Purpose: Pursuing a decentralized approach to system organization is increasingly popular. For example, several large districts in the U.S. have implemented portfolio-managed approaches to system organization designed to enhance school leaders’ authority by enhancing system leaders’ oversight responsibilities. But there is an open question about how organizational conditions in decentralized systems shape the ways system leadership roles do or do not support a system's organizational effectiveness. The purpose of our study was to investigate the perspectives of Catholic school system leaders in order to examine how organizational conditions in these large decentralized systems of schools shape the system leadership roles diocesan superintendents have adopted. Research Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis of data from 26 interviews with Catholic school superintendents leading a geographically diverse range of Catholic diocesan systems. Findings: We found superintendents believed the decentralized nature of their systems of schools required them to support the local reform efforts of individual schools within their portfolios rather than take on more active accountability and oversight responsibilities. Implications: These findings indicate the tendency for these system leaders to defer to local decision-making often came at the expense of these leaders’ maintaining consistent quality expectations across their systems. Ultimately, the analyses in this paper suggest the long term success of intentionally decentralized systems may rely on system leaders finding ways to counteract the tendencies identified by our participants.
AndersonE. R.ColyvasJ. A. (2021). What sticks and why? A MoRe institutional framework for education research. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 123(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300705
BrykA. S.LeeV. E.HollandP. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Harvard University Press.
4.
BulkleyK. E. (2010). Introduction: Portfolio management models in urban school reform. In BulkleyK. E.HenigJ. E.LevinH. M. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 3–26). Harvard Education Press.
5.
BulkleyK. E.HashimA. K. (2020). Portfolio management models. In BerendsM.PrimusA.SpringerM. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (2nd ed, pp. 302–316). Routledge.
6.
BulkleyK. E.MarshJ. A.StrunkK. O.HarrisD. N.HashimA. K. (2020). Challenging the one best system: The portfolio management model and urban school governance. Harvard Education Press.
7.
BulkleyK. E.TorresA. C.HashimA. K.WoodwardS.MarshJ. A.StrunkK. O.HarrisD. N. (2021). From central office to portfolio manager in three cities: Responding to the principal-agent problem. American Journal of Education, 127(4), 597–626. https://doi.org/10.1086/715034
8.
Bush-MecenasS. (2022). The business of teaching and learning:” institutionalizing equity in educational organizations through continuous improvement. American Educational Research Journal, 59(3), 461–499. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221074404
CoburnC. (2016). What’s policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency debate can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1086/685847
11.
CohenD. K.PeurachD. J.GlazerJ. L.GatesK. E.GoldinS. (2013). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. University of Chicago Press.
12.
CookT.FussellR.SimondsT. (2021). Turnover and retention of Catholic school superintendents in the United States: Averting a crisis. International Studies in Catholic Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19422539.2021.1942685
13.
DiemS.SampsonC. (2023). Goals, rhetoric, and (in)equity: The rationales behind decentralizing a large, diverse school district. Urban Education, 58(2), 191–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920908915
14.
DornerL. M.SpillaneJ. P.PustejovskyJ. (2011). Organizing for instruction: A comparative study of public, charter, and Catholic schools. Journal of Educational Change, 12(1), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-010-9147-5
15.
EdwardsD. B.Jr.DeMatthewsD. (2014). Historical trends in educational decentralization in the United States and developing countries: A periodization and comparison in the post-WWII context. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(40), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n40.2014
GamsonD. A.HodgeE. M. (2016). Education research and the shifting landscape of the American school district, 1816 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 216–249. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16670323
19.
GoldschmidtE. P.WalshM. (2013). Catholic elementary schools: What are the models?Journal of Catholic Education, 17(1), 110–134. https://doi.org/10.15365/joce.1701072013
20.
GraceG. R.O’KeefeJ. (eds.). (2007). International handbook of Catholic education: Challenges for school systems in the 21st century. Springer.
HashimA.TorresA. C.NaderJ. (2023). Is more autonomy better?: How school actors perceive school autonomy and effectiveness and the role of internal and external contingencies. Journal of Educational Change, 24(1), 183–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09439-x
HonigM. I.DeArmondM. (2010). Where’s the management in portfolio management? Conceptualizing the role of urban school district central offices in implementation. In BulkleyK. E.HenigJ. E.LevinH. M. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 195–216). Harvard Education Press.
25.
HonigM. I.RaineyL. R. (2012). Autonomy and school improvement: What do we know and where do we go from here?Educational Policy, 26(3), 465–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811417590
26.
LabareeD. (2010). Someone has to fail: The zero-sum game of public schooling. Harvard University Press.
27.
MarshJ. A.AllbrightT. N.BrownD. R.BulkleyK. E.StrunkK. O.HarrisD. N. (2021). The process and politics of educational governance change in New Orleans, Los Angeles, and denver. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 107–159. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220921475
28.
MarshJ. A.AllbrightT. N.BulkleyK. E.KennedyK. E.DhaliwalT. K. (2020). Institutional logics in Los Angeles schools: Do multiple models disrupt the grammar of schooling?American Journal of Education, 126(4), 603–651. https://doi.org/10.1086/709516
29.
MarshJ. A.StrunkK. O.BushS. (2013). Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround: Early implementation findings from the Los Angeles Public School Choice Initiative. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 498–527. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311325677
30.
MehtaJ. (2013). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. Oxford University Press.
31.
MehtaJ.DatnowA. (2020). Changing the grammar of schooling: An appraisal and a research agenda. American Journal of Education, 126(4), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1086/709960
32.
MehtaJ.FineS. (2019). In search of deeper learning: The quest to remake the American high school. Harvard University Press.
33.
MerriamS. B.TisdellE. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Wiley.
34.
MeyerH.RowanB. (2006). The new institutionalism in education. State University of New York Press.
35.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.
36.
MillerA. F.GiuncoK.VeraM. M.FriedmanA.CownieC.Rosen-ReynosoM.SmithA. (2025). Can decentralized school systems pursue common ends?: An analysis of urban Catholic school and system leaders’ perception of reform. Urban Education, 60(7), 2153–2186. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859241279450
37.
MillerA. F.ReyesJ.WyttenbachM.EzeugwuG. (2023). The limits of the “system of schools” approach: Superintendent perspectives on change efforts in U.S. Catholic school systems. Journal of Educational Change, 24(4), 943–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09475-1
38.
MillerJ. M. (2007). Challenges facing Catholic schools: A view from Rome. In GraceG. R.O’KeefeJ. (Eds.), International handbook of catholic education: Challenges for school systems in the 21st century (pp. 449–480). Springer.
39.
National Catholic Educational Association. (2025). United States Catholic elementary and secondary schools 2024-2025: The annual statistical report on schools, enrollment and staffing. NCEA.
40.
NeumerskiC. M.CohenD. K. (2019). The heart of the matter: How reforms unsettle organizational identity. Educational Policy, 33(6), 882–915. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819866918
41.
OzarL. A.Weitzel-O’NeillP.BartonT.CarteauxE.HunterC. J.YiS. (2019). Making a difference: The promise of Catholic school standards. Journal of Catholic Education, 22(1), 154–185. https://doi.org/10.15365/joce.2201102019
42.
ParkV.DatnowA. (2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1086/689930
43.
PayneC. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Harvard Education Press.
44.
PeurachD. J.CohenD. K.YurkofskyM. M.SpillaneJ. P. (2019). From mass schooling to education systems: Changing patterns in the organization and management of instruction. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 32–67. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821131
45.
QuinnR.OgburnL. (2020). Ideas and the politics of school choice policy: Portfolio management in Philadelphia. Educational Policy, 34(1), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819881159
46.
RigbyJ. G.WoulfinS. L.MärzV. (2016). Understanding how structure and agency influence education policy implementation and organizational change. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1086/685849
47.
RyanA. M. (2022). American Catholic schools in the twentieth century: Encounters with public education policies, practices, and reforms. Rowman & Littlefield.
48.
ScottJ.HolmeJ. J. (2016). The political economy of market-based educational policies: Race and reform in urban school districts, 1915 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 250–297. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16681001
49.
SpillaneJ. P.BlaushildN. L.NeumerskiC. M.SeeligJ. L.PeurachD. J. (2022). Striving for coherence, struggling with incoherence: A comparative study of six educational systems organizing for instruction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 44(4), 567–592. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737221093382
TyackD.CubanL. (1997). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Harvard.
52.
YurkofskyM. M.PetersonA. J.MehtaJ. D.Horwitz-WillisR.FruminK. M. (2020). Research on continuous improvement: Exploring the complexities of managing educational change. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 403–433. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20907363
