This mixed-method multiple case study investigated nine elementary schools. Six “odds-beating schools,” which serve relatively high numbers of economically disadvantaged children, achieved higher than predicted performance on state assessments when compared with three typically performing schools. The overarching research question guiding this study was: What forces, factors, and actors account for odds-beating schools’ better outcomes? The trust–communication connection provided one answer. Relational trust in odds-beating schools is an intraorganizational phenomenon, and it is accompanied by interorganizational trust (reciprocal trust). These two kinds of trust are accompanied by intraschool and district office–school communication mechanisms. Trust and communications are mutually constitutive as innovations are implemented. This connection is also an implementation outcome. When today's innovation implementation initiatives reinforce this trust–communication connection, it becomes an organizational resource for future innovation implementation.
BottianiaJ. H., BradshawC. P., & MendelsonC. (2014). Promoting an equitable and supportive school climate in high schools: The role of school organizational health and staff burnout. Journal of School Psychology, 52(6), 567–582. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2014.09.003.
4.
BrowningP. D. (2014). Why trust the head? Key practices for transformational leaders to build a purposeful relationship of trust. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 17(4), 388–409. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2013.844275.
5.
BrykA., GomezL., GrunowA., & LeMahieuP. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
6.
BrykA. S., and SchneiderB. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.New York, NY: Russell Sage.
7.
ChristensenC. M., HornM. B., & JohnsonC. W. (2011). Disrupting class: how disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
8.
ChuonV., GilkeyE. M., GonzalezM., DalyA. J., ChrispeelsJ. H. (2008). The little district that could: The process of building district-school trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 227–281.
9.
CobbC. D., DonaldsonM. L., & MayerbA. P. (2013). Creating high leverage policies: A new framework to support policy development. Berkeley Review of Education, 4(2), 265–284. http://escholarship.org/uc/ucbgse_bre.
10.
CoburnC. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.
11.
CoburnC. E., & RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.
12.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers
13.
CreswellJ. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
14.
CunninghamD. H. (2014). School finance and learning: Are we leveraging state aid to get all we can get out of it?Education Finance and Policy, 9(2), 109–115.
15.
DaintonM., & ZelleyE. D. (2015). Applying communication theory for professional life: A practical introduction (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
16.
DayC., & GuQ. (2014). Resilient teachers, resilient schools: Building and sustaining quality in testing times.New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
DesimoneL. M. (2008). Whole-school change. In ShinnM., & YoshikawaH. (Eds.), Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs (pp. 150–169). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
DohertyK., & JacobsS. (2013). Connect the Dots: Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice. (State of the States 2013). Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.
19.
DominaT., LewisR., AgarwalP., & HanselmanP. (2015). Professional sense-makers: Instructional specialists in contemporary schooling. Educational Researcher, 44(6), 359–364.
20.
DuFourR., & FullanM. (2013). Cultures built to last: Systemic PLCs at work.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
21.
DurandF. T., LawsonH. A., WilcoxK. C., & SchillerK. A. (2016). The role of proactive and adaptive district leadership in the adoption and implementation of the Common Core State Standards in elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 45–74. doi:10.1177/0013161X15615391.
22.
FlashpohlerP. D., MeehanC., MorasM., & KellerK. (2012). Developing a support system to promote implementation of school-based prevention programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 428–444.
FullanM., & QuinnJ. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts and systems.California, CA: Corwin.
25.
FullanM., Rincon-GallardoS., & HargreavesA. (2015). Professional capital as accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(15). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1998.
GreenhalghS., RobertG., MacFarlaneF., BateP., & KyriakidouO. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629.
30.
HatchT. C. (2009). Managing to change: How schools can survive (and sometimes thrive) in turbulent times.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
HolmeJ. J., & RangelV. S. (2012). Putting school reform in its place: Social geography, organizational social capital, and school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 257–283. doi: 10.3102/0002831211423316.
32.
HonigM. I., & HatchT. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, conflicting demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.
33.
JohnsonS. S., MariettaG., HigginsM., MappK., & GrossmanA. (2015). Achieving coherence in district improvement: Managing the relationship between central office and schools.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
34.
JonesE., WatsonB., GardnerJ., & GalloisC. (2004). Organizational communication: Challenges for the new century. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 722–750.
35.
KlarH. W., HugginsK., HammondsH., & BuskeyF. (2016). Fostering the capacity for distributed leadership: A post-heroic approach to leading school improvement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(2), 111–137.
36.
KnappM. S., CoplandM. A., HonigM. I., PleckiM. L., & PortinB. S. (2014). Practicing and Supporting Learning-Focused Leadership in Schools and Districts.New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
KutsyurubaB., & WalkerK. (2015). The life cycle of trust in educational leadership: An ecological perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership: Theory and Practice.18(1), 106–121. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2014.915061.
38.
LarsonM. S. (1979). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
39.
LevineD. M., StephanD. F., & SzabatK. A. (2013). Statistics for managers (7th edition). New York, NY: Pearson.
40.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
41.
Lisy-MacanL. (2012). Elementary and middle school principals’ theories of action in two rural school districts. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing (3523356).
42.
MalenB., RiceJ., MatlachL., BowsherA., HoyerK., & HydeL. (2015). 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. doi: 10.1177/0013161X14522482.
43.
MarzanoR. J., & WatersT. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
44.
McAllisterD. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
45.
MilesM., HubermanM., & SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd editon). California, CA: Sage.
46.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd editon). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
MorganD. L., & KruegerR.A. (1997). The focus group kit.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
48.
NeumerskiC. M. (2012). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347. doi: 10.1177/0013161X12456700.
49.
NeumerskiC. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership and where should we go from here?Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347.
50.
NorthfieldS. (2014). Multi-dimensional trust: How beginning principals build trust with their staff during leader succession. International Journal of Educational Leadership: Theory and Practice, 17(4), 410–441.
51.
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2012). NVivo qualitative data analysis software, Version 10.
52.
RogersE. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th edition). New York, NY: The Free Press.
SpillaneJ. P. (2013). The practice of leading and managing teaching in educational organizations. In OECD (Ed.), Leadership for 21st Century Learning (pp. 59–82). Paris: Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development.
55.
SteinM. K., & CoburnC. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114(August), 583–626.
56.
TeddlieC., & TashakkoriA. (Eds.). (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
57.
Tschannen-MoranM., & GareisC. R. (2015a). Faculty trust in the principal: An essential ingredient in high performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 66–92.
58.
Tschannen-MoranM., & GareisC. R. (2015b). Principals, trust, and cultivating vibrant schools. Societies, 5, 256–276.
59.
Tschannen-MoranM., & HoyW. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547–593.
ValenciaR. (Ed.) (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice.London: Falmer Press.
62.
VenettozziC. J. (2014). Tax levy implications on educational programs and public school budgets in New York State. (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation Publishing (3722930).
63.
WeinerB. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67.
WilcoxK. C., & AngelisJ. I. (2010). Best practices from high-performing high schools: How successful schools help students stay in school and thrive.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
