This is a case study of a high school located in the southwestern United States that restructured its traditional hierarchical administrative structure to a Dean Model. The Dean Model is a collaborative system aimed at personalizing services to students by separating the school into smaller units through deanships. Observations and interviews were conducted to assess the rationale and philosophies behind the Dean Model as well as the principal's, deans’, and students’ attitudes and perceptions of the implementation of the model. Key issues in implementing the new model are identified and discussed. Advantages and disadvantages of the model are presented, as are implications for the future of high school administration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanksJ. (1994). Transforming the mainstream curriculum. Educational Leadership, 51(8), 4–8.
2.
BanksJ. A., & LynchJ. (Eds.) (1986). Multicultural education in western societies.New York: Praeger.
3.
BeckL. G., & MurphyJ. (1993). Preparing ethical leaders: Overviewing current efforts and analyzing forces that have shaped them.New York: Teacher's College Press.
4.
ConantJ. B. (1959). The American high school today: A first report to interested citizens.New York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
ConantJ. B. (1967). The comprehensive high school: A second report to interested citizens.New York: McGraw-Hill.
6.
CountsG. S. (1926). The senior high school curriculum.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
CresswellR. A., & RasmussenP. (1996). Developing a structure for personalization in the high school. NASSP Bulletin, 80(584), 27–30.
GoodladJ. I. (1992). On taking school reform seriously. Phi Delta Kappan, 17(3), 232–238.
10.
MarinE. A. (1975). The Mexican American community and the leadership of the dominant society in Arizona: A study of their mutual attitudes and perceptions.Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.
11.
McAdooH. P. (Ed.) (1993). Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
MurphyJ., & HallingerP. (1993). Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts.Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
13.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the nation and the secretary of education United States Department of Education.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
14.
National Commission on the Reform of Secondary Education. (1973). The reform of secondary education: A report to the public and the profession.Dayton, OH: Charles F. Kettering Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 085 826)
15.
NolanR. L., & CrosonD. C. (1995). Creative destruction: A six-stage process for transforming the organization.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
16.
PassowA. H. (1976). Secondary education reform: Retrospect and prospect.New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
17.
ReeseR. R. (1996). A new approach to managing diversity in schools: The proactive-interactive approach.Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
18.
SchlechtyP. C. (1990). Schools for the twenty-first century: Leadership imperatives for educational reform.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
ShortP. M., & GreerJ. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative efforts.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril.
20.
SizerT. R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school: The first report from a study of high schools.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
21.
SizerT. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
22.
SizerT. R. (1996). Horace's hope: What works for the American high school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
23.
UnruhG., & AlexanderW. M. (1974). Innovations in secondary education.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
