. Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-151. Daft, R., & Weick, K. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295. Daft, R., & Wiginton, J. (1979). Language and organization. Academy of Management Review, 4(2), 179-191. Daresh, J. (1991). Instructional leadership as a proactive administrative process. Theory Into Practice, 30(2), 109-112. Delgado-Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory and critical raced-gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105-126. Deming, E. (1986). Out of crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1265-1312. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391-397. Doyle, D. P., & Finn, C. E., Jr. (1984). American schools and the future of local control. The Public Interest, 77, 77-95. Driscoll, D., Halcoussis, D., & Svorny, S. (2003). School district size and student performance. Economics of Education Review, 22, 193-201. Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology (pp. 17-39). New York: Wiley. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24. Elmore, R. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational practice (pp. 96-124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in community school district #2, New York City. New York: National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future and the Commission for Policy Research in Education. Finn, C. (1991). We must take charge: Our schools and our future. New York: Free Press.
353
Firestone, W. (1989a). Educational policy as an ecology of games. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 18-24. Firestone, W. A. (1989b). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151-164. Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C., Alford, L. E., Freeman, D. J., Irwin, S., Schmidt, W. H., et al. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look at autonomy and control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 96-124. Foster, W. (1989). The administrator as a transformative intellectual. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(3), 5-18. Fullan, M. (1985). Change progress and strategies at the local level. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 391-421. Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 420423. Fuller, E. J., & Johnson, J., Jr. (2004). Can state accountability systems drive improvements in school performance for children of color and children from low-income homes? In L. Skrla & J. J. Scheurich (Eds.), Educational equity and accountability. New York: Routledge. Gilbody, S., Whitty, P., Grimshaw, J., & Thomas, R. (2003). Educational and organizational interventions to improve the management of depression in primary care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(23), 3145-3151. Greenfield, W. (1987). Moral imagination and interpersonal competence: Antecedents to instructional leadership. In W. D. Greenfield (Ed.), Instructional leadership: Concepts, issues and controversies (pp. 56-99). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052-1081. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principals role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44. Hannaway, J., & Kimball, K. (1997). Reports on reform from the field (EA9405301). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Hannaway, J., & Kimball, K. (1998). Big isnt always bad: School district size, poverty, and standards-based reform (Contract EA9405301). Washington, DC: Planning and Evaluation Service of the U.S. Department of Education. Harris, J. J. (1988). A districtwide application of the effective schools research. Journal of Negro Education, 57(3), 292-306. Hernandez, C. F. (2003). Eliminating the achievement gap: The study of one Texas school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Hoffman, M., & Riley, J. (2002). The science of political science: Linearity or complexity in designing social inquiry. New Political Science, 24(2), 303-320. Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292-338. Honig, M. I. (2004). Wheres the up in bottom-up reform? Educational Policy, 18(4), 527-561. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30. Huang, G. G., & Yu, B. (2002). District fiscal policy and student achievement: Evidence from combined NAEP-CCD data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(38). Retrieved March 2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n38/ Jacobson, S. L. (1986). Effective superintendents of small, rural districts. Journal of Rural and Small Schools, 2(2), 17-21. Jensen, L. A., & Allen, M. N. (1996). Metasynthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 553-560.
354
Joftus, S., Borders, D., Feldman, B., Kilpatrick, D., Rankin, J., & Cromer, J. (2000, May). Student achievement and reform trends in 13 urban districts. Washington, DC: The McKenzie Group, Inc. King, R. A., Swanson, A. D., & Sweetland, S. R. (2005, February 21). Designing finance structures to satisfy equity and adequacy goals. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(15). Retrieved June 2007 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n15/ Kirp, D. L., & Driver, C. E. (1995). The aspirations of systemic reform meet the realities of localism. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 589-612. Koschoreck, J. W. (2001). Accountability and educational equity in the transformation of an urban district. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 284-304. Knapp, M. (1997). Between systemic reforms and mathematics and science classrooms: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227-266. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-69. Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to students academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229-278. Landford H., & Wyckoff, J. (1995). Where has the money gone? An analysis of school district spending in New York. Education Finance Research Consortium, 17(2), 195-218. Lewin, A., & Volberda, H. W. (1999). Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 519-534. Lezotte, L. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-26. Lpez, G. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68-94. Lotto, L. (1983). Revisiting the role of organizational effectiveness in educational evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5(3), 367-378. Lugg, C. (2003). Sissies, faggots, lezzies, and dykes: Gender, sexual orientation, and new politics of education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 95-134. Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four roles (CPRE Policy Brief, RB-32-September). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Marsh, J. A. (2000). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A review of literature on the relationship of districts with states, schools, and communities (W-00-1, pp. 1-25). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Mayo, C. R., & McIntyre, L. M. (2003, November 7-9). Superintendent time on task: High stake tests v. low stake tests. Paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administration, Portland, OR. Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10(1), 6-20. McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178. McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
355
McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). How district communities do and do not foster teacher pride. Educational Leadership, 50, 33-35. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). How the world of students and teachers challenges policy coherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 220-249). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Meyer, H. D. (2002). From loose coupling to tight management? Making sense of the changing landscape in management and organizational theory. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 515-520. Mintzberg, H. (1979). An emerging strategy of direct research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 582-589. Morel, B., & Ramanujam, R. (1999). Through the looking glass of complexity: The dynamics of organizations as adaptive and evolving systems. Organization Science, 10(3), 278-293. Morgeson, F., & Hofmann, D. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 249-265. Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study of instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 117-139. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1986). The superintendent as instructional leader: Findings from effective school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 24(2), 213-236. Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Metaethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Oakes, J. (1987). Improving inner-city schools: Current directions in urban district reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Odden, A., & Clune, W. (1998). School finance systems: Aging structures in need of renovation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(3), 157-177. Ogawa, R. (1994). The institutional sources of educational reform: The case of school-based management. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 519-548. Ogawa, R., & Scribner, S. (2002). Leadership: Spanning the technical and institutional dimensions of organizations. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 576-588. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203-223. Pajak, E. F., & Glickman, C. D. (1989). Dimensions of school district improvement. Educational Leadership, 46(8), 61-64. Parker, L., & Lynn, M. (2002). Whats race got to do with it? Critical race theorys conflicts with and connections to qualitative research methodology and epistemology. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 7-22. Peters, B. G. (1999). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism. London: Pinter. Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from Americas best run companies. New York: Harper & Row. Petersen, G. J. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination of five California superintendents. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(18). Retrieved March 2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n18.html Peterson, K. D., Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1987). Superintendents perception of the control and coordination of the technical core in effective school districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(1), 79-95.
356
Picus, L. O. (1994). The local impact of school finance reform in four Texas school districts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 391-404. Piehl, D. (1974). Nonlinearity and the study of organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 760-767. Pitner, N., & Ogawa, R. (1981). Organizational leadership: The case of the school superintendent. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17(2), 46-65. Popay, J., Roberts, J., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systemic reviews. London: Economic & Social Research Council Methods Programme. Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 341-351. Price, J., Ball, D., & Luks, S. (1995). Marshaling resources for reform: District administrators and the case of mathematics. Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 353-389. Quantz, R., Rogers, J., & Dantley, M. (2001). Rethinking transformative leadership: Toward democratic reform of schools. Journal of Education, 173(3), 96-118. Reavis, W. (1946). Responsibilities of the city superintendent for the direction of instruction. The School Review, 54(9), 514-521. Rodriguez, G. (2004). Vertical equity in school finance and the potential for increasing school responsiveness to student and staff needs. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(3), 7-30. Rorrer, A. (2001). Leadership and equity: From reproduction to reconstruction: An institutional analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. (UMI No. 3049260) Rorrer, A. (2002). Educational leadership and institutional capacity for equity. UCEA Review, 43(3), 1-5. Rorrer, A. (2006, January/March). Eroding inequity: Straddling the margin of tolerance. Educational Policy, 20(1), 225-248. Rorrer, A. & Skrla, L. (2005). Leaders as policy mediators: The reconceptualization of accountability. Theory Into Practice, 44(1), 53-62. Roza, M., & Hill, P. T. (2004). How within-district spending inequities help some schools to fail. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 201227). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Salisbury, R. H. (1984). Interest representation: The dominance of institutions. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 64-76. Sclafani, S. (2001). Using an aligned system to make real progress for Texas students. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 305-312. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Schulman, P. (1975). Nonincremental policy making: Notes toward an alternative paradigm. American Political Science Review, 69, 1354-1370. Scott, W. R. (1994). Institutions and organizations: Toward a theoretical synthesis. In W. R. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 55-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P., & Caronna, C. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations. From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.
357
Shields, P. M., & Knapp, M. S. (1997). The promises and limits of school-based reform. Phi Delta Kapan, 79(4), 288-294. Sipple, J., & Killeen, K. (2004). Context, capacity, and concern: A district-level analysis of the implementation of standards-based reform in New York State. Educational Policy, 18, 456-490. Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2001). Displacing deficit thinking in school district leadership. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 235-259. Skrla, L., Scheurich, J., & Johnson, J. (2000). Equity-driven achievement-focused school districts: A report on systemic school success in four Texas school districts serving diverse student populations. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center. Smith, M. S., & ODay, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). Bristol, PA: Falmer. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87. Spillane, J. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141-179. Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agencys capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203. Thorngate, W. (1976). Possible limits on a science of social behavior. In J. H. Strickland, F. E. Aboud, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Social psychology in transition (pp. 121-139). New York: Plenum. Timar, T. (1997). The institutional role of state education departments: A historical perspective. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 231-260. Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instructional achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance. Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377-1404. Villalpando, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory and Latina/o critical theory analysis of a study of chicana/o students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(5), 619-646. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19. Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Weick, K. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385-390. Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Weiner, L. (2003, August 7). Research of cheerleading? Scholarship on Community School District 2, New York City. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(27). Retrieved July 2005 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n27. Wenglinsky, H. (1997). How money matters: The effects of school district spending on academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 221-237. Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495. Wong, K., & Jain, P. (1999). Newspapers as policy actors in urban school systems. Urban Affairs Review, 35(2), 210-246.
358
Andrea K. Rorrer is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and director of the Utah Education Policy Center at the University of Utah. Her research focuses on how district and the state leadership and policy create and sustain organizational and institutional change to meet the demands for better schooling, particularly how to achieve equity in access and outcomes. In addition to book chapters on home schooling, education finance, and accountability, her articles have appeared in Educational Administration Quarterly, Theory Into Practice, UCEA Review, and the Journal of Educational Policy. The 2006 Politics of Education Yearbook, Power, Education, and the Politics of Social Justice, which she coedited with Catherine Lugg, has recently been published as a special issue of Educational Policy. She is the 2006 recipient of the Jack A. Culbertson Award. Linda Skrla is Associate Dean for Research and P-16 Initiatives in the College of Education and Human Development and professor of educational administration at Texas A&M University. Prior to joining the Texas A&M faculty, she worked for 14 years as a middle school and high school teacher and as a campus and district administrator in Texas public schools. Her research focuses on educational equity issues in school leadership and policy, including accountability, high-success districts, and women superintendents. Her published work has appeared in numerous journals, and her most recent book is Equity Audits (forthcoming from Corwin) with Kathryn McKenzie and Jim Scheurich. James Joseph Scheurich is a professor and the head of the Department of Educational Administration and Human Resource Development at Texas A&M University. His research interests include equity in education, schools that are successful with diverse and low-income students, educational accountability, race and racism, and qualitative research methodologies. He is the editor of a research journal, serves on editorial boards of several research journals, has written more than 35 articles for research journals, and has published five books. He has served on several committees for national research organizations and is currently on the executive committee for one. In 2006, he received the Master Professor Award from one of these national organizations for helping prepare so many successful young professors in his research field, and he was a 2008 nominee for President of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Finally, as a professor, he has raised more than $5 million in grants and contracts.

Districts As Institutional Actors in Educational Reform

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Districts As Institutional Actors in Educational Reform

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Educational Administration Quarterly http://eaq.sagepub.

Districts as Institutional Actors in Educational Reform

University Council for Educational Administration

>> Version of Record - Jul 16, 2008

Educational Administration Quarterly Vol. 44, No. 3 (August 2008) 307-358

Districts as Institutional Actors in Educational Reform

Educational Administration Quarterly

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY

Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Providing Instructional Leadership: Generating Will & Building Capacity