School districts experience considerable pressure to continuously improve, and the pursuit of improvement typically leads to the adoption of new — and purportedly more effective — initiatives. Often districts engage consultants to help navigate the selection and implementation of an initiative, and while these partnerships can prove fruitful, they present a set of challenges that are often underestimated by districts. Districts can increase the likelihood of an initiative’s effectiveness by asking a few key questions before embarking (or not) on the initiative. In particular, districts need to attend to issues of coherence, capacity, and commitment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonS.E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the literature. Toronto, ON: International Centre for Educational Change.
2.
AugustineC. H.GonzalezG.IkemotoG. S.RussellJ. L.ZellmanG. L.ConstantL.…
DemboskyJ. W. (2009). Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
3.
BahamE. (2014). School capacity and overload review: Measuring school capacity to maximize school improvement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
4.
BrykA.S.SebringP.B.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ.Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
CoburnC.E.BaeS.TurnerE.O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 8 (3), 364–399.
6.
CohenM.D.MarchJ.G.OlsenJ.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 72 (1), 1–25.
7.
CubanL.UsdanM.D. (2003). Powerful reforms with shallow roots: Improving America’s urban schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8.
ElmoreR.F.FormanM.L.StosichE.L.BocalaC. (2014). The internal coherence assessment protocol & developmental framework: Building organizational capacity for instructional improvement in schools. Cambridge, MA: Strategic Education Research Partnership Institute.
9.
FarrellC.C.CoburnC.E. (2017). Absorptive capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding district central office learning. Journal of Educational Change, 18, 135–159.
10.
HallJ.J. (n.d.). Negotiating the design of professional development for principals. American Journal of Education. Manuscript in revision.
11.
HatchT.C. (2000). What does it take to break the mold?Rhetoric and reality in New American Schools. Teachers College Record, 102 (3), 561–589.
12.
HenigJ.R.RiehlC.J.HoustonD.M.RebellM.A.WolffJ.R. (2016). Collective impact and the new generation of cross-sector collaborations for education: A nationwide scan. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
13.
HonigM.I.HatchT. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33 (8), 16–30.
KonstantopoulosS.HedgesL.V. (2008). How large an effect can we expect from school reforms?Teachers College Record, 110 (8), 1611–1638.
16.
LeithwoodK. (2010). Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective in closing the achievement gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9 (3), 245–291.
17.
LesterP. (2017). Investing in Innovation (i3): Strong start on evaluating and scaling effective programs, but greater focus needed on innovation. Washington, DC: Social Innovation Research Center.
18.
MaddaC.L.HalversonR.R.GomezL.M. (2007). Exploring coherence as an organizational resource for carrying out reform initiatives. Teachers College Record, 109 (8), 1957–1979.
19.
MalenB.RiceJ.K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18 (5), 631–660.
20.
MalenB.RiceJ.K.MatlachL.K.B.BowsherA.HoyerK.M.HydeL.H. (2014). Developing organizational capacity for implementing complex education reform initiatives: Insights from a multiyear study of a teacher incentive fund program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51 (1), 133–176.
21.
MarchJ.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1), 71–87.
22.
MeyerJ.W.ScottW.R.StrangD. (1987). Centralization, fragmentation, and school district complexity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 186–201.
23.
OuchiW.G. (2003). Making school work: A revolutionary plan to get your children the education they need. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
24.
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3 (3), 283–314.
25.
RussakoffD. (2015). The prize: Who’s in charge of America’s schools?New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
