Many educational reforms are implemented on a school-by-school basis where the individual or the school is often the target of the effort. But the problems of education transcend the capacity of one school working alone. Networking schools with each other or with partner organizations works to develop social capital; this can be an effective alternative to market-type or hierarchical approaches to reform. In the network model of organizing, authority and accountability are based on the social relationships between network participants. Focusing on new management roles within school networks, the authors' findings suggest that networks promote community-based collaboration, cost sharing, knowledge sharing, and the involvement of external partners. In contrast, challenges to the network strategy include the need for extensive training in group process skills and the need for quality information. The intent of this article is to make the language and discourse of networks more accessible to education reformers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adler, P.
, & Kwon, S. W. (1999, August). Social capital: The good, the bad and the ugly. Paper presented at the conference of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
2.
Agranoff, R.
, & McGuire, M. (1999). Managing in network settings. Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 18-41.
3.
Alter, C.
, & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Annenberg Institute for School Reform
. (I1998). Walter Annenberg 's challenge to the nation: A progress report. Providence, RI: Author.
5.
Bardach, E.
(1998). Managerial craftsmanship: Getting agencies to work together. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6.
Burt, R. S.
(1998, October). The network structure of social capital. Paper presented at the Economic and Organizational Sociology Conference, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
7.
Cervone, B.
(1994). Goals. In Internal Memo. Los Angeles: Annenberg Challenge.
8.
Chubb, J. E.
, & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
9.
Driscoll, M. E.
, & Kerchner, C. T. (1999). The implications of social capital for schools, communities, and cities: Educational administration as if a sense of place mattered. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 385-404). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Education Commission of the States
. (1995). The new American school district. Denver, CO: Author.
11.
Granovetter, M.
(1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-485 10.
12.
Griffin, N.
, Wohlstetter, P., & Bharadwaja, L. (1999). The DELTA initiative: Reforming pre-service, induction, and in-service professional development. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Compact on Evaluation.
13.
Kaplan, G. R.
, & Usdan, M. D. (1992). The changing look of education's policy networks. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 664-672.
14.
Kirst, M. W.
, Meister, G., & Rowley, S. R. (1984). Policy issue networks: Their influence on state policymaking. Policy Studies Journal, 13(2), 247-263.
15.
Lieberman, A.
, & McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 673-677.
16.
Little, J. W.
(1992). Teacher development and educational policy. In M. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change. Washington, DC: Falmer.
17.
Los Angeles Compact on Evaluation
. (1998). Proposed evaluation products. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project.
18.
Los Angeles Metropolitan Project
. (1994). Proposal to the Annenberg Foundation. Los Angeles: Author.
19.
Louis, K. S.
, Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers' professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4).
20.
Newmann, F. M.
, & Sconzert, K. (2000). School improvement with external partners. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
21.
Powell, W. W.
(1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(2), 295-336.
22.
Robertson, P. J.
, & Acar, M. (1999, April). Concentrated hopes, diffused responsibilitites: Accountability in public-private partnerships. Paper presented at the national conference of the American Society for Public Administration, Orlando, FL.
23.
Senge, P.
(1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
24.
Smylie, M. A.
, Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 181-198.
25.
Snow, C. C.
, Miles, R. E., & Coleman, H. J. (1992). Managing 21st century network organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 20(3), 5-20.
26.
Urbanski, A.
, & Erskine, R. (2000). School reform, TURN, and teacher compensation. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 367-370.
27.
Useem, E. L.
, Christman, J. B., Gold, E., & Simon, E. (1997). Reforming alone: Barriers to organizational learning in urban school change initiatives. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2(1), 55-78.
28.
Wasserman, S.
, & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Wohlstetter, P.
, & Smith, A. K. (2000). A different approach to systemic reform: Network structures in Los Angeles. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(7), 508-515.
30.
Wohlstetter, P.
, Smith, A. K., Stewart, T., & Griffin, N. (1999). Team work in LAAMP school families: Building capacity for reform. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Compact on Evaluation.
31.
Wohlstetter, P.
, Van Kirk, A. N., Robertson, P. J., & Mohrman, S. A. (1997). Successful school-based management. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
