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

Systemic Reform - October 1996

Restructuring the Governance System

The third major component of systemic reform is a restructured governance system that defines the responsibilities of the various levels of the system to ensure that change is manifested in classroom practice. In this revised system, schools are responsible for developing an environment that is conducive to maximizing the achievement of their students and are given the authority to develop the instructional programs and pedagogies needed to achieve their goals. School districts are responsible for setting district goals and providing the necessary resources and other supports to their schools. This new division of responsibilities is a particular challenge in our fragmented educational system where multiple actors at different levels of the system--federal, state, local, school, classroom and home--are empowered to make multiple decisions concerning how children are educated.

Devolving Authority

It is clear looking across the 12 schools and six districts in our study that leadership and a culture committed to and supportive of change at the school level are major factors in facilitating education change. Commitment to change and instructional leadership at the central office level were also critical factors. Yet, state and local reform policies and strategies are less clear about the role(s) the district office and schools should play in building capacity and supporting teacher and school change. An unresolved issue that emerged from several of our sites was how to foster innovation and change at the school level, yet enable the district to facilitate change and spread these innovations across all of their schools. The nature and extent of this "top down," "bottom up" tension depends on a variety of factors, including the design of the state's strategies, how the district and its schools view the district's role in reform, and the stage and direction of reform efforts in the schools themselves.

The California reform strategy focuses on supporting teacher and school change through professional networks of individual teachers or administrators (e.g., the Subject Matter Projects, the California School Leadership Academy and professional organizations) and networks of schools (e.g., the grade level and restructuring networks). This approach leaves the district both literally and figuratively "caught in the middle." Many of the reform efforts either by-pass the district and go straight to the school or focus on a more manageable number of regions in the state. District and school respondents in this study complained that other than signing off on school applications (e.g., for restructuring grants), there was no clear role for the district in reform policy. These individuals noted that inattention to the district role has created resentment and tensions on both sides. On the one hand, the district respondents argue that without attention to and cooperation with the districts, resources can not be used in the most rational ways. For example, if districts cannot get the names of teachers who have participated in the Subject Matter Projects (as was the case in CA2), they cannot incorporate those teachers into district staff development plans. Similarly, district participation in the grade level networks does not seem to be a state priority, which district respondents said weakens their ability to disseminate lessons from such efforts to other schools in their district.

On the other side of the equation, school respondents also noted tensions. In part these tensions may have been exacerbated by the nature of our California sample. The California schools in this study were all well along the road to restructuring their curricula and were seen, both by themselves and by their district leadership, as being well ahead of other schools in their area. It is not surprising, therefore, that when district administrators attempted to manage reform efforts district-wide, engendering more consistency and commonality, these schools reacted negatively. Our teacher respondents described such efforts as interfering with their own school-based reforms and criticized the central office for its inattention to their particular needs. Indeed, they seemed to view their district administration as more a hindrance to, rather than a facilitator of, change. There were, of course exceptions to this pattern. In CA2, for example, strong leadership from the district person overseeing mathematics and science efforts had resulted in consistent, coherent, and acknowledged assistance to schools in these areas, particularly in science (see Chapter 6). Among our respondents, however, such district-based support was the exception rather than the rule.

In contrast, the Michigan strategy gives a larger role to school districts. The state's accountability laws--PA 25 and PA 335--require school districts to develop and adopt core curricula outcomes based on state models, and to report annually to their publics on student achievement and progress on implementing its core curriculum. State grants to support curriculum development and restructuring activities were directed to districts, not schools. In the two districts in our study, PA 25 was a major impetus for district curricular reform and this reform was directed by the districts' superintendents and curriculum supervisors. Both districts received state grants to facilitate these activities. At the same time, both districts have recognized the need to decentralize authority to their schools in order to spark school-based and teacher-based reform activities and they are trying to restructure power relationships between the central office and the schools.

Yet, as they attempt to disengage from the schools, these districts haven't clarified what their new role should be either. Like their colleagues in California, they worry about how to manage and to "scale up" successful projects developed at the school level. Schools in the two Michigan districts have selected different areas of curriculum and instruction as their special areas of concentration. While each school attempts to utilize the best techniques and research available, they run the risk of developing in different directions, without a clear understanding of how the students will be affected as they progress through the district. At the same time, administrators feel that restrictions on the efforts of schools to innovate would not serve the students' interests and would be contrary to the district's position of allowing each school to direct its own development. In the words of one district administrator,

We have to keep focused on the goal...The kids are not two years ahead [in math], that's ok as long as they are at [School A], but what happens when they go to [School B]? So other teachers are starting to say, "we need to be part of this." If we held the whole system until everyone was ready, then you would "dummy it down" until all you would get is mediocrity.
An administrator in the other Michigan district in our study noted,

I would hope that we find a way to institutionalize some of the changes we found productive, a way to do them in other buildings so that all buildings have the same opportunity. I would like to see some of the curriculum changes become institutionalized if they are successful.
In Vermont, the state strategy, like California, focuses on supporting teacher and school change. But the central offices in our two study districts have also taken leadership roles in reform, and like our Michigan sites, devote a substantial part of one central office person to working on curriculum matters. These curriculum specialists serve as the intermediary both between local teachers and state efforts and between local teachers and national resources such as subject matter associations and textbook publishers. They work directly with teachers, attempting to inform and encourage interest in curriculum change. Perhaps because of this direct district-teacher connection, there was no talk about who should be responsible for leading reform efforts.

School Restructuring

California is the only one of our three study states to have initiated programs to promote restructuring at the school level. The goal of these programs is to make learning and change a part of the school organization on a daily basis so schools will support the new visions of teaching and learning presented in staff professional development programs. One program has funded 146 schools to restructure their schools through a process of on-going, school-wide reflection on instruction and student learning. The participating schools also participate in a network and annual conferences. The School Improvement Program and Program Quality Review involve a school self-study process, supplemented with periodic outside review. Based on these reviews, schools draw up concise improvement plans which are supposed to focus on student work.

Four of our districts, however, had restructuring initiatives focused at the district level (MI1 and MI2) or at the school level (CA1 and CA2). While the two Michigan districts took somewhat different approaches to restructuring, the vision of change is similar in both communities: it includes the empowerment of teachers and other stakeholders, the devolution of authority to schools for curricular/instructional and some professional development decisions, an emphasis on the use of research in making decisions at all levels of the system, and increased attention to higher standards for students and the development of learner-centered classrooms. Staff in these districts feel that their role, and the role of principals should change from being purveyors of "top-down" policy to serving as leaders and facilitators in the new world order.

Our two California sites are involved in either the state's restructuring initiative or a "home grown" restructuring effort. All four schools in our California sample were restructuring. Three of the four schools were essential run by the teachers, and in all cases, the teachers reported that they were largely in control of the curricular and instructional decisions. They spoke of themselves as professionals and often participated in professional activities outside the school. The teachers also spoke of how structure allowed the opportunity for collaboration and reflection on their work, but in all four schools, indicated that the particular structure (form) needed to be determined by the instructional goals (content), not the other way around.

Four of the six middle schools in our study used block scheduling and electives to restructure their school day, creating daily common planning periods for staff in each team to meet to discuss students and coordinate instruction. Some of the schools (CA1, MI1, MI2) also restructured the school week--running longer on four days of the week and having a shorter instructional day on the fifth--to free one-half day a week for school-wide planning and professional development activities. Respondents in schools with restructured weeks indicated that these blocks of time were helpful but insufficient given the complexity of the changes they were being asked to make and competing demands on their time. Teachers in the Michigan districts, for example, raised two issues with their restructured week. First, this has become the only time for staff to meet during the week, so time is used for school administrative matters, as well as those issues more directly related to teaching and learning. Second, the half days do not provide teachers the opportunity to work two-on-two or in small groups on instructional issues and problems, or to do research and reflect on and discuss new instructional practices. At this point [and it is early in their reform], sessions are used for exposure to and exchange of information on strategies, but not for working through the strategies.

Bureaucratic Constraints to Reform

In addition to the broader organizational issue of devolution of authority and restructuring, some respondents identified constraints on school reform that arise from existing bureaucratic arrangements.

The first of these constraints is a district's control over professional development. One focus of reform efforts has been to link the selection and provision of teacher staff development more closely to school goals. While districts in our study support school reform tied to a careful evaluation of student and teacher needs, districts still control the quantity and type of district-funded professional development opportunities available to teachers. Our two Michigan districts, for example, use about half to two-thirds of the districts' professional development days for district topics. These sessions are intended to introduce teachers to new concepts, such as multiculturalism, inclusion, the district's new reading program, etc. But, it leaves little time or resources--generally two or three half days and/or $1000--for the schools to pursue their specific reform agendas. A similar tension emerged in district CA1, where district-determined staff development also remains at the awareness level, and unrelated to the needs and specific goals of the restructuring schools. While CA2 has a more developed strategy for district staff development, the philosophical position of the former superintendent limited teacher access to state allowed non-instructional staff development days. While this superintendent agreed with the importance of professional development, he did not believe in decreasing instructional time to support it.

The role of unions is also critical in education reform, as many of the proposed reforms demand a greater, different, and more flexible definition of teachers' time and responsibilities. We saw a few instances where the teachers' unions in our sample districts put a damper on reform efforts. One of our Michigan districts successfully sought a state grant to extend its school year by 20 days. A requirement of the grant was that teachers engage in an additional 20 hours of professional development. The district sought to tie this staff development time to school improvement plans, but the union contract calls for teachers, not the district or school, to determine how to use this time. The union in this same district also successfully fought the mandated participation of teachers in Professional Development School projects in one of the elementary schools.

In the two California districts, the local unions were generally supportive of the reform efforts. In fact, in CA2 the union had taken the lead in building a district-wide restructuring initiative into the local contract. The union and district jointly employed and funded the staffing for the initiative and both participated equally in a broad oversight committee. Approximately one third of the schools in the district were participating in the initiative, which also promised some flexibility with regard to contract provisions plus on-going support of the union leadership. Nonetheless, teachers in this study reported that the contract did sometimes get in the way, particularly when it came to hiring new staff. This situation was exacerbated by fiscal problems in the district and state. Moreover, the district had recently "reconstituted" three schools, displacing staff and engendering some new tensions with the union leadership. In CA1, the union was supportive but not particularly active in the reforms. Its role was largely benign, except in cases where individual union members used the contract to thwart particular restructuring moves in their own schools.
-###-

[Struggling for Policy Coherence] [Table of Contents] [Addressing Diverse Student Needs]