![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Similar to the effective schools research (Lezotte, 1989; Edmonds, 1979), we also found that most actively restructuring schools that we studied had a vision statement, delineating the goals and mission of the school. As would be expected, vision statements focused on the technical core of schooling and often were nested within a district or state framework, depending upon the source of the instructional guidance system. We also observed that by focusing on the goal of schooling, faculties in actively restructuring schools got away from concerns about the governance process -- the kinds of issues that seemed to stymie the struggling schools. The process of writing a vision statement most frequently was a school- wide effort that tended to draw faculties together toward an established purpose. Many actively restructuring schools used professional development days to "retreat" and define the mission and goals for the school. Once completed, the faculty felt they shared ownership in the vision and felt responsible for implementing it successfully. Across all four districts that we studied, school boards had implemented some kind of choice plan. Such policies seemed to force schools to be concerned about attendance and within our sample, resulted in a strong push by schools, particularly the actively restructuring ones, to develop mission statements that distinguished them from their competitors in the district.
Benchmarking information, how the school was doing relative other schools, was often overlooked in the schools we visited. In some cases, even when information was available on campus, only the principal or other school administrators were aware of it. Even in the actively restructuring schools, educators tended to dismiss the relevance of these data.
In Edmonton, there were strong district initiatives to collect and disseminate information to stakeholders. For the past thirteen years, the district has conducted annual surveys of students and staff. In addition, there is a biannual survey of parents and the general public. The biannual surveys are staggered so parents are scheduled one year and the general public the next. The survey results, which focus on the extent to which constituents are satisfied with their school, are released every fall and campuses use the information to identify areas that might need to be changed or improved. The district also sponsors regularly scheduled meetings of school staff at the district office and "key communicators" -- that is, parents who are designated at each school to get information from the district and to disseminate it. All four districts that we studied also had developed or were developing a computer network, electronically linking schools to the district office. However, school-level interviews suggested the networks were not often tapped -- for dialogues between teachers or administrators within or across schools, or between the central office and schools.
In Hannaway s study of two decentralized districts (1993), she also found high levels of information sharing and concluded that such interactions often were a consequence of district initiatives. Here we found that information sharing tended to be primarily a school responsibility with some encouragement from the district office, like in Edmonton. Actively restructuring schools typically had multiple mechanisms for communicating information to stakeholders. For instance, schools routinely communicated in writing to faculty what was happening at the school and, to a lesser extent, the district. Information was placed in teacher mailboxes or made available in a central location, such as the teachers' lounge. At the very least, actively restructuring schools made council meeting agendas and minutes available to staff. Many actively restructuring schools also provided teachers with the school budget, student achievement results and information about the curriculum.
Other mechanisms that helped facilitate the flow of information within restructuring schools were common planning periods for teachers and the subcommittee structure. During planning periods, teachers communicated with one another about what they were doing. Thematic units often are implemented school-wide, and lesson plans were shared and modified to use with children of different ages. The subcommittees, which were focused on work tasks, also helped to coordinate the flow of information and work across classrooms and grade levels. Struggling schools, on the other hand, tended to have few mechanisms for sharing information. Further, mechanisms that were in place tended to be informal. At struggling schools, the teacher grapevine was the most frequently cited means of communication. Information shared in this way tended to be incomplete and unsystematic; scarce information, moreover, tended to breed suspicion and was more common in struggling schools.
Among the actively restructuring schools, there was a strong customer service orientation and a strong interest in satisfying the customer. Actively restructuring schools seemed to feel they owed information to the community and consequently, made special efforts to assure that parents were fully appraised of what was happening on campus. The majority of schools had newsletters that were sent to parents, often on a weekly basis. The newsletters included information about the school's budget, student performance data, SBM data (e.g., election results and decisions from council meetings) and curriculum information (e.g., instructional themes for the year). Frequently, parental input was solicited through the newsletters. Actively restructuring schools also used teacher/parent conferences to communicate with parents about school politics and school performance.
Aside from mechanisms within schools, there were innovative mechanisms usually established by the central office to ensure communication between SBM schools and the district. For example, schools in Edmonton, Canada were divided into seven regions and each region was made up of schools without regard to geographic area or grade level. Principals from the regions meet monthly at the central office to discuss what is going on across schools and at the district-level. Further, monthly meetings are held horizontally between elementary, junior and senior high principals. San Diego also keeps schools networked though district-level department meetings. Department chairs from individual schools attend the meetings where district-wide curriculum issues are discussed. Principals also meet in groups with the superintendent once a month. In Jefferson County, principal liaison groups, composed of eight or nine members, give principals an opportunity to share information horizontally with other schools, and vertically with the superintendent.
In conclusion, the schools we studied had many mechanisms in place that encouraged high levels of interaction and information sharing within school communities and across schools. This horizontal orientation is in sharp contrast to the thrust of many SBM plans which typically stress how information ought to be shared vertically between individual schools and the district office, usually focused on whether schools are adhering to regulatory policies (Johnson & Boles, in press).
Rewards for desired behaviors included reduced courseloads for grant writing and sometimes stipends for attending staff development activities during the summer or on weekends. These were especially utilized in the actively restructuring schools, reflecting both their higher level of improvement activities and their entrepreneurial activity to secure extender funds. Actively restructuring schools also tended to secure grants to pay for staff off-site meetings and teacher support for engaging in various workshops, and to bring in outside trainers.
Recognition was the most frequent mode of rewarding staff both in actively restructuring and struggling schools. It was common for principals to write thank-you notes to staff. One principal at an actively restructuring school in Edmonton described thanking teachers as, "...the daily dose. That's my main job -- to provide a support system for teachers." Another method was to include teacher kudos in school newsletters. Sometimes teachers acknowledged colleagues by putting congratulatory notes, candy bars and sodas in their school mailboxes. A few schools selected a Teacher of the Year, and many teachers were nominated for state and community awards.
In some schools, group rewards generally were favored over individual rewards. Some principals stressed the importance of moving away from the idea of winners and losers in order to create a sense of community; thus, in those schools individual recognition among students, as well as faculty and staff, often was not done. Instead, whole faculties were rewarded with staff development activities (accompanied by free dinners), flowers and parties at the end of the school year. One principal had custom-designed cups with the school motto made for everyone. PTAs also helped reward teachers by hosting faculty recognition nights or breakfasts.
Sometimes whole-school rewards for desirable behavior were embedded in district SBM plans. The SBM plan in Edmonton, for instance, offered schools the option of paying their own utility bills and any savings derived could be used by the school as they saw fit. In all four districts where SBM schools were able to carry-over surplus funds, the reward for being frugal was the ability to build-up a discretionary fund for special projects or needs.
"Showing off" was sometimes used to instill a sense of pride in the school. At an actively restructuring school in Jefferson County, the walls in the teachers' lounge and the office hallway were filled with framed awards, newspaper clippings and thank-you letters. There is a saying in the school that if you say something good about the school and stand still long enough someone will put you up on the wall. Principals in these actively restructuring schools typically took an active role in public relations activities aimed at increasing the school's visibility in the community. In part this was a method of developing community understanding, acceptance and pride in the changes that were being made.
Extrinsic rewards were not the only ones that kept teachers motivated. Intrinsic satisfaction also was highlighted during interviews. For instance, teachers found it rewarding to have the power to influence decisions; to be innovative in curriculum and instruction; and to be better able to respond to student needs. At a struggling school in Edmonton, the principal noted that teachers do their job for one reason: they believe what they are doing is important. At another struggling school, a teacher commented, "Are there supposed to be rewards for good teaching? In education, I thought you did it because you liked to do it. If I were in business, I might expect a little more." A similar thought was expressed by another teacher at a struggling school in San Diego: "Believing you're doing the right things makes the school a better place for teachers and students." The atmosphere of an actively restructuring school in Prince William County was described as one where teachers received psychic satisfaction from their work and celebrated each others' successes. As one teacher from an actively restructuring school in Edmonton commented, "We do this because we want to -- we like it." In sum, teachers in both the actively restructuring and struggling schools we studied found the practice of educating rewarding in itself. The idea that teachers are intrinsically motivated is not new to educational research (see, for example, Smylie & Smart, 1990; Cohen, 1983).
Across the districts and schools we studied, several characteristics surfaced as key to the capacity of school-level participants to target SBM energies toward restructuring. First, all actively restructuring schools had organizational mechanisms in place that generated interactions for school-level actors around issues related to curriculum and instruction. In struggling schools, teacher isolation continued to be the prevalent culture. The actively restructuring schools we studied offered stories of cross-role training and of teachers in similar positions being trained together; of information being shared by teachers across classrooms and grade levels; and of faculties working together on teaching teams, subcommittees and school site councils. Thus, there were many opportunities for school site employees to mutually influence the emerging direction of the school. While the high levels of interaction created a sense of community, the instructional guidance system regardless of whether it emanated from the state or the district -- provided an agreed to direction that effectively focused interactions on teaching and learning. In essence, the instructional guidance system served as a resource to schools, providing a direction for school-based change. Our struggling schools operated in a context where the instructional guidance mechanism was present, but school-level employees were not directing their energies in that direction. They were concerned primarily with who controls the school. They had relatively impoverished mechanisms for convening school dialogues in general, and around instructional issues in particular.
A related characteristic of actively restructuring schools was a written vision statement that typically was nested within the state or district's instructional guidance system. There was consensus among faculties about where they were, where they wanted to be and how they were going to get there. The principal played a strong leadership role in helping the faculty to articulate a vision by presenting ideas for innovation and by providing the time and support for effective group process. The vision seemed to frame the discussion of school improvement across decentralized work groups and provided a common purpose for faculty to rally behind.
Actively restructuring schools also often had established strong ties with organizations and associates outside the school for professional development and information sharing. Schools sought expert advice beyond the district and even beyond traditional educational circles. Some actively restructuring schools tapped resources in the private sector for management training and for building up their technology capabilities. In sum, we began to see evidence that actively restructuring schools, like effective organizations in the private sector, were optimizing their situation, given the resources they could secure, and they were doing what they were good at and relying on others to do what they were good at.
-###-
[Conclusion]