Districts as Institutional Actors in Educational Reform

http://eaq.sagepub.com/Quarterly

Educational Administration

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/44/3/307The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0013161X08318962

2008 44: 307Educational Administration QuarterlyAndrea K. Rorrer, Linda Skrla and James Joseph Scheurich

Districts as Institutional Actors in Educational Reform

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

University Council for Educational Administration

at: can be foundEducational Administration QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/44/3/307.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 16, 2008Version of Record >> at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 26, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://eaq.sagepub.com/

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/44/3/307

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ucea.org

http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/44/3/307.refs.html

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/44/3/307.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


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

Districts as InstitutionalActors in Educational Reform

Andrea K. RorrerLinda SkrlaJames Joseph Scheurich

Purpose: Intermittent attention to the district as the unit of study has left a void in ourunderstanding of the complexities associated with the ability of district-level leaders tocontribute to successful, systemic educational reform. In this article, the authors addressthis void by providing a narrative synthesis of previous findings, proposing a theory ofdistricts as institutional actors in systemic reform with the goal being to increaseachievement and advance equity, and suggesting areas of future research that extend ourunderstanding of districts as institutional actors in educational reform and build ourknowledge of reform that improves achievement and advances equity.Proposed Conceptual Argument: The four roles of districts evident in research todate are (a) providing instructional leadership, (b) reorienting the organization, (c)establishing policy coherence, and (d) maintaining an equity focus. These fourroles, which are interdependent, variably coupled, and coevolving through a non-linear process, serve as a foundation for the authors’ proposed framework of dis-tricts as institutional actors in improving achievement and advancing equity.Implications for Research and Practice: The discontinuous and limited nature of previ-ous research has contributed to the lack of theoretical advancement with regard to aresearch-based understanding of district reform and thus to a lack of research-basedguidance for district leaders to follow to create systemically districts that improveachievement and advance educational equity for all children. The framework presentedhere 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

In general, “school reform,” “school improvement,” and “school effective-ness” research over the past two decades often has overlooked, ignored,

and even dismissed the potential of districts as substantial contributors to

307

DOI: 10.1177/0013161X08318962© 2008 The University Council for Educational Administration

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


systemic reform.1 In fact, a consistent theme among many scholars has beenthe argument that responsibility for and control of reform efforts should belocated at the individual school level. Smith and O’Day (1990), for example,clearly emphasized this point. In their view, schools are the “basic unit ofchange, and school educators (teachers and principals) are not only theagents, but also the initiators, designers, and directors of change efforts”(p. 235). Chester Finn (1991), a key proponent of the school as the center ofreform movement, stated emphatically that districts are inconsequential. Hepronounced, “The school is the vital delivery system, the state is the policysetter (and chief paymaster), and nothing in between is very important”(p. 246; see also Doyle & Finn, 1984). Although this viewpoint has gainedwidespread acceptance in policy, research, and practitioner circles, respect-fully, we disagree.2 In this article, we explain our contrasting view—that dis-tricts are vital institutional actors in systemic educational reform.3 Specifically,we explore the how the district as an organized collective is bound by a webof interrelated and interdependent roles, responsibilities, and relationships thatfacilitate systemic reform.

This inquiry emerged from a reflection on our own research that focuseson districts that have made progress in addressing inequities in student per-formance coupled with a consideration of other scholars’ research on dis-tricts and the multitude of existing district-level initiatives. As will bediscussed further in our methodology section, three overarching questionsguided our inquiry: (a) What roles have districts served in reform? (b) Whatrole could districts serve to improve achievement and advance equity sys-temically? and (c) What would be the nature of district-level change neces-sary 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 researchon districts and their role in educational reform, including initiatives under-taken, processes used, and outcomes achieved. Next, using the narrativesynthesis of research as a foundation, we address the second and third ques-tion of this inquiry (i.e., What role could districts serve in systemic, system-atic reform to improve achievement and advance equity, and what would bethe nature of district-level change necessary to do so?). In this section, wepropose a theory of districts as institutional actors in systemic educationalreform, including reform that results in increasing achievement and advanc-ing equity.4 Finally, we conclude with suggestions for future research andanalysis to extend our understanding of the districts’ role as institutionalactors in educational reform.

308 Educational Administration Quarterly



RESEARCH SYNTHESIS ON DISTRICT ROLES IN REFORM

Smith and O’Day (1991), in their seminal work “Systemic SchoolReform,” identified two waves of U.S. educational reform and advanced acompelling argument for what has since become known as a third wave ofreform. The first wave of reform, which they explained occurred from1983 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 curric-ula, promotional criteria)” (p. 233). Many of these initiatives were associ-ated with the so-called top-down reforms. The second wave of reform,which they identified with the latter 1980s, was characterized by anemphasis on “decentralization, professionalization, and bottom-up changekey concepts, as reformers focus[ed] on the change process and on activeinvolvement of those closest to instruction” (p. 234). Smith and O’Daypointed out that the limitations of these earlier reform waves wereaddressed by a third approach that would combine the top-down and bot-tom-up approaches of the first two waves. The third wave of reform wasone comprised of “a coherent systemic strategy . . . one which can set theconditions for change to take place not just in a small handful of schoolsor for a few children, but in the great majority” (pp. 234-235). This thirdwave, which emphasized national standards and tests, grew in prominenceand importance throughout the 1990s and, arguably, substantial portions ofit continue to the present day.5 Remarkably, the role of the local school dis-trict 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 indus-tries, and even university schools of education.

Indeed, research studies on districts over the past 20 years have been rel-atively fewer in number and discontinuous compared to research on schoolsas the center of reform. Nonetheless, some individual scholars have recog-nized the district’s potential to enable and enhance reform efforts, includingthose initiated from within the district as well as those mandated from thestate 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 O’Day about the focus of previous research onschools as the unit of state policy action and intervention, he raised a centralissue relevant to our inquiry and the status of today’s strong state educationalpolicy environment:

Rorrer et al. / DISTRICTS AS INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS 309



If states play a more aggressive role in setting goals, outlining curriculumrequirements, underwriting teacher education and professional developmentconsistent with these goals and requirements, and monitoring individualschools based on how well students are learning academic content, what rolewill local districts play? (p. 98)

Given that districts continue to function as the dominant local governancestructure for U.S. schooling, the neglect by many researchers, practitioners,and policy makers alike to acknowledge the nested (Cuban, 1984) nature ofschools within districts and the district’s instrumental role in systemicreform seems remarkable.

Accordingly, here we turn our attention to the research that does existand focus on the potentially vital role of the district in reform, as it has beenconsidered since 1984 when Cuban’s (1984) research prompted somerenewed attention to the district. After all, as Cuban maintained, the disre-gard for the district as a significant and powerful force represents a void inthe research on educational reform, one that

implicitly ignores the pivotal role that school boards and superintendentsplay in mobilizing limited resources, giving legitimacy to a reform effort andthe crucial interplay between central office and school site that can spell thedifference between implementation success and failure. (p. 12)

We then extend our discussion beyond what role districts have served inreform to what role districts could serve, including the nature of change, ineducational reform, particularly reform aimed to improve achievement andadvance equity.

METHOD OF NARRATIVE SYNTHESIS

Given the nature and scope of existing research on districts, includingthis 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 con-duct the review of the district’s role in systemic reform. Using narrativesynthesis as our methodology permitted us to be interpretive, inductive, andintegrative in our analysis (Jensen & Allen, 1996; Mays et al., 2005; Noblit& Hare, 1988). In an effort to increase the transparency of our process, herewe provide details on our method of conducting this narrative synthesis.

Mays et al. (2005) provided six iterative stages for a narrative synthesisthat were utilized for this review. These iterative stages include (a) identifying

310 EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY



the broad focus of the review and searching for and mapping available evi-dence, (b) specifying the review question, (c) selecting studies to include inthe review, (d) extracting data and appraising study quality,(e) conducting the synthesis, and (f) reporting and disseminating the resultsof the review (p. 4). Consistent with the methodology of a narrative synthe-sis, the findings from each of the studies selected for review were juxtaposedwith one another (Popay et al., 2006, p. 7), then presented as a narrative, ora “textual approach to the process of synthesis to ‘tell the story’” (p. 5).

First, we chose not to use a preexisting framework that stipulated therole of districts in reform. Instead, consistent with the methodology of anarrative synthesis (Popay et al., 2006), prior research was explored andinterrogated to address the main review question (i.e., What roles have dis-tricts served in reform?). This question guided our comprehensive searchthrough journals, books, and policy and research reports for empirical stud-ies and conceptual, review, and position papers. In mapping available evi-dence, we note that research to date frequently depicts the district’s role asa single discrete function or initiative. Restricting our analysis to studiessuch as these, which are narrow in their scope though informative andimportant, would have limited our quest for comprehensive understandingof the district’s collective and complex role in reform.

Consequently, our narrative synthesis was not limited to research thatfocuses on the district’s role in mitigating, implementing, and/or evaluatingonly specific reform efforts, for example, standards-based reform (Sipple &Killeen, 2004) or mathematics reform (Spillane, 2000). Instead, for the pur-pose of this narrative synthesis, we cast a wider net and utilized the tradi-tional conceptualization of districts as operationalized by scholars to date.That is, the district may refer to the superintendent, school board, and/ormidlevel/central administration as well as to the district as an organizationalunit. As will be more fully explained in a later section focused on a theoryof districts as institutional actors in systemic reform, we pose a differentconceptualization of the district: an organized collective constituted by thesuperintendent; the board; the central office-level administration; and prin-cipals, who collectively serve as critical links between the district and theschool for developing and implementing solutions to identified problems(Land, 2002; McLaughlin, 1990).

Next, we selected research for this narrative synthesis. Specifically, wecollected empirical or conceptual pieces on districts’ roles reported since1984, which is the time frame dating back to the first wave of systemic reformidentified by Smith and O’Day (1991). This time period was characterizedby sporadic but gradually increasing interest in the district (albeit less thanon schools) as a central participant in educational reform. The studies or




conceptual pieces included in this narrative synthesis had to focus explicitlyon the district as the unit of analysis and include some aspect of district’s rolein reform. Thus, studies that actually focused on schools as the unit of analy-sis or center of reform were eliminated.

Three electronic databases (EBSCO Host, Education Full Text, andJSTOR) were used to identify potential articles initially. Keywords used toconduct the search included school district, local education agencies,school system, superintendents, school board, and central office combinedwith additional key words such as change, reform, improvement, and effec-tiveness. In addition, we used an ancestry approach, which uses the refer-ence list of studies selected for inclusion in the synthesis to identify relevantstudies or reports, such as books, that may have been missed in the initialsearch. Furthermore, we searched policy center publications for reports onschool districts. This search led to published work by the Consortium forPolicy Research in Education (CPRE) and the McKenzie Group, Inc., forinstance. 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 finalnarrative synthesis of research on the district’s role in reform. (SeeAppendixes A, B, and C.)

We recognize, as Popay et al. (2006) suggested, that the “trustworthi-ness of the synthesis will depend on both the quality and the quantity ofthe evidence base it is build on” (p. 15). Thus, we primarily relied uponempirical scholarship (i.e., research that uses qualitative, quantitative, andsurvey methods) to conduct our extensive review. Specifically, 62 empiri-cally based articles, 12 conceptual, 3 syntheses of previous research, and4 other types of scholarship were used in this synthesis. Consequently,empirically based research published in peer-reviewed journals was con-sidered to have met the general standards and criteria for validity and reli-ability and/or trustworthiness and credibility associated with the respectivemethods chosen by the researchers. Although we acknowledge that previ-ously published research articles have met the general conditions associ-ated with their respective methods, we recognize that there are potentiallimitations to any empirical study, regardless of the methods employed.7

That said, Gilbody, Whitty, Grimshaw, and Thomas (2003) emphasizedthat systematic reviews, such as this one, “offer the least biased method ofsummarizing research literature” (p. 3149).

We extracted and classified data from the scholarship included in thenarrative synthesis with respect to focus of study, methods and design, gen-eral findings, and recommendations as well as their relevance to the review




question (Popay et al., 2006). This process permitted us to become thor-oughly acquainted with the body of research on districts overall. The nextstep was thematic analysis (Popay et al., 2006) of the focus of the studiesincluded. Our analyses of these foci produced four broad themes, initiallycoded as leadership, policy, organization and culture, and equity-orientation.These themes were further distinguished by the specific activities and/orprocesses engaged in by the districts in the studies that were identifiedunder these themes. In our analysis, these themes reflect the essential rolesof districts in educational reform: providing instructional leadership, reori-enting the organization, establishing policy coherence, and maintaining anequity focus. Further consideration was given to how the findings fromeach study related to one another within and between themes, includingwhat were the variations in the study’s findings and how each studyexplained the districts’ role or illustrated the districts’ contribution to theinitiatives identified. This step resulted in particular studies being cited forcontributions within multiple themes.

We present the results of our narrative synthesis in the next section. Inthe section following this review, we use the narrative synthesis of researchas a foundation to address the second and third questions of this inquiry(i.e., What role could districts serve in systemic, systematic reform, partic-ularly reform to improve achievement and advance equity, and what wouldbe the nature of district-level change necessary?). In doing so, we proposea theory of districts as institutional actors in systemic reform. Our proposedtheory is a natural extension of the narrative synthesis. As Popay et al.(2006) indicated, “Theory building and theory testing is a neglected aspectof systematic reviews” (p. 12). In particular, these scholars noted,“Systematic reviews can contribute to developing and testing the limits oftheories, by examining how contextual or temporal variables moderate out-comes” (p. 12).

FOUR ESSENTIAL ROLES OF DISTRICTS IN REFORM

As noted in the previous section, four essential roles for districts in edu-cational reform emerged from our analysis of research on districts con-ducted over the past 20 years. Before turning to the subsequent discussionof how districts could engage in change and utilize these roles to systemi-cally implement reform, particularly reform aimed at improving achieve-ment and advancing equity concurrently, here, we elucidate these fourroles. These roles are (a) providing instructional leadership, (b) reorienting




the organization, (c) establishing policy coherence, and (d) maintaining anequity 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 byprevious research. The concept of instructional leadership gained promi-nence with Ronald Edmonds’s (1979) effective schools research. It was acornerstone of the seven correlates Edmonds identified as present inschools he termed effective—those at which equal proportions of studentsidentified as high-, middle-, and low-income achieved mastery of the basiccurriculum.8 Cuban (1984) was one of the first scholars to extend the impli-cations of the effective schools research’s focus on instructional leadershipto the district.9 He explained, “With the mounting interest in using effectiveschools research, the older model of a school chief knowledgeable aboutboth curriculum and instruction and visible in the schools beyond the sym-bolic tour is reasserting itself” (p. 146). Though interest in effective schoolsresearch as it related to districts declined substantially after 1990, scholarscontinued to reference instructional leadership as a key role.

Interestingly, however, although it has widespread popularity as a con-cept, a single, unified, and an agreed-upon definition of instructional lead-ership does not exist. For instance, consider the following informativedescriptions of instructional leadership at the campus or principal level.Greenfield (1987) said that instructional leadership “refers to actions under-taken with the intention of developing a productive and satisfying workingenvironment for teachers and desirable learning conditions and outcomesfor children” (p. 60). More recently, Blasé and Blasé (2000), who weremore prescriptive, identified seven behaviors associated with principalswho serve as instructional leaders. These behaviors included making sug-gestions, giving feedback, modeling effective instruction, soliciting opin-ions, supporting collaboration, providing professional developmentopportunities, and giving praise for effective teaching.

There has been a similar struggle in research focused on instructionalleadership at the district level to find a coherent, or agreed-upon, definition.Despite this, the view of superintendents has progressed from one depictedin terms of its supervisory-only duties to depictions as “head teacher” to nowthe instructional leader.10 Recent research on instructional leadership at thedistrict level now requires that attention be given to multiple facets ofinstruction and learning well beyond communicating the district mission andsimply being knowledgeable of instructional effectiveness. Moreover,




instructional leadership at the district level has evolved as a collectiveresponsibility of the superintendent and central office administrators, asevidenced by the scope of research on districts.

Despite the general lack of agreement on exactly what constitutesinstructional leadership at the district level, two elements of it appear con-sistently 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 role—generating willto reform and capacity to do so—help districts bridge organizational devel-opment and policy implementation. McLaughlin’s (1990) reflection onRAND’s Change Agent Study emphasized this point. She noted, “Whatmatters most to policy outcomes are local capacity and will. The localexpertise, organizational routines, and resources available to supportplanned change efforts generate fundamental differences in the ability ofpractitioners to plan, execute, or sustain an innovative effort” (pp. 12-13).Fundamentally, generating will and building capacity are key to sustainingreform, particularly when resources for reform implementation diminish.Together, these attributes reflect Daresh’s (1991) conception that instruc-tional leadership among superintendents and principals requires “proactiveadministrative behavior” (p. 109).

Generating will. As McLaughlin (1987) indicated, will and support canbe manifested as “the attitudes, motivation, and beliefs that underlie animplementor’s response to a policy’s goals or strategies” (p. 172). Yet thetype of will necessary to initiate or sustain reform to improve performancedistrictwide does not arise automatically nor simply in response to externalenvironments.11 Berman (1986) explored how districts generate will toinfluence the implementation of legally mandated reforms. Whereas theprimary impetus for will remains debated, the necessity of it in successfulreform implementation is not disputed. For instance, echoing Berman’sresearch on districts that generate will to implement legally mandatedreforms, McLaughlin (1987, 1990) indicated that federal and state levelpolicies were unlikely to produce systemic reform without will. She (1990)emphasized the district’s importance in generating will versus its relianceon any one policy to drive successful reform:




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 enthu-siasm engendered little because of insufficient will or support in the broaderorganizational 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.” Jacobson’s (1986) description of an effec-tive rural district exemplified this commitment, which occurred “even at therisk of creating opposition within the community” (p. 19). Jacobson differ-entiated between effective and ineffective districts in terms of generatingwill for reform and being actively engaged. From his research, he asserted,

[The] effective superintendent viewed his job as requiring him to educate hiscommunity and school board about the educational services they shouldwant. He actively worked to raise community expectations as to whatstudents could achieve and then worked to ensure that his faculty andstudents met those expectations. (p. 20)

Again, those who have studied district instructional leadership, such asMcLaughlin and Jacobson, emphasize how districts generating will toreform is an example of “proactive administrative behavior” (Daresh, 1991)aimed at improving teaching and learning.

Daresh (1991) expanded the link between will and instructional leader-ship. He noted that instructional leadership is reliant upon the existence ofcommitment to improve teaching and learning, commitment to the peoplewith whom district leaders work, continuous focus on teaching and learn-ing, sensitivity to the perspective of others, self-awareness, and consistentpersonal behavior. In addition, previous research illustrates that districtinstructional leaders generate will by being personally engaged in allaspects of instruction and instructional-related reform (Björk, 1993;Bredeson, 1996; Daresh, 1991; Firestone, 1989b; Jacobson, 1986; Murphy& Hallinger, 1986; Petersen, 1999) and establishing the vision, focus, andgoals to support instruction (Björk, 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 thansimply generating will. Districts must couple this will intentionally withcapacity building. Capacity building reflects the district’s ability andcapability to enact its will. Firestone (1989b) defined capacity as “the




wherewithal to actually implement [the decision]. The capacity to usereform is the extent to which the [school] has the knowledge, skills, person-nel, and other resources necessary to carry out decisions” (p. 157). With thisin mind, let us turn our attention to how districts provide instructional lead-ership 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 capac-ity (e.g., knowledge, skills, personnel, and other resources) of teachers, prin-cipals, central office administrators, superintendents to implement reform toimprove instruction, including reforms aimed at improving standards, andaligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Firestone (1989b), forinstance, noted that building capacity requires three primary actions: mobi-lizing personnel, developing functions related to change (providing and sell-ing a vision, obtaining resources, providing encouragement and recognition,adapting standard operating procedures, monitoring the reform effort, andhandling disturbances), and making district and school linkages (districtconsistent application of pressure on schools, targeted support, increasedparticipation by teachers). Similarly, Berman (1986) suggested that the abil-ity of the district to build capacity depends on the district’s “managerialcompetence . . . the supportiveness of its organizational culture . . . andthe difficulty of the problems facing the district” (p. 52).

Reflecting Firestone’s (1989b) description of capacity and Jacobson’s(1986) and Daresh’s (1991) earlier examples of active engagement, Spillaneand Thompson’s (1997) study of nine Michigan districts revealed the impor-tance of districts acquiring knowledge specific to the instructional scienceand mathematics reforms chosen for implementation. They concluded, “TheLEAs’ capacity to support ambitious instructional reform [is] primarily as acapacity to learn the substantive ideas at the heart of the new reforms and tohelp teachers and others within the district learn these ideas” (p. 199).Spillane and Thompson’s comparison also resulted in identifying and clas-sifying three types of variances related to local capacity building. Variancesin capacity were attributed to the district’s human capital (i.e., knowledge,commitment [will] and disposition), social capital (i.e., knowledge of localreformers, 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 fur-ther. In her research on district central office administrators’ roles in theimplementation of school-community partnerships, she identified thresholdconditions and capital as two necessary elements for district capacity build-ing. Intentionality, designation of boundary spanners, and preemptive




policy actions were among the threshold conditions necessary to buildcapacity particular to central office organization. Similarly to Spillane andThompson (1997), Honig noted the capital that central office administratorsrelied on to build capacity included central office administration knowledgeof their schools and policy and organizational systems at large, their socioand political ties and relationships with schools and other systems (e.g.,community partners, government agencies), and their administrative toolssuch as their ability to structure the workday and their workload.

From research on districts to date, then, we can conclude that districtinstructional leadership builds capacity by coordinating and aligning workof others through communication, planning, and collaboration (Björk, 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 dataaccessibility, availability, and transparency and accountability (Björk,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 (Björk, 1993; Bredeson, 1996;Floden et al., 1988; Massel, 2000).

Reorienting the Organization

Reorienting the organization is a second essential role of districts inreform identified from our narrative synthesis of previous research. In thisrole, districts refine organizational structures and processes and alter dis-trict culture to align with their educational reform goals. For example, asthe findings of studies reviewed here demonstrate, a range of opportunitiesexist for districts to reorient the organization to support improved teachingand 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 struc-tures and processes to support systemic reform must be aligned with refinedbeliefs, expectations, and norms. In the following discussion, we address




how changes in organizational structures, processes, and cultures, particu-larly professional norms, have been depicted in district-level research todate. In doing so, we are able to reveal the intertwined nature of these twoelements of reorienting the organization.

Refining and aligning organizational structure and processes. Many ofthe district’s actions within this category have to do with structural andorganizational changes made to align district operations with goals forimprovement. Among the first researchers to point to the importance ofrefining district structures to support instruction were Kent Peterson,Joseph Murphy, and Philip Hallinger (1987), who studied 12 California dis-tricts characterized by “student achievement scores . . . higher than pre-dicted based on student characteristics” (p. 82). Utilizing their previousempirical and conceptual work, Peterson et al. demonstrated how theirstudy districts used locally developed mechanisms to control, coordinate,and assess the technical core activities (instruction, curriculum, goal set-ting, principal selection and evaluation, and funding) of the districts.

Similarly, George Petersen (1999) reported that five “instructionallyfocused” California superintendents in districts with “greater than average”performance on state achievement tests articulated a vision, integrated thatvision into the districts’ mission, and took a proactive stance in “creat[ing]an organizational structure that supported their vision and role as instruc-tional leader.” These organizational structure changes included district lead-ership exerting more control over and involvement in decision making andreform implementation, increasing attention and resources (time andmoney) to the curriculum and instruction, hiring or replacing persons tosupport the mission, and monitoring the technical core. These activitiesdemonstrate the intentionality Honig (2003) associated with her descriptionof central office functions in reform.

Another structural change, decentralization, which was one aspect ofPetersen’s (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 beachieved through decentralized decision making, particularly when districtsare of “manageable size.” They noted that this organizational structure per-mitted “professional leadership [to be] free to craft policy without fear ofconstant second-guessing” and that under these conditions “the goals of theschool chief translate into practice on the ground” (p. 599). They providedthe example of Kenneth Hill, who served as superintendent for 11 years inRedwood City, which was one of their case studies:




[He] made it his mission to redesign the organization’s structure for makingdecisions. Hill’s ambition, as he has described it, was to move away from astructure “that was very authoritarian to one that was working towards a highdegree of decentralization” and to persuade principals, teachers, and parents todevelop “home-grown ideas” about how to improve their own schools. (p. 599)

As illustrated by this superintendent’s story, organizational realignment tosupport improved instruction, including changes in decision-makingauthority, required shifts in control or at least in the nature of control.Firestone (1989a) agreed. He noted that decentralizing and increasing par-ticipation from others throughout the district, particularly teachers, pro-moted “upward communication,” built ownership, and developed capacity.He did warn, however, of the considerable amount of time required to makethe necessary decisions in this model, the possible infringements of preex-isting conflicts, and the nature of participation as possible deterrents to suc-cessful reform implementation.

As alluded to previously, other research has focused on factors such asdistrict size as means of structural organizational reform. For instance,Hannaway and Kimball (1997), Wenglinsky (1997), and Driscoll,Halcoussis, and Svorny (2003) demonstrated that the district’s abilityto provide (or not provide) organizational support or build capacity forinstructional improvement may be influenced by the district size and theway the district is configured. For instance, Hannaway and Kimballreported that small districts often had limited access to technical assistance,had lower levels of understanding, and struggled with reform implementa-tion resulting in less initial progress.12 Similarly, these scholars found that,although high-poverty districts generally had higher levels of access totechnical assistance for their federal programs, these districts also struggledwith early reform efforts, such as standard setting and alignment, which, asdiscussed earlier, are cornerstones of instructional leadership.

In the end, these scholars demonstrated that reform understanding andprogress 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 mayin fact, be part of the solution” (Hannaway & Kimball, 1997, p. 18). One yearlater, Hannaway and Kimball (1998) again spoke to the effects of district sizeon instructional improvement, emphasizing that smaller districts and largedistricts with higher percentages of students in poverty had increased difficul-ties in implementing standards-based reform due to difficulties facilitatingreform implementation. In contrast, Driscoll et al. (2003) demonstrated theeffects of district size on student achievement in California. They found that




as district size increased achievement declined according to the AcademicPerformance Index. Together, the district-size research suggests that as dis-tricts consider reorienting organizational structure and processes, they shouldalso attend to how district support will be distributed and aligned, includingdetermining sufficient uses of human resources and ways to maximizeeconomies of scale (Kirp & Driver, 1995; Petersen, 1999).

Corcoran et al. (2001), whose research on evidence-based reform indicatedthat districts that implemented reforms that lacked coordination, alignment,and coherence with district goals and expectations were less effective and hadmore difficulty scaling-up their reforms, underscored the findings of Petersonet al. (1987) reported earlier. Specifically, Corcoran et al. described a frame-work for the district role in instructional improvement based on their researchin three large urban districts. Their framework illustrated how the district couldrefine and align organizational processes through strategic decisions.Moreover, this framework included three broad categories of strategic deci-sions in organizations seeking to improve performance—design and adoption,coordination and support of reform, and replication of reform (scaling up)(Coburn 2003). Desimone et al.’s (2002) research further illustrated the neces-sity of attention to organizational structure and processes in reform. They useda national probability sample of Eisenhower Professional DevelopmentProgram districts to examine the effects of district practice on professionaldevelopment. They indicated that districts’ alignment, coordination, continu-ous improvement efforts, and stakeholders (i.e., district, school, and teachers)involvement in planning and development determined the success of profes-sional development in influencing reform implementation. Numerous otherstudies (e.g., CPRE, 1998; Joftus et al., 2000; Shields & Knapp, 1997) alsosupported the importance of the district’s role in developing and providingneeds-based support, including professional development, to staff and schools.

Pajak and Glickman (1989), who conducted a comparative case study ofthree Georgia districts that had maintained improvements in studentachievement from 1982 to 1985, identified instructional dialogue, an infra-structure of support that prompted the dialogue, and varied sources ofinstructional leadership as important elements of district processes that sup-ported reform. Instructional dialogue, which is evident in direct, engaging,ongoing, and transparent talk, became a process for ensuring that reformactivities were aligned with instructional goals (see also Rorrer, 2001). Indistricts such as the successful ones they studied, “Teachers viewed peersand supervisors as working with them, not on them, to help improveinstruction” (p. 62). Varied sources of instructional leadership reflect adispersion of leadership similar to the decentralization efforts mentioned




previously. Thus, district infrastructure supported the progression ofschools from where they were to higher levels of achievement.

In addition, although not pervasive in recent research, incentive structureshave appeared in earlier research on districts as an important component ofthe district structure and organization. Purkey and Smith (1985) argued thatdistricts can provide incentives to schools, mandates with consequences, andmandated changes with incentives. Analogously, Elmore (1993) affirmed,

Local districts . . . should have incentives, at least in theory, to provide ben-efits to whole communities, hence to improve several schools within a com-munity, and thus a stronger incentive than states to see that successfulpractices in one setting are propagated to others. (p. 105)

Changing the district culture. Another attribute of reorienting the organi-zation that emerged from the research on districts is changing district culture(norms, expectations, and values). For example, McLaughlin (1992) arguedfor the importance of the district changing its culture as a means to support-ing reform: “The relationships between teacher and districts that are power-ful influences on teachers and teaching have little to do with hierarchicalstructure and controls and everything to do with the norms, expectations, andvalues that shape the district professional community” (p. 35). Importantly,McLaughlin’s research considered the district’s normative influences on thework of schools and teachers, particularly the ways in which culture caninfluence norms that support equity. With relation to changing district culture,she emphasized the district’s normative influence in establishing policies andgoals that embraced diversity; in providing open, clear lines of communica-tion; in exemplifying a district leadership style that “use[d] cultural authorityto communicate, reinforce, and monitor[ed] district goals and norms of con-duct” (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 expecta-tions are necessary for promoting a professional community that supportsinstructional reform:

There is really nothing surprising about the inventiveness and commitment ofeducators who care deeply about the work they are doing and the studentswhose lives they are touching. What is important is to create district expec-tations of professional dialogue and support so that educators in all positionsin a school system can share in that inventiveness and express that commit-ment. (p. 64)13

Furthermore, Elmore and Burney’s (1997) research illustrated that superin-tendents and other district leaders are responsible for generating this culture




of commitment in internal and external constituents to improving teachingand the student performance of all children.

Specifically, Elmore and Burney (1997), whose work substantiated afocused, multistage, systemwide effort for change, explained that the districtthey studied served as an example of what districts can achieve, particularlywith respect to improved instructional practice.14 Their often-cited depictionof New York City’s Community School District #2’s work with professionaldevelopment and instructional improvement captured national attention byempirically illustrating how reorienting the organizational processes andstructures and changing the culture can enhance reform. For instance, theirfindings included sharing expertise, generating ideas through people work-ing together, and setting clear expectations and then decentralizing.

Establishing Policy Coherence

From our narrative synthesis of the literature on the district’s role inreform, establishing policy coherence emerged as a third dimension of thedistrict 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 policycoherence occurs both through alignment with external demands andthrough an alignment with internally generated demands (Rorrer, 2002).Also, Honig and Hatch (2003), for instance, reflected this in their definitionof coherence at the district level. Coherence, they noted, is

a process of negotiation whereby school leaders and central office adminis-trators continually craft the fit between external policy demands and schoolsown goals and strategies, and use external demands strategically to informand enable implementation of those goals and strategies. (p. 19)

In other words, coherence is not simply achieved through implementationof a federal, state, or local policy. Instead, policy coherence occurs asdistrict leadership molds policies into district-specific derivatives, whichrepresent an amalgam of external policy and internal goals and strategies.




Mediating federal, state, and local policy. As Firestone (1989b) reported,“Once one accepts the discontinuities in the policy process, uniformity ofresponse to central policy becomes less critical and one can take advantageof local variation” (p. 22). Despite the advantages of local adaptation ofpolicy in reform implementation, as argued by Firestone and others, localvariation in responses has led to speculation about the district’s influenceon teaching and learning or instructional improvement (Elmore, 1993).Although there continues to be attention to the role of the school as the pri-mary sphere of influence, additional evidence indicates the significant valuein exploring the district’s role of establishing district-level policy coherencewithin the context of reform implementation and the macro-environment.

Firestone (1989a), for example, initiated the discussion of districtsand district leaders as innovators, expanders, resistors, and passive imple-menters, whereas others have suggested that the district acts as a policymediator (e.g., Knapp, 1997; Rorrer & Skrla, 2005; Spillane, 1996) withregard to federal, state, and local policy. Illustrating such links between dis-trict instructional leadership and policy coherence, Firestone explained howdistricts adapt state policy for their purposes:

In some districts, leaders will share a belief that they can shape what happensin and to their districts. They will have a long-range vision of where they wanttheir districts to go. Their own actions and decisions will be monitored toensure that they contribute to this long-range vision. Moreover, state policieswill be interpreted in light of this vision. Policies that fit it will be embraced;others will be opposed or an effort will be made—both locally and in the statecapitol—to get modifications to fit the local vision (Hall, 1987b). (p. 156)

Similarly, Spillane’s (1996) case study research expanded upon Firestone’sfindings and refined the role of districts as implementors of state readingpolicy. He indicated that “district administrators were not simply imple-menting or carrying out the state’s policy directives; rather, district admin-istrators took a proactive policy-making stance, defining policy problemsand developing their own instructional policies” (p. 65). In addition, ourown research (Rorrer & Skrla, 2005) on the adaptation of state accountabil-ity systems to increase equity demonstrated that district leaders retaineddiscretion—relative to will and capacity and to changes in the organiza-tional structure—to influence the implementation of state accountabilitypolicies. To that end, district leaders actively shaped and engaged in theimplementation of state accountability policies by integrating, rather thanimposing accountability into the core aspects of organizational relation-ships, culture, policies, and practices.




Kirp and Driver (1995) also highlighted the importance of the policymaker’s role and underscored their recognition of the important role of dis-tricts in policy adaptation. For example, they explained,

Defining and redefining practice . . . has to be done locally. But this processtakes place in a context framed by policymakers who have begun to realizethat setting this dynamic in motion and situating it within sensible bounds,not insisting on adherence to the minutest particulars, is what they can dobest. (p. 609)

In this case, policy makers see local districts as sites for policy mediationthat enhance policy implementation through adaptation. Consequently, thedistrict’s role becomes cast as a productive role, rather than a subversive one.

Spillane (1996) further articulated the district’s significant role in influ-encing policy implementation and establishing coherence between the localdistrict and the state. He asserted:

First, local districts matter in that their instructional policy-making effortshave the potential to undermine state policymakers’ efforts to streamline theinstructional guidance system by concentrating instructional policy makingat 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 practi-tioners. . . . Third, districts matter in that they influence state-level effortsto increase the coherence of the instructional signals that are sent to schoolpractitioners from within the school system. (p. 83)

This depiction is salient because it again illustrates the interest and agencythat the districts possess and the ways that districts can deploy them.

Spillane’s (1996) perspective of the district’s relationship to state-levelpolicy described above was consistent with Elmore’s (1993) outline of therole of districts regarding federal policy. Elmore suggested four roles thatdistricts could play as units of local governance in a federal system. Theseroles included “mobilizing support and buffering policies from other levelsof government; developing and testing new policy ideas; balancing devel-opmental, allocative, and redistributive functions across levels of govern-ment; and adapting policies from other levels of government to local needsand circumstances” (pp. 118-119). Elmore further highlighted the impor-tance of their political and buffering roles. He explained,

One possible reason for the continued existence of local districts is that theyprovide a means of mobilizing political support for public schools at a levelwhere their impact is immediate and a valuable buffer against precipitous shiftsin state and national policy that are inconsistent with local preferences. (p. 103)




Consequently, establishing policy coherence lends itself to garnering supportfor the district’s schools amidst a turbulent external environment. Purkey andSmith (1985) summed up this notion in their description of the roles ofthe school board and superintendent. They noted, “The role of the board ofeducation and the superintendent is to set the direction for the district’sschools in a manner that blends local and state or national interests” (p. 374).

Adding to this same idea, Mayo and McIntyre’s (2003) research, whichspecifically supported Hannaway and Kimball’s findings discussed earlier inre-orienting organizational structures and processes, illustrated that the abil-ity to blend local and state context further establishes coherence for district-level reform efforts. Their research indicated that superintendents in districtswithin states with high stakes testing spent more time on instructional lead-ership than their peers in states with low stakes testing. More precisely, theyreported that as the percentage of students in poverty increased in high-stakes testing states, superintendents were likely to spend even more time oninstructional leadership, whereas similar results were not found in low-stakes testing states. Importantly, this type of research further illustrates howstate and federal policy alone is not predictive of the intensity or quality ofthe district’s response, a finding similar to McLaughlin’s findings. Instead,how districts mediate local, state, and federal policy to enhance local reformefforts requires both interest and agency (will) and is layered within a con-text 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 coher-ence as a role for districts in reform is aligning resources with identifieddistrict 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 suggestedthat money matters primarily to the degree that it affords or providesresources to support teaching and learning, albeit often indirectly.15 Forinstance, aligned district policy about the use of fiscal resources permitsdistricts to provide supplemental programs, administrative inputs, profes-sional development, and material resources as well as to acquire teacherand 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 anoft-overlooked, underrecognized element of the district’s role in reform.As reported earlier, Spillane and Thompson’s (1997) research, however,emphasized the value of talent in terms of human and social capital:




There may be some connection between the financial resources available toa district and the human and social capital it can mobilize for reform—richdistricts may hire more knowledgeable and sociable administrators andteacher-leaders as well as other teachers—but if so, it will be the superiorhuman and social capital they hire or develop, not the material resources them-selves, that position them to get still richer in capacity for reform. (p. 199)

Hannaway and Kimball (1998) and Wenglinsky (1997) also argued for theimportance of increased spending on central office as a means for increas-ing capacity for reform. For instance, Wenglinsky, who contended with theunresolved debate regarding the effects of resources on achievement, deter-mined that “when more money is spent on it, the central office is better ableto make allocative decisions” (p. 232). Recent research further suggests thatlarger districts often have an easier time aligning resources and supports toreform goals. Similarly, Desimone et al. (2002) determined that larger dis-tricts were able to utilize alignment strategies and more easily engage incontinuous improvement efforts because they have a greater ability to inte-grate professional development with standards and assessments, benefitfrom economies of scale, provide access to expertise and potentially addi-tional staff, and cofund programs (pp. 1297-1298) consistent with reformgoals and efforts. Hannaway and Kimball (1997) also indicated that smallerdistricts have less capacity, including financial capacity, to understand andimplement reforms.

As the research in this area illustrates, aligning resources is indicativeof the will (commitment) of the district to their reforms, contributes to thedevelopment of capacity to enact reform, and improves the likelihood ofreform success and sustainability. Firestone (1989a) emphasized thispoint and suggested that the coherence between resources and needsreveals a district’s organizational purpose, values, and desired outcomes.Price, Ball, and Luks (1995) similarly demonstrated the influence of dis-trict leaders in aligning resource allocation policy at the local level. Theyconcluded,

Administrators—the central office or in buildings—are in positions of powerto affect the marshalling of resources around particular agendas. They allo-cate funds for materials, professional development, and staff. They influenceteachers’ priorities, in the form of concern and time. Thus, what they careabout and understand can have crucial consequences for the development ofany particular reform agenda. (p. 32)

This point, thus, further illustrates the value of establishing coherencebetween available supports and resources and instructional leadership (e.g.,will and establishing the vision, focus, and goals).




Who benefits most from either newly acquired or redistributed resourcesremains a matter of substantial importance, and disagreement. Yet increas-ingly, attention is given to the district’s efforts to align resources to districtadopted goals and objectives. An alignment between resource distributionand 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 AsRodriguez (2004), who considered the future of vertical equity in schoolfinance, underscored, “It is not yet time to abandon the concern for estab-lishing standards for equity within the policies that frame and support ourcommitment to public education” (p. 27).17

Maintaining an Equity Focus

The fourth essential role for districts in reform that emerged from ourresearch synthesis is maintaining an equity focus. Although we acknowledgethat most research on districts has been interested in some element ofimproved instruction or outcomes, only recently has maintaining an equityfocus become prominent as an explicit value in reform implementation orresearch focus. Arguably, educational institutions have successfully ensuredinequity to date. In part, inequities in education have persisted due to largersocietal inequities, particularly as they reflect and reinforce the inequitiesin society (Heck & Hallinger, 1999). This aspect of educational institutionshas received considerable attention (e.g., Lopez, 2003; Lugg, 2003). Eventhough districts can, and have historically, institutionalized inequity, recentresearch has shown that districts are also capable of disrupting and even dis-placing (Rorrer, 2001; Skrla & Scheurich 2001) institutionalized structuresand practices that perpetuate inequity in student achievement.

Two separate but related attributes of the districts’ role in reformemerged within the category of maintaining an equity focus. These twoattributes 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 ofdata (Cawelti, 2001; Hernandez, 2003; Koschoreck, 2003; Rorrer, 2001, 2006)

Together, these two attributes increase district attention to improvingachievement for all children and, thus, maintaining an equity focus has




become a pivot point for reform. That is, districts reconsider and recast theirroles in providing instructional leadership, reorient and aligning organiza-tional structures and processes, and establish policy coherence with the ulti-mate goal of ensuring educational equity. The research in this area, albeit amodest collection of research, highlights the explicit nature of equity in thedistricts’ efforts aimed at improving teaching and learning to increase equity.

Owning past inequity. The first attribute of the role for districts in main-taining an equity focus is their ability to own past inequities. Recent researchon districts demonstrates progress in increasing achievement for all studentsand in narrowing achievement gaps in districts serving racially and econom-ically diverse students. For example, Skrla et al. (2000) studied districts thathad demonstrated substantial, sustained progress in closing achievementgaps within a strong accountability policy environment. Their research rein-forced many of the themes previously addressed, including the districtemphasis on instructional coherence and alignment, the importance of pro-fessional development, and equitable distribution of district resources.Significantly, however, findings from this research departed from previousstudies when they described the prominent role of the state accountabilitysystem, local catalysts for equity, and a moral response of district leadershipto revelations of past district inequity. This last finding—the leadershipresponse to revelations of past inequity—was emphasized by the studyauthors 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 ofstudents. They did not endeavor to baffle their critics with confusing, jargon-filled explanations of low achievement. They did not blame low performanceon parents, social service agencies, or anyone outside the district. They didnot attempt to finesse the system by finding quick-fix substitutes for realimprovements in student learning. They responded both to the state account-ability system and to their local constituents with a sincere commitment toimprove the learning of all students. (p. 20)

Thus, the superintendents in this study both recognized past inequity instudent performance and took responsibility for it, rather than denying it orblaming external factors. Likewise, Togneri & Anderson (2003) who stud-ied five high-poverty districts “making strides in improving studentachievement”—Aldine (TX), Chula Vista (CA), Kent County (MD),Minneapolis (MN), and Providence (RI)—asserted that one of the keys toprogress in these districts was that “districts had the courage to acknowl-edge poor performance and the will to seek solutions” (p. 3).




Foregrounding equity. The other attribute of the role for districts inmaintaining an equity focus is foregrounding equity. An example of theimportance of foregrounding equity was provided by Cawelti’s (2001)study of six successful districts, three in Texas and one each in WestVirginia, Idaho, and California, which identified “high-performance traits”of the districts. A key finding from this research was that these successfuldistricts transcended the “all students can learn” rhetoric by operationaliz-ing an equity-focused plan that included developing programs, policies, andteaching strategies that lead to higher levels of achievement; by decentral-izing management and budget and monitoring results; by aligning curricu-lum with assessments; by developing consistent teaching strategies; and bycommitting to research-based planning for improvement.

During that same year, Rorrer (2001) also profiled two districts—NorthsideIndependent School District in Texas and Wake County Public Schools inNorth Carolina—that had demonstrated significant progress in raising perfor-mance for all students, particularly students eligible for Free and ReducedLunch and students of color. Central to these districts’ evolution was the roleof district leadership in disrupting inequity. Using a window of opportunitycreated by leaders with a commitment to equity, district leaders exercised asense of agency, created a culture of equity coupled with excellence, andimplemented a calculated process to achieve equitable opportunities and out-comes. In these districts, district leaders, who often recounted stories thatdescribed the source of their commitment, insisted that equity was at the fore-front of instructional and policy discussions and of decision making.

Hernandez (2003), in her doctoral dissertation, also emphasized the cen-tral role of districts in maintaining a focus on equity. She conducted a casestudy of a Texas district that had completely eliminated achievement gapsbetween and among racial and economic student groups on the Texas stateachievement tests. Hernandez framed her analysis of the district’s transfor-mation using four sources of theory from earlier research: organizationallearning (Senge, 1990), effective schools correlates (Edmonds, 1979;Lezotte, 1991), Total Quality Management (Deming, 1986), and FocusedEquity Practices (Skrla et al., 2000). All four sources of theory thatinformed her analysis, notably, supported the importance of foregroundingthe district goal of educational equity.

According to current research, then, districts that maintain an equity focusunderstand that a move toward equity is political, potentially contentious, andoften riddled with conflict (Rorrer, 2006). Yet to institutionalize equity, dis-tricts must “consciously or deliberately attract attention to the degree ofinequity that exists and respond to the attention of others,” (Rorrer, 2001,




p. 304). As revealed by participants in the two districts that participated in thisresearch, districts “did not foster any illusions, hide the problems, or ignorethe issues” (p. 293). Accordingly, policy makers and communities, whomaintained a degree of power and influence over decisions to allocateresources, were reminded of purpose and goals to increase equitable accessand outcomes in the district.

Moreover, inequity in policies, practices, structures, and school andstudent outcomes in the district were unveiled and made transparent. Forexample, evaluation and research, which compared the performance ofstudents based on Free and Reduced Lunch status to peers not participat-ing in the program, was conducted, posted publicly, referenced, andserved as a basis for decision making at the district and school level.Districts appeared to decide that they must increase attention to equitywhile maintaining both internal and external support for changes that willensure greater equity and that they must inform their constituents of thestatus of all students as a critical aspect of achieving this goal.Koschoreck (2003) made a similar observation about the successful dis-trict he studied. He asserted,

The district underwent the philosophical changes that brought everyone tofocus on success for all children. . . . This coming together of one mindtoward a vision of high achievement levels for all students has provided thefundamental impetus for change in Aldine ISD. (pp. 172-173)

IMPROVING ACHIEVEMENT AND ADVANCINGEQUITY: A THEORY OF DISTRICTS ASINSTITUTIONAL ACTORS IN SYSTEMIC REFORM

As evidenced by the accumulated research synthesized here, scholars whohave studied districts over the past two decades have framed their studies invaried ways. Some have viewed districts in the context of organizationaltheory and have focused on structural and functional characteristics of districts(e.g. Corcoran et al., 2001; Firestone, 1989b; Floden et al., 1988; Petersonet al., 1987). Others have approached the study of districts primarily as a studyof district leaders, focusing on superintendents’ or central office actions in thework of reforming their districts (e.g., Honig, 2004; Kirp & Driver, 1995;Mayo & McIntyre, 2003; Petersen, 1999; Pitner & Ogawa, 1981). Still othershave viewed instruction as the prime dimension of interest and have con-centrated specifically on what districts do to influence teaching and learning(e.g., Desimone et al., 2002; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Another group of




scholars has taken a more eclectic approach and has produced checklists ofcharacteristics of “successful” districts (e.g., Cawelti, 2001; CPRE, 1998;Joftus et al., 2000; Shields & Knapp, 1997). More recently, a few researchershave focused specifically on the educational equity dimension of districtimprovement efforts (e.g., Rorrer, 2001; Skrla et al., 2000).

Individually, these previous lines of research have been informative. Yetoverall, they leave us without an understanding of the complexity intrinsicin district-level, systemic reform. Here, we shift our discussion to the ele-vated 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 sys-temic reform. The four roles (i.e., providing instructional leadership, reori-enting the organizational structure and processes, establishing policycoherence, and maintaining an equity focus) identified in on our narrativesynthesis of previous research are pivotal to this theory of the districts’ rolein systemic reform poised to improve achievement and advance equity.Finally, we propose a research agenda that aims at exploring the complex-ity of the district as an institutional actor in educational reform.

Districts as Institutional Actors

Clearly, given the research synthesis presented above, districts domatter. The subsequent question for us, then, is this: Based on the aboveresearch synthesis, how could districts serve in reform to improveachievement and advance equity systemwide? We believe an answer tothis question lies in the consideration of the district as an institutionalactor and how they can enact their roles identified here to achieve sys-temic reform. Cahn’s (1995) differentiation between institutional actorsand noninstitutional actors helps illustrate our depiction of districts asinstitutional actors. An institutional actor, he noted, influences an institu-tion (such as education) from within, particularly by influencing thedevelopment 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 ofinstitutional logics” (Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000, p. 20).19

That is, their role in improving achievement and advancing equity, in thisinstance, is connected to their collective identity and their ability to cre-ate change by altering institutional scripts that tacitly and explicitly gov-ern behavior of organizational members.




As the previous synthesis of extant literature indicates, researchers fre-quently use the superintendent, midlevel administrators, or the school board asproxies for the district. For the purpose of the following discussion, we use dis-trict to represent an organized collective constituted by the superintendent, theboard, the central office-level administration, and principals, who collectivelyserve as a network and critical link to uniting the district and the schools inways to both develop and implement solutions to identified problems (Land,2002; McLaughlin, 1990). Similarly, Spillane (2000) also considered abroader definition of the district. He noted that district leadership is made upof “those district administrators, curriculum specialists, and lead teachers who,by virtue of formal position or informal role, are actively involved in develop-ing and implementing district policies, particularly in response to state andnational standards, about mathematics education” (p. 142). Individually, thesuperintendent, the board, the central office-level administration, and the prin-cipals are organizational actors.20 Collectively, however, they constitute aninstitutional actor bound by a web of interrelated roles, responsibilities, andrelationships. As such, the district has the power, authority, and influence toprovide 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 becausethey are an organized collective.21 Ogawa (1994) illustrated this differenti-ation and underscored our use of institutional actor to characterize schooldistricts, as defined previously. As he explained, institutional actors “tendto be organizations, because organizations rather than individuals possessthe resources that are needed to support a campaign of institutionalization.In addition, these actors are often linked by networks, which facilitate coor-dination and regulation of members” (p. 545).22 The networks and relation-ships between actors within the district contribute to their collective nature.In turn, the district, as an institutional actor, is able to amplify the mannerin which it enacts the four roles previously identified to achieve systemicreform. Consequently, as Morgeson and Hofmann (1999) supported, thedistrict represents more than “the sum of all individual actions.”23 Theynoted, “As interaction occurs within larger groups of individuals, a struc-ture of collective action emerges that transcends the individuals who con-stitute the collective” (p. 252). Similarly, Wong and Jain’s (1999)discussion of a “unitary actor model” reveals how the actions of institu-tional actors may be further accelerated. In a unitary actor model, one insti-tutional actor joins with other institutional actors to address particularissues or concerns. In their research, they described how institutionalactors, such as the city mayor and the school system, formed a unitary actor




model and came together to “focus on programmatic strategies thatenhance[d] the outcome performance of the schools and on managementimprovement, which increase[d] the cost-efficiency of the system” (p. 218).

The role of districts as institutional actors in educational reform isfurther augmented by their institutional status generally. For instance,Salisbury (1984) noted that “highly complex organizations,” such as dis-tricts, can be constructed as an institution.24 Our distinction of districts asan institution is rooted further in the work of Selznick (1957). He notedthat an institution is “a natural product of social needs and pressures—aresponsive, adaptive organism” (p. 5) that serves a purpose beyond that ofthe administrative organization. In doing so, Selznick explained, an insti-tution moves beyond the “formal rules and objectives” (p. 5) that charac-terize an administrative organization by becoming “infused with value”(p. 40). The assertion that districts carry an institutional status, then, iscomplementary to our contention of districts as institutional actors.Arguably, this added dimension is what provides districts the power andleverage to create change that reflects equity as a value, as illustrated inthe fourth role identified by the narrative synthesis. Consequently, we seethat districts are then positioned to serve as more than “hosts” for reform,which they are so often identified as, or simply the “legal and fiscalagents responsible for carrying out states’ educational obligations”(Sipple & Killeen, 2004, p. 462).

Instead, districts’ existence as institutional actors with institutionalcapacity permits the district to extend its roles and function beyond imple-mentation to expansion and escalation of reforms tethered to a value com-mitment, such as equity. Given this conceptualization, districts successfulwith increasing achievement for all students and advancing equity willmaintain an equity focus, wherein equity becomes both a defining, explicitvalue and a desired outcome. And this value commitment, which again isconsistent with the district’s institutional role, becomes a tipping point forchange. That is, as it becomes central and embedded in the culture, thisvalue is the impetus and foundation for shifting norms, policies, and struc-tures and for helping organizational members determine how they “inter-pret their tasks, devise solutions, and make decisions” (Boin, 2004, p. 4) inways that contrast to an inequitable status quo. Consequently, as an institu-tional actor with institutional capacity, the district can execute the fourroles—providing instructional leadership, reorienting the organization,establishing policy coherence, and maintaining an equity focus—in a waythat assures the defining value (equity) is reflected authentically (Selznick,1957). In the following discussion, we build upon previous research and




illustrate how the district as an institutional actor may enact the four rolesfor systemic reform aimed at improving achievement and advancing equity.

Districts as Institutional Actors in SystemicReform: Variable Coupling and Nonlinearity

To date, the quest to capture organizational change has (mis)led manyscholars to (mis)represent this phenomenon using cause-effect relationshipsneatly presented in simple graphic forms (Piehl, 1974). So eager to havefound the key to unlocking the mysteries of an organization, organizationalscholars have documented and frequently essentialized the elements neces-sary for substantive and core changes to occur. As a result, linear explana-tions have dominated the discourse, as well as expectations for practice.25

Again, our synthesis of previous research indicates that districts servein 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 illustratehow we propose districts as institutional actors may engage in these four


EstablishingPolicy Coherence:

Mediating Federal, State, andLocal Policy &

Aligning Resources

Maintaining anEquity Focus:

Owning Past Inequities &Foregrounding Equity

Reorienting theOrganization:

Refining OrganizationalStructure and Process &

Changing the DistrictCulture

Providing InstructionalLeadership:

Generating Will &Building Capacity

Interact Relationship

Figure 1. Districts as Institutional Actors in Improving Achievement and AdvancingEquity: A Theory of Systemic Reform



essential roles purposefully to create reform aimed at improving achieve-ment and advancing equity systemically. Importantly, this framework isuseful in illuminating what we believe has been a vulnerability in the pre-vious research on districts—a lack of focus on the interdependence andinterrelatedness of these roles.

The proposed theory for districts as institutional actors in systemicreform presented here was developed using the processes described byDubin (1976) and Weick (1995) combined with an inductive analysis ofextant research on districts.26 As Dubin noted, “A theory tries to make senseout of the observable world by ordering the relationships among elementsthat constitute the theorist’s focus of attention” (p. 26). To determine rela-tionships between roles that have not previously been explored fully, wereturned to prior research and followed Weick’s plan for developing theory.He explained that theorizing entails “activities like abstracting, generaliz-ing, relating, selecting, explaining, synthesizing, and idealizing” (p. 389).Therefore, the proposed framework represents both what we currentlyknow from extant research on districts as well as the ideal for positioningdistricts as institutional actors in educational reform to increase achieve-ment and advance equity.

Our argument here is grounded in three assumptions. First, we believe thata key to understanding the roles districts serve in improving student achieve-ment and advancing equity lies in deliberately setting aside our longings fora precise, “one best solution” and abandoning random, isolated efforts to sys-temic educational reform and, instead, attending to what can be learned fromthe complexity and adaptability of districts as well as the interdependence ofthe roles they enact. Second, districts have an indispensable role, as institu-tional actors, in educational reform. Purkey and Smith’s (1985) description ofdistricts as “‘nested layers’ (Purkey & Smith, 1983) in which actions at thehigher layers can help determine conditions in lower layers” (p. 376) capturesthis notion. Third, the proposed theory of districts as institutional actors insystemic reform is predicated on the idea that change at a system level is non-linear and complex and that their roles and efforts must be variably coupled.These assumptions underlying our framework are strengthened byThorngate’s (1976) assertion that it is impossible for a theory of social behav-ior to be general, accurate, and simple simultaneously (pp. 134-135).

Variable Coupling

To fully explicate the variability in coupling, nonlinearity, and complex-ity necessary to enact a theory of districts as institutional actors in systemic




reform aimed at improving achievement and advancing equity, we buildupon Weick’s (1976) work of loosely and tightly coupled systems. Thiswork is particularly relevant with respect to how it exemplifies districts’ability to both empower and exert control as a complex system while per-forming the four roles.

Clearly, the depiction of educational organizations (i.e., districts andschools) as loosely coupled systems has been institutionalized while theprospect for tight coupling has been diminished. Yet a tension remains inresearch and practice between centralization and decentralization of powerand influence and between tightly coupled and loosely coupled systems.Some scholars (Crowson & Morris, 1985; Cuban, 1984) have addressed theneed to consider an alternative to the view of schools and districts asloosely coupled systems. Cuban (1984), for instance, demonstrated this ten-sion in his description of districts 20 years ago. He noted that many districtsdo 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 toachieve a match among curriculum objectives, promotion policies, districtgoals, and test items. Or in the overhaul of staff evaluation, a school boardmember or central office administrator will ask if the new instruments andprocedures should be keyed in to district goals for student performance, thusforging another linkage. Though serendipity plays a part, the drift towardorganizational tautness is unmistakable. (p. 134)

With Cuban’s example in mind, we find Weick’s invitation to considerthat “a tight coupling in one part of the system can occur only if there isloose coupling in another part of the system” and that “it may be the pat-tern of couplings that produces the observed outcomes” (p. 10) as signif-icant and relevant. In particular, this pattern of coupling to which Weickreferred provides the foundation for our argument for a variably coupledsystem. In fact, the ability to variably couple the four roles distinguishesour proposed theory of how districts could successfully systemic reform,particularly reform aimed at improving achievement and advancingequity. Moreover, the variability in coupling between roles permits dis-tricts to be more responsive to their political, social, and economicalcontexts.

Lotto (1983) has been one of the few scholars to emphasize variablecoupling in an approach similar to ours. In fact, her depiction of variablecoupling clarifies its application to our framework for districts as institu-tional actors in reform. She explained,




In a variably coupled world, effectiveness is related not to achieving a uni-form level of coupling, but to achieving variability and matching couplednessto events, elements, and participants. Thus, from this perspective the effec-tive organization is flexible and adaptive, able to sustain both tight and loosecouplings as demanded by the situation. (p. 374)

She added that effectiveness was dependent on diversity of couplings, con-gruence between expected and actual couplings, and leadership flexibilityconsistent with the coupling required. Given her explanation, we see that sim-ply relying on a loosely coupled system, which is marked by its inherent flex-ibility and adaptability (Weick, 2001), is problematic. Take, for instance,districts where equity has not been a priority. In these districts, characteristicssuch as flexibility and adaptability are potentially detrimental, particularly tothe system’s ability to coordinate, promote, diffuse, and institutionalizeefforts aimed at advancing equity.

Selznick (1957) further illustrated the necessity for variance in how theroles of districts may be coupled when educational equity is an explicitgoal. He emphasized,

When top leadership cannot depend on adherence to its viewpoint, formalcontrols are required, if only to take measures that will increase homogeneity.On the other hand, when the premises of official policy are well understoodand widely accepted, centralization is more readily dispensable. (p. 113)

More recent research (Rorrer, 2001) indicated that districts successful inincreasing equity maintained a similar philosophy: Increased flexibility(loose coupling) must be accompanied by increased accountability (tight cou-pling) for desired outcomes. Selznick’s conclusion provides a point of refer-ence for districts whose aim is to advance equity. If equity is not a collectivevalue, 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 cen-tralization and tighten control between roles to maintain this focus andachieve this outcome. Peters and Waterman (1982) also supported the notionthat “tight control over core values allows loosely coupled systems to surviveand cohere through idiosyncratic local adaptations” (Weick, 1995, p. 113).

Obviously, there are dangers to increased centralization and tight cou-pling. For instance, these two characteristics are associated with authoritarianleadership 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 tightcoupling as their primary means of facilitating reform. He observed, “Districtofficials pursuing policies that fasten individual schools snugly to the central




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 high-lighted by the role to establish coherence. That is, snugly (or arbitrarily) uti-lizing tight coupling extinguishes the advantage of local adaptiveness.

Nonlinearity

Over time, support for considering the principle of nonlinearity in changehas 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 pre-viously identified scholars indicated that a shift from linearity to nonlinearityrequires a concurrent shift between simplistic and parsimonious explanationsto explanations that encapsulate the complexity and interrelatedness inherentin the system. For example, in a nonlinear system, change is often circular(Allport, 1924, in Weick, 1979). Our proposed framework for systemicreform to improve achievement and advance equity reflects these principles.The complexity becomes obvious in characteristics such as elements thatoverlap multiple roles, similar to those evident in our synthesis of extant lit-erature. Whereas some may view this as a weakness in design, we argueinstead that elements that overlap provide evidence of the framework’sstrength to absorb the complexity necessary for educational reform for equity.

Nonlinearity is a necessary element of the application of variable cou-pling to our model and its subsequent potential effectiveness, particularly toimprove achievement and increase equity systemically. The feedback loopscreate opportunities for practices, policies, or structures in one role to bealtered, specifically increasing alignment and coherence, as a result ofchanges the other roles. The double interacts (Weick, 1979), or feedbackloops, promote reciprocal and multidirectional changes in the roles. As aresult, coevolution (Hoffman & Riley, 2002; Lewin & Volberda, 1999)among the roles occurs and further reinforces the district as an institutionalactor in systemic reform. In particular, systemic reform becomes dependenton how the district as an organized collective (rather than relying solely onthe efforts of the superintendent) enacts the interrelated roles to achieve thedesired outcomes. Daft and Wiginton (1979) explained it this way:

Another source of complexity is that boundaries between some variables areindefinite. In human groups, variables may be fused together in varyingdegrees so that variables do not have clear identities. Moreover, variables areclustered in ways which we do not understand. Rather than a single causehaving a single effect, changing one element in such a cluster affects thewhole conglomerate. (p. 186)




Anderson (1999) further explained the “value added” aspect of nonlinear-ity in a complex system. He concluded,

In nonlinear systems, intervening to change one or two parameters of a smallamount can drastically change the behavior of the whole system, and thewhole can be very different from the sum of the parts. Complex systemschange inputs to outputs in a nonlinear way because their components inter-act with one another via a web of feedback loops. (p. 217)

For illustrative purposes, changes in maintaining an equity focus influenceschanges in instructional leadership, which, in turn, influences subsequentactions to maintain an equity focus, reorient the organization, or establishpolicy coherence. Consequently, the roles coevolve with one another.Weick (1979) explained,

When we say that an organization acts we mean to emphasize that doubleinteracts, not solitary acts, are the raw materials that are assembled intoprocesses. We also mean to emphasize that it is the assemblage, the patternof interacts, that determines the outcomes—not the personal qualities ofsingle individuals. (p. 35)

Weick’s example demonstrates how the nonlinearity complements the vari-able coupling of our proposed framework for districts in systemic reform.

The nonlinearity characteristic of the system promotes an “almost com-pletely constant” system of change.27 As small successive changes can resultin larger cumulative effects (Hoffman & Riley, 2002), change occurs “suffi-cient in scope to challenge teachers and kindle interest, but not so ambitiousthat they required too much too soon” (McLaughlin, 1990, p. 12). Changecan occur as the districts perpetually scan (collect data), interpret (give datameaning), and learn (take action) (Daft & Weick, 1984). As the districts’ sen-sitivity to its alignment or dissonance among its roles with its value commit-ments and intended goals occurs, changes become more acute andsimultaneous. Moreover, the feedback loop in our framework is an assetwith the variable coupling suggested earlier and positions this model to haveapplicability in multiple settings (see Whetten, 1989) because of its sensitiv-ity and responsiveness to the districts’ surrounding context.

THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH ON DISTRICTS

The role of districts as institutional actors we have proposed remains tobe confirmed (or denied). To date, researchers and practitioners alike seemto have been more content with recommendations for isolated practices




within discrete reform areas (e.g., mathematics) or roles (e.g., instructionalleadership) than eager to seek a coherent model for how a district is likelyto have the greatest influence and impact on increasing achievement for allstudents and advancing equity through systemic reform. In addition, webelieve the field would be well served to avoid the “single solution” natureof inquiry that has been characteristic of a large portion of previous inquiryon districts. Consistent with the framework for systemic reform presented,we suggest that future research explore the complexity, interrelatedness,and nonlinearity of the district’s roles and the ways that together these rolesposition the district as an institutional actor in reform.

As stated previously, we do not anticipate that all changes to be made inthe four domains of our proposed model for district reform would be rapidor permanent. Instead, we propose that changes in the district would becharacterized as a gestalt, or by an indivisible nature (Schulman, 1975), thatleads to continuous refinement of actions through double interacts of scan-ning, interpretation, and learning (Daft & Weick, 1984). We anticipate thatthis type of change requires educational leaders to alter their conceptualiza-tion of how and why changes should occur and instead, as Schulman (1975)suggested, “overcome thinking small.” As Schulman explained, overcom-ing thinking small “is a major necessity in developing the imagination andreceptivity closely associated with organizational innovation” (p. 1357).The type of innovation that we have described here also requires a shift inhow researchers explore the district’s comprehensive and collective role. Tothis end, we now suggest a research agenda poised to test the proposedframework and its applicability to the district enacting its four roles as aninstitutional actor, particularly aimed at improving achievement andadvancing equity. This line of inquiry will provide empirical evidence tofurther our understanding and refine our knowledge of districts as institu-tional 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, andeconomic context of districts. Whetten (1989) provided a rationale for lon-gitudinal and comparative case studies of districts that vary in their compo-sition, contexts, and efforts. He explained,

In the process of testing the ideas [theory] in various setting, we discover theinherent limiting conditions. In the absence of this breadth of experimentalevidence, we must be realistic regarding the extent of a theorist’s foreknowl-edge of all the possible limitations on a theory’s applicability. (p. 492)




Piehl (1974) noted the shift necessary by researchers. In particular, heexplained that this requires a researcher to

collect a much larger amount of data than he has traditionally collected in thepast. Second he must engage in an open-minded search for indications of thenature of the underlying relationships, avoiding the simplistic assumptionsthat tend to minimize effort. (p. 765)

Consequently, expanding future research on districts as institutional actorsusing these type of case studies will permit us to explore the complexityand nonlinearity inherent in the proposed theory of districts in systemicreform. This research requires a broader base of data on districts; one thatincludes both qualitative and quantitative evidence of leadership, organiza-tional, and policy efforts and associated outcomes of these efforts.

Next, we suggest that future inquiry into the role of districts, particularlythose that utilize longitudinal and comparative case studies, explore explicitlythe variable coupling between and among the four essential roles of districtsas institutional actors, which we have described. Specifically, research isneeded into “the identity, separateness, and boundaries of the elements cou-pled” (Weick, 1976, p. 4). How do the four roles converge and under whatconditions do they converge to improve achievement and advance equity? Asroles coevolve, or develop in relation to one another (Hoffman & Riley,2002), how do their interrelatedness and interactions produce exponentialeffects associated with the proposed model of change? Research on how thefour roles coevolve in this framework requires attention to the nonlinearity,feedback, and multidirectionality of change in the proposed model. How doroles overlap in practice? In fact, earlier work by Meyer (2002) and Ogawaand Scribner (2002) forecasted this proposition. For instance, as Meyernoted, “There are developments in education theory and practice that point tothe emergence of hybrid models of organizations that capture the advantagesof centralization and coordination produced by hierarchy while attempting toharness the advantages or more decentralized organizational structures” (p. 518).This particular line of inquiry might reveal how district roles can be tightlycoupled, decoupled, and loosely coupled (Orton & Weick, 1990; Weick,1976), and under what circumstances, to improve achievement and advanceequity. The goal of these initial areas of future research is, though, not todelineate specific patterns or emphatic recommendations of “how to” becomea successful district; instead, these data would help illuminate general pat-terns of relationships (Daft & Wiginton, 1979).

Furthermore, as Morel and Ramanujam (1999) noted, “Organizations arenow routinely viewed as dynamic systems of adaptation and evolution that




contain multiple parts which interact with one another and the environment”(p. 278). Despite this acknowledgement and much speculation, very little isknown about how the external environment specifically influences the districtan institutional actor that is enacting the four roles interdependently. Giventhis, we suggest that future research further explore how districts negotiateexternal and internal influences (Rorrer, 2006), such as macro-level changes(Greenwood & Hinings, 1993), and how these influences affect the four rolesconcurrently and responsibilities of the districts in improving instruction andadvancing equity. Consistent with this suggestion, for example, would beresearch that focused on how districts develop a “critical mass” amongdiverse internal and external stakeholders to support (i.e. actively worktoward) these efforts. Wong and Jain’s (1999) research on unitary actormodels provides another point of interest in this arena. For instance, how domultiple institutional actors and even noninstitutional actors converge to helpor hinder district reform efforts? Moreover, as districts begin to foregroundequity, how do districts negotiate the change process? After all, a change inthe explicit value commitment to one that maintains an equity focus wouldlikely 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, sometimesconforming but often negotiating, protesting, resisting, and hiding from thedictates of regulatory and symbolic systems” (p. xxi) that have perpetuatedinequities in education? In particular, how does this negotiation affect the dis-trict’s enactment of their four essential roles in reform towards improvinginstruction and advancing equity?

Finally, to fully understand and appreciate the potential of districts asinstitutional actors to disrupt inequity and serve in roles that, instead, pro-mote equity and social justice, future research must be addressed from andembedded in multiple, critical perspectives and broad methodologicalapproaches. Multiple perspectives and approaches are necessary, as Van deVen and Poole (2005) explained, to get “a thorough understanding of thebuzzing, blooming, and confusing dynamics often observed in organiza-tional changes” (p. 1396). We recognize that this suggestion requires con-sideration of the influence of the broader social, political, and economicalcontext of districts adapt, as noted in the previous research recommendation.After all, as DiMaggio (1995) noted, “The reception of a theory is shaped bythe extent to which a theory resonates with the cultural presuppositions of thetime 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




through proxies (e.g., achievement scores, changed cultures, alternative poli-cies and structures) as powerful evidence of improved instruction and equity.Yet much of the previous research on district efforts has been void of theimplications of leadership, organizational, and policy initiatives for educa-tional equity and social justice. This void is evident frequently in the neutralstance (i.e., language, analytical frameworks, description of findings) takentoward district efforts. As a result, this research does not attend to the com-plexity of inequity and fails to address whether current efforts actually resultin 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 havebeen applied thus far to the study of districts. For instance, critical analysis(Ball, 1994) is needed of how districts center educational equity and socialjustice in providing instructional leadership, reorienting the organization, orestablishing policy coherence. We can direct our attention to the research ofscholars such who are among those scholars who as guides in this endeavor.Although a critical race theory (CRT) (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) per-spective has been used increasingly to analyze other aspects of educationsuch as Chicana/o student experiences in higher education (Delgado-Bernal,2002; Villalpando, 2003) and more recently the politics of education (López,2003), it has not been used to explore the districts’ institutional role, as it hasbeen described here. Yet as Parker and Lynn (2002) asserted, “Linking CRTto education can indeed foster the connections of theory to practice andactivism on issues related to race” (p. 18). Thus, we suggest that futureresearch further utilize critical perspectives in analyzing districts as institu-tional actors in improving instruction and advancing equity.


Appendix APublished Sources Included in Narrative Synthesis (N == 81)

Peer Reviewed/ Books/Book Policy or Research OtherRefereed Articles Chapters Center Report

52 4 16 10

Empirically Based Conceptual Synthesis of Research Other

63 12 3 4




Appendix BNarrative Synthesis References by Type of Article (N == 81)

Types of Articles

Synthesis Empirically Based Conceptual of Research Other

Rorrer & Skrla (2005) Berman (1986) Knapp (1997) Murphy (1988)(review)

Skrla, Scheurich, & Berne & Stiefel Land (2002) Purkey & Smith Johnson (2000) (1994) (1985) (review)

Skrla & Scheurich Cuban (1984) Marsh (2000) Reavis (1946) (2001) (historical)

Blasé & Blasé (2000) Daresh (1991) Lezotte (1991)(consultantmaterials)

Bredeson (1996) Elmore (1993)Bryk (1999) Greenfield (1987)Cawelti (2001) Honig & Hatch

(2004)Clune (1994) López (2003)Corcoran, Fuhrman, Lugg (2003)

& Belcher (2001)Consortium for Policy Odden & Clune

Research in Education (1998)(CPRE; 1998)

Crowson & Morris Rodriguez (2004)(1985)

Desinone, Porter, Björk (1993)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)

(Continued)




Appendix B (continued)

Types of Articles

Synthesis Empirically Based Conceptual of Research Other

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)




Appendix CNarrative Synthesis References by Source

Source of Article

Book/Book Policy or ResearchPeer-Reviewed Article Chapter Center Report Other

Bredeson (1996) Berman (1986) Skrla, Scheurich, Corcoran, Fuhrman,& Johnson (2000) & Belcher (2001)

(Phi Delta Kappan)Rorrer & Skrla (2005) Elmore (1993) Bryk (1999) Edmonds (1979)

(EducationalLeadership)

Skrla & Scheurich Fuller & Johnson Cawelti (2001)— Hernandez (2003)(2001) (2004) National Staff (Dissertation)

Development Council

Berne & Stiefel (1994) Greenfield (1987) Consortium for Mayo & McIntyrePolicy Research (2003) (UCEAin Education Paper)(CPRE; 1998)

Björk (1993) Elmore & Burney McLaughlin (1992)(1997)—National (Educational

College for School Leadership)Leadership

Blasé & Blasé (2000) Hannaway & Kimball Pajak & Glickman(1997)—The Urban (1989) (EducationalInstitute Leadership)

Clune (1994) Hannaway & Kimball Rorrer (2001) (1998)—U.S. (Dissertation)Department of Education

Crowson & Morris Joftus et al. (2000)— Shields & Knapp(1985) The McKenzie (1997) (Phi Delta

Group, Inc. Kapan)Cuban (1984) Marsh (2000) Lezotte (1991)Daresh (1991) Massell (2000)Desinone, Porter, McLaughlin &

Birman, Garet, Talbert (2003)& Yoon (2002)

Driscoll, Halcoussis, McLaughlin & & Svorny (2003) Talbert (1993)

Firestone (1989a) Oakes (1987)Firestone (1989b) Price, Ball, & Luks

(1995)—National Center for Research on Teacher Learning

(Continued)




Appendix C (continued)

Source of Article

Book/Book Policy or ResearchPeer-Reviewed Article Chapter Center Report Other

Floden et al. (1988) Roza & Hill (2004)Hallinger & Heck (1996) Togneri & Anderson

(2003)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)López (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)



NOTES

1. Here we consider systemic reform similar to Knapp’s (1997) explanation. He providedthis description of systemic reform: “a class of policy strategies that go by various other namesincluding alignment (Hill, 1995), coherent policies (Fuhrman, 1993) and standards basedreform (McLaughlin and Shepard, 1995; Sykes & Plastric, 1993)” (p. 228).

2. The authors wish to acknowledge others who share this perspective, many of whosework 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 thathave participated in our individual research projects.

3. For a comparative analysis of other institutional actors in educational reform, seeTimar’s (1997) analysis of the state education agencies and their institutional role and Ogawa’s(1994) analysis of policy actors, teacher union actors, academic actors as institutional actorsin school-based management. Frequently, terms such as institutional agents and institutionalentrepreneurs are used synonymously with institutional actors (Ogawa, 1994; Peters, 1999).

4. Although our own research focuses explicitly on increasing equity, this is not necessar-ily the primary goal of district reforms to date. However, we believe the conceptual frameworkproposed, because it is grounded in the districts’ overt role in infusing and institutionalizingequity as a foundation for reform efforts, has the potential to redefine how we consider the roleof 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 ofthe school choice and charter school movement.

6. Popay et al. (2006) provided the most comprehensive guidance available on using nar-rative synthesis. Their guidance document was developed by authors who conducted an“extensive review of methodological literature” (p. 67) in an effort to “increase the trans-parency 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 localassessments, or evidence collected for local or state accountability systems, whereas many ofthe qualitative studies depended primarily on retrospective reconstructions of district changetold 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 thatcould be termed effective or even improving is highly problematic due to the large variety andendless volatility of assessment and accountability systems that yield various kinds of dataabout schools and student performance in various states (Linn, Baker, & Bettenbenner, 2002).

8. The seven correlates of effective schools research are clear school mission, high expec-tations for success, instructional leadership, frequent monitoring of student progress, opportu-nity to learn and student time on task, safe and orderly environment, and home-schoolrelations (Edmonds, 1979).

9. Other research expanded the use of effective schools research to study districts includ-ing Fullan’s (1985) study of its implications for change strategies and processes; Purkey andSmith’s (1985) consideration of its implications on district policy; Harris’s (1988) discussionof the application of effective schools research augmented by local initiatives of constant inno-vation, autonomy, decentralization, and planned public relations; and Firestone’s (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 instructionalleadership.




11. This finding is congruent with our position that districts as institutional actors main-tain a degree of interest and agency that must be considered beyond the typical institutionalargument. The latter is particularly true for the new institutionalism, which argues that institu-tions respond when their legitimacy is threatened.

12. Hannaway and Kimball (1997) conducted a large survey of districts (N = 2,700) andalso conducted interviews with state officials to determine the understanding of Goals 2000,Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and implementation of federal programsrelative 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 thequestion of district fiscal policy, specifically how district instructional spending and per pupilexpenditures relate to student achievement. Addressing what they noted as methodologicalshortcomings in Wenglisky’s prior study, Huang and Yu extracted from and merged NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math performance data, Common Core Data—from 1990, 1992, and 1996 and 1989-1990, 1991-1992, and 1995-1996, respectively—andlocal sociodemographic data to conduct a two-level hierarchical modeling. Provocatively, thefindings from their research suggested that increases in instructional funding, relative to thevariables 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 stateof adequacy” (p. 17). These concepts address whether the system has the inputs and processesnecessary for all students and schools to meet performance standards.

17. Alexander (2005) concluded that “the question faced by policymakers who advocatemoving toward an adequacy framework for funding schools is how to ensure that the require-ment 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 localschool boards, state legislatures, state education agencies, Congress, and the courts. Parents,the media, political parties, and interest groups are among the noninstitutional actors who exerttheir 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 meaningto their activities” (p. 20).

20. See Honig (2004) for a discussion of central office-level administrators as organiza-tional actors.

21. As stated in the introduction to this article, districts are institutional actors. Examplesof organizational actors in districts include a superintendent, a principal, or a teacher.

22. Ogawa (1994) described the role of institutional actors (policy actors, teacher unionactors, 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 institutionalactors, or vice versa. In fact, in much of the research on organizational analysis that uses insti-tutional 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 insti-tutional actors, we feel it is worthwhile to discern the difference. Certainly, most are familiarwith the use of the term institution to mean rules and structures that govern behavior or estab-lish “the way things are done.” Scott (1994) has also provided a definition that resonates with




many organizational and institutional theorists. He defined institutions as “symbolic andbehavioral systems containing representational, constitutive, and normative rules together withregulatory mechanisms that define a common meaning system and give rise to distinctiveactors and action routines” (p. 68). Whereas this definition is highly appropriate for ascertain-ing what districts may institutionalize, these definitions do not reflect our framing of districtsas institutions and institutional actors.

25. Linear models of change should be avoided; they are both unwarranted and mislead-ing, according to Piehl (1974, p. 766).

26. Consistent with the activities described by Dubin and Weick in this part of our discus-sion, we concur with Mintzberg (1979), who noted, “data don’t generate theory—onlyresearchers do that” (p. 584).

27. “Almost completely constant” has been used by astronomers to explain why we do notfeel 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 regulationof education (pp. 46-62). Philadelphia: Falmer.

Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1994). Measuring equity at the school level. Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 16, 405-421.

Björk, L. G. (1993). Effective schools-effective superintendents: The emerging instructionalleadership role. Journal of School Leadership, 3(3), 246-259.

Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on howprincipals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of EducationalAdministration, 38(2), 130-141.

Boin, R. A. (with Christensen, T.). (2004, September). Reconsidering leadership and institu-tions in the public sector: A question of design? Study Group Public Sector Leadership,EGPA Annual Convention, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Boyd, W. L. (2000). The “R’s of school reform” and the politics of reforming or replacingpublic schools. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 225-252.

Bredeson, P. V. (1996). Superintendent’s roles in curriculum development and instructionalleadership: Instructional visionaries, collaborators, supporters, and delegators. Journal ofSchool 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 Chicago’s experience with decentralization. InI. D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 1999 (pp. 67-99). Washington,DC: Brookings Institution.




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 com-

prehensive 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 instructionalimprovement. 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, andpractice 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 IntoPractice, 30(2), 109-112.

Delgado-Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory and critical raced-gen-dered 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 devel-opment 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. ThePublic Interest, 77, 77-95.

Driscoll, D., Halcoussis, D., & Svorny, S. (2003). School district size and student perfor-mance. Economics of Education Review, 22, 193-201.

Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook ofindustrial 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 andinstructional improvement in community school district #2, New York City. New York:National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future and the Commission for PolicyResearch in Education.

Finn, C. (1991). We must take charge: Our schools and our future. New York: Free Press.




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. EducationalEvaluation 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 ofEducation, 66(3), 5-18.

Fullan, M. (1985). Change progress and strategies at the local level. Elementary SchoolJournal, 85(3), 391-421.

Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 420–423.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 organizationalinterventions to improve the management of depression in primary care. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, 289(23), 3145-3151.

Greenfield, W. (1987). Moral imagination and interpersonal competence: Antecedents toinstructional 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 ofarchetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052-1081.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: Areview 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 isn’t always bad: School district size, poverty, andstandards-based reform (Contract EA9405301). Washington, DC: Planning andEvaluation Service of the U.S. Department of Education.

Harris, J. J. (1988). A districtwide application of the effective schools research. Journal ofNegro Education, 57(3), 292-306.

Hernandez, C. F. (2003). Eliminating the achievement gap: The study of one Texas school dis-trict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Hoffman, M., & Riley, J. (2002). The science of political science: Linearity or complexity indesigning social inquiry. New Political Science, 24(2), 303-320.

Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrator’s rolesand capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 39(3), 292-338.

Honig, M. I. (2004). Where’s the “up” in bottom-up reform? Educational Policy, 18(4), 527-561.Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage mul-

tiple, 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 March2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n38/

Jacobson, S. L. (1986). Effective superintendents of small, rural districts. Journal of Rural andSmall Schools, 2(2), 17-21.

Jensen, L. A., & Allen, M. N. (1996). Metasynthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative HealthResearch, 6, 553-560.




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: TheMcKenzie Group, Inc.

King, R. A., Swanson, A. D., & Sweetland, S. R. (2005, February 21). Designing financestructures 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 oflocalism. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 589-612.

Koschoreck, J. W. (2001). Accountability and educational equity in the transformation of anurban district. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 284-304.

Knapp, M. (1997). Between systemic reforms and mathematics and science classrooms: Thedynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of EducationalResearch, 67(2), 227-266.

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. TeachersCollege Record, 97(1), 47-69.

Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation tostudents’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229-278.

Landford H., & Wyckoff, J. (1995). Where has the money gone? An analysis of school districtspending in New York. Education Finance Research Consortium, 17(2), 195-218.

Lewin, A., & Volberda, H. W. (1999). Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for researchon 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: Implicationsof requirements of the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” Educational Researcher,31(6), 3-26.

López, G. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspec-tive. 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 pol-itics 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 therelationship 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: Highstake tests v. low stake tests. Paper presented at the University Council for EducationalAdministration, Portland, OR.

Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitativeevidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of HealthServices 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 andmicro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.




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 chal-lenges 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 schoolreform. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Meyer, H. D. (2002). From “loose coupling” to “tight management”? Making sense of thechanging landscape in management and organizational theory. Journal of EducationalAdministration, 40(6), 515-520.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). An emerging strategy of “direct” research. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 24(4), 582-589.

Morel, B., & Ramanujam, R. (1999). Through the looking glass of complexity: The dynamicsof 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 ManagementReview, 24(2), 249-265.

Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study ofinstructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 117-139.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1986). The superintendent as instructional leader: Findings fromeffective 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 renova-tion. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(3), 157-177.

Ogawa, R. (1994). The institutional sources of educational reform: The case of school-basedmanagement. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 519-548.

Ogawa, R., & Scribner, S. (2002). Leadership: Spanning the technical and institutional dimen-sions of organizations. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 576-588.

Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academyof 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). What’s race got to do with it? Critical race theory’s conflictswith and connections to qualitative research methodology and epistemology. QualitativeInquiry, 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 America’s best runcompanies. New York: Harper & Row.

Petersen, G. J. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination of fiveCalifornia superintendents. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(18). Retrieved March2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n18.html

Peterson, K. D., Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1987). Superintendents’ perception of the controland coordination of the technical core in effective school districts. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 23(1), 79-95.




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 ManagementJournal, 17(4), 760-767.

Pitner, N., & Ogawa, R. (1981). Organizational leadership: The case of the school superinten-dent. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17(2), 46-65.

Popay, J., Roberts, J., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. (2006). Guidanceon the conduct of narrative synthesis in systemic reviews. London: Economic & SocialResearch Council Methods Programme.

Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic reviewof qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 341-351.

Price, J., Ball, D., & Luks, S. (1995). Marshaling resources for reform: District administra-tors and the case of mathematics. Washington, DC: National Center for Research onTeacher Learning.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of theeffective schools literature. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 353-389.

Quantz, R., Rogers, J., & Dantley, M. (2001). Rethinking transformative leadership: Towarddemocratic 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 schoolresponsiveness to student and staff needs. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(3), 7-30.

Rorrer, A. (2001). Leadership and equity: From reproduction to reconstruction: An institu-tional 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 ofaccountability. Theory Into Practice, 44(1), 53-62.

Roza, M., & Hill, P. T. (2004). How within-district spending inequities help some schools tofail. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 201–227).Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Salisbury, R. H. (1984). Interest representation: The dominance of institutions. AmericanPolitical 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. NewYork: 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 complex-ity 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 ofChicago Press.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.




Shields, P. M., & Knapp, M. S. (1997). The promises and limits of school-based reform. PhiDelta Kapan, 79(4), 288-294.

Sipple, J., & Killeen, K. (2004). Context, capacity, and concern: A district-level analysis of theimplementation 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 dis-tricts: A report on systemic school success in four Texas school districts serving diversestudent populations. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center.

Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen(Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics ofEducation Association (pp. 233-267). Bristol, PA: Falmer.

Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of howurban school systems improve student achievement. New York: Manpower DemonstrationResearch Corporation.

Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instruc-tional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.

Spillane, J. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and thereform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141-179.

Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: Thelocal education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. EducationalEvaluation 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 perspec-tive. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 231-260.

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do toimprove instructional achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.

Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizationalchange. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377-1404.

Villalpando, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory andLatina/o critical theory analysis of a study of chicana/o students. International Journal ofQualitative Studies in Education, 16(5), 619-646.

Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. AdministrativeScience 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 2005from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n27.

Wenglinsky, H. (1997). How money matters: The effects of school district spending on acad-emic achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 221-237.

Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of ManagementReview, 14(4), 490-495.

Wong, K., & Jain, P. (1999). Newspapers as policy actors in urban school systems. UrbanAffairs Review, 35(2), 210-246.




Andrea K. Rorrer is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership andPolicy Studies and director of the Utah Education Policy Center at the University of Utah. Herresearch focuses on how district and the state leadership and policy create and sustain organi-zational and institutional change to meet the demands for better schooling, particularly how toachieve equity in access and outcomes. In addition to book chapters on home schooling, edu-cation finance, and accountability, her articles have appeared in Educational AdministrationQuarterly, Theory Into Practice, UCEA Review, and the Journal of Educational Policy. The2006 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 ofEducational 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 Educationand Human Development and professor of educational administration at Texas A&MUniversity. Prior to joining the Texas A&M faculty, she worked for 14 years as a middle schooland 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, includingaccountability, high-success districts, and women superintendents. Her published work hasappeared in numerous journals, and her most recent book is Equity Audits (forthcoming fromCorwin) with Kathryn McKenzie and Jim Scheurich.

James Joseph Scheurich is a professor and the head of the Department of EducationalAdministration and Human Resource Development at Texas A&M University. His research inter-ests 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 theeditor of a research journal, serves on editorial boards of several research journals, has writtenmore than 35 articles for research journals, and has published five books. He has served on sev-eral committees for national research organizations and is currently on the executive committeefor one. In 2006, he received the Master Professor Award from one of these national organiza-tions for helping prepare so many successful young professors in his research field, and he was a2008 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.




Documents

Districts as Institutional Actors in Educational Reform