A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Coordinating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies (Continued)

The Case of School-District Relationships

How can schools and districts interact, avoiding center dominance on the one hand, or disregard of the center and individual school drift on the other? A few examples:

Louis and Miles (1990) conducted case studies of five urban high schools which had undertaken major reform projects. Two of the five schools were successful. What is most significant relative to our interest, is that these two schools had different relationships with their districts than the three schools that had not succeeded. Louis (1989) analyzed these relationships. She found that there were two separate dimensions that affected the quality of the relationship. One she called the degree of "engagement" (frequent interaction and communication, mutual coordination and influence, some shared goals and objectives); the other she classified as the level of "bureaucratization" (the presence of extensive rules and regulations governing the relationship). To oversimplify, in situations of low engagement and high bureaucracy, Louis observes that there is frequent reference to rules but limited enforcement, because the schools and districts operate in isolation from each other. The principal, for example, often operates as a buffer to central rules. In the case of high engagement and high bureaucracy, Louis found conflict, interference, resistance, and ultimately failure.

The third situation - low engagement and low bureaucracy - is one of loose federation, informality, and laissez-faire, in which people essentially did not try to engage in comprehensive change. The fourth scenario - high engagement and low bureaucracy - presented "the only clearly positive district contexts" (p. 161). Louis (1989) summarizes: "Essentially, the picture is one of co-management, with coordination and joint planning enhanced through the development of consensus between staff members at all levels about desired goals for education" (p. 161). It was only the schools with this district profile that experienced successful school improvement projects.

Similar findings, independently and more systematically arrived at, are contained in LaRocque and Coleman's (1989) analysis of "district ethos" and quality in school districts in British Columbia. The authors compiled performance data by aggregating school results on provincewide achievement tests. They rated the districts according to high, medium, and low performance. They selected 10 districts for more detailed analysis taking into account size and type of school community. LaRocque and Coleman (1989, p. 169) hypothesized that positive district ethos would be characterized by a high degree of interest and concern relative to six sets of activity and attitude "focuses".

1. taking care of business (a learning focus);
2. monitoring performance (an accountability focus);
3. changing policies/practices (a change focus);
4. consideration and caring for stakeholder (a caring focus);
5. creating shared values (a commitment focus); and
6. creating community support (a community focus).

Three of the ten districts were classified as having a strong district presence in the schools, which is described in the following terms:

The district administrators provided the principals with a variety of school-specific performance data; they discussed these data with the principals and set expectations for their use; and they monitored through recognized procedures, how and with what success the schools used the performance data...

The district administrators used their time in the schools purposefully to engage the principals in discussion on specific topics: school performance data, improvement plans, and the implementation of these plans...

In spite of the emphasis on school test results, the nature of the discussions was collaborative rather than prescriptive. The district administrators acknowledged good performance. They helped the principals interpret the data and identify strengths and weaknesses, and they offered advice and support when necessary. Ultimately, however, plans for improvement were left up to the principal and staff of each school - this point was stressed by the principals although their progress in developing and implementing the plans was monitored. The features of collaboration and relative school autonomy probably reinforced the perception of respect for the role of the principal and recognition of the importance of treating each school as a unique entity (LaRocque & Coleman, 1989, p. 181).

All three of these districts had a high performance rating on the achievement tests.

At the other end of the continuum, three districts were characterized by an absence of press for accountability: Little or no data were provided to the schools, and no structures or processes were established to monitor or discuss progress. All three of these districts were found to be low on achievement results.

LaRocque and Coleman (1989a, p. 190) concluded that effective districts have an active and evolving accountability ethos that combines interactive monitoring with a respect for school autonomy.

A third example: Rosenholtz (1989) studied seventy-eight "stuck" and "moving" schools from eight districts. She discovered that some school districts had higher proportions of stuck schools while others had more moving schools. She concluded that districts can also be stuck or moving, and that this directly influences school effectiveness. In particular, she found that moving districts worked interactively and continuously with school personnel on (i) goal-setting and monitoring, (ii) principal selection and professional development, and (iii) teacher selection and professional development.

A last example comes from Learning Consortium in the Toronto area where we have been working for five years in a partnership with four large school districts and two higher education institutions, one of the focuses has been to link school and district development. The Halton (44,000 students) and Durham (55,000 students) districts provide illustrations of the complexity and components of school level and district level developments.

In Halton, for example the strategies used to achieve correlated development include:

• The establishment of a broad-based mission statement and strategic directions statement that provide core foci while enabling flexibility
• The development of a School Growth Planning process as a means of achieving continued growth geared to each community's context
• The use performance appraisal for teachers within the school and for vice principals and principals vis-a-vis the system that is integrated with the three strategic directions (instruction, school planning, and staff development)
• A selection and promotion process for new teachers, school administrators, and district personnel that stresses criteria such as collaborative skills, staff development participation and leadership, implementation planning, and knowledge of the change process
• A systematic commitment to continuous development through allocating staff development funds to each school, conducting systemwide institutes, providing training and support in school growth planning, and establishing a range of indepth leadership institutes for teachers, future administrators, and existing administrators (which allows among other things, future vice principals and principals to develop a track record of capability regarding promotion criteria)
• The development of an assessment and evaluation system for the district, which provides periodic feedback into the processes described above (see Fullan, 1993).

Similar patterns took place in Durham including:

• A broad-based system mission plan
• An emphasis on school growth team development and planning with many and varied examples of school-based initiative
• Massive staff development aimed at capacity-building (cooperative learning, conflict resolution, training school growth planning, training of trainers, and more)
• Changes in leadership training, performance appraisal, and selection and promotion criteria consistent with new directions
• Central district reorganization which combined downsizing and devolution of authority to schools, with refocussing the districts role on direction setting, information gathering and feedback, and regional support to families of schools (see Bennett & Green, 1993).

To conclude, there is a broad pattern to the evolution of redesigning the relationship between schools and districts, which is similar to Beer et al's (1990) findings cited earlier about the critical path to revitalization. Initiatives occur at both district, and school levels, at first in an uncoordinated fashion. Action and variation at the school level is allowed and encouraged. As people gain clarity and skills through experience, and as training and new approaches to selection and promotion begin to accumulate, greater consistency is achieved, and pressure mounts to alter the organization which is now experienced as ill-fitted to the new emerging patterns. As with Beer, formal procedures and formal reorganization are changed later in the process, not at the beginning.

It is also clear that independent as well as (where possible) coordinated action is needed from both school and district levels. In the mid to long run you cannot have district development without school development, or school development without district development. One inevitably takes its toll on the other, for better or for worse.

Finally, the pattern of evolution being described is very complex, and contains great ambiguity about what is really best. We are still at the very early stages of rethinking the relationship between schools and districts. Many, many questions remain unanswered, and plague those working on school and district restructuring.

The Case of Local/State Relationships

One of our most interesting and important discoveries is that many local districts are going far beyond compliance; they are responding very actively to state reforms. In over half of our local districts, administrators saw in the state reforms opportunities to accomplish their own objectives, particularly as the state reforms provided significant funding increases. Local districts are actively orchestrating various state policies around local priorities, strategically interacting with the state to achieve goals. For example, one major urban district coordinates almost all state teacher policies, including its mentor-teacher and alternate-route programs, to meet the prime objective of hiring a large number of new teachers (p. 247).

Similarly, in examining the impact of (p. 247) California's major reform legislation S.B. 813, Odden & Marsh's (1988) main findings were:

• Virtually all schools implemented key provisions of S.B. 813 in a manner consistent with state purposes.
• Education reform legislated at the state level can be an effective means of improving schools when it is woven into a cohesive strategy at the local level.
• Successful implementation of reforms at the local level reflects several key themes (district leadership, school collegiality, concern for all students, ongoing staff development, etc.).
• Attention to the substance of curriculum and instruction and to the process of school change correlates with high test scores and improved learning conditions for all students.
• Students with special learning needs - the poor, those with limited proficiency in English, and those at risk of dropping out - received increased services and attention.Unfortunately, the services were generally of a type that has produced insufficient levels of academic achievement in the past. Sample schools lacked appropriate strategies for mounting more effective interventions for at risk students.
• Sample schools wanted to engage in even more complex school improvement, such as focusing the curriculum on problem solving and on higher order skills (pp. 595-96).

From a strategy perspective, the question is how to maximize the productive mix of top-down pressure, incentives and responsiveness on the one hand, and bottom-up initiatives, development, and accountability on the other hand. In a commissioned paper to the Ontario government, we suggested four broad strategies to guide its current restructuring reform (Fullan & Kilcher, 1992):

1. Articulate at the state level on overarching rationale and direction with reference to desired learning outcomes.
2. Local and regional capacity building should be a priority for schools, districts and regions.
3. Invest from the state level in value-added strategies to support and feed into local development (such as funding exemplary programs, research, evaluation and dissemination).
4. Work on defining roles and establishing partnerships , and alliances across key constituencies (universities and schools, teacher unions, etc.).

Clune (1992) similarly opts for a "coordinated decentralized" approach to systemic reform rather than a "standardized centralized" approach. He argues that in complex and differentiated systems centralized approaches paradoxically do not achieve greater coherence, but rather add more layers of confusion. His recommended strategy is to find a "balance among central guidance, central provision of resources, a realistic network of change agents just above the school level, and provision for school improvement" (p. 19). In particular he outlines a combination of tasks that include:

• Sponsor and facilitate a range of curriculum development efforts.
• Facilitate creation of curriculum networks.
• Create incentives for schools to initiate and sustain approved processes of curriculum upgrading.
• Develop personnel policies which compensate skill and effort in the new curriculum.
• Develop a student assessment system which tracks progress and leads practice.
• Sponsor efforts to coordinate different parts of the delivery system.

The goal is to achieve greater coherence without centralization. Clune concludes that direction setting and information monitoring combined with increased decentralized capacity stimulated by change agent networks "is both more feasible and more powerful as a tool for producing coherent, ambitious curricula at the school level" (p. 14).

Although not addressed to the question of state-board relationships, Hampden-Turner's (1992) review of the Hanover Insurance Company is instructive. Investment in continuous skill development al all levels operates in a negotiated system of local and central give and take. The dilemma, successfully managed by Hanover was:

how to make local branch staff stronger and more self-reliant, while also making the staff at the national office strong, capable, and responsive. There were two perils to be avoided: A strong central staff that suppressed local initiatives and make branches dependent, and a strong local staff that resented any interference from national HQ as an infringement of their autonomy (p. 25).

Hampden-Turner found that Hanover constantly works on the attainment of a larger vision which is tested by specific information and numbers gathered by the organization. Is recognized that local units are comparable in some respects, and different in others. Thus, the center and the locals negotiate goals, develop strategies for success and seek data in relation to agreed upon directions.
-###-

[Coordinating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies]

[Conclusion]