This qualitative study identified four predominant dimensions of reculturing processes in two school districts in Southeastern United States. Interview data and document analyses were analyzed vertically and horizontally to present a systemic district perspective of restructuring efforts. According to practitioners’ statements, the dimensions of reculturing were always presented in the context of action as more than one thing as follows: (1) reflecting on and questioning past and present practice, (2) comprehensive, continuous, and purposeful development activities, (3) reconfiguring roles toward collaboration, and (4) seeing rewards and incentives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AudiR., ed. 1995. “Process-Product Ambiguity,”The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, p. 654.
2.
BoydW.1992. “The Power of Paradigms: Reconceptualizing Policy and Management,”Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(4): 504–528.
3.
ChrispeelsJ. H.1992. Purposeful Restructuring: Creating a Culture for Learning and Achievement in Elementary Schools.Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
4.
CohenD.1995. “What is the system in systemic reform?”Educational Researcher, 29(9): 11–17.
5.
ConleyD.1994. Roadmap to Restructuring: Policies, Practices and the Emerging Visions of Schooling.ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management: University of Oregon.
6.
DealT., and KennedyA.1982. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life.Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7.
DealT., and PetersonK.1991. The Principal's Role in Shaping School Culture.Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
8.
DuFourR.1995. “Restructuring Is Not Enough,”Educational Leadership, 52(4): 33–36.
9.
ElmoreR.1995. “Structural Reform in Educational Practice,”Educational Researcher, 29(9): 23–26.
10.
Elmore, R. and Associates.1990. Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation of Educational Reform.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
FullanM.1991. The New Meaning of Educational Change.Second edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
FullanM.1981. “School District and School Personnel in Knowledge Utilization,” in Improving Schools: Using What We Know, LehmingR., and KaneM., eds., Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, pp. 212–252.
14.
GoodmanJ.1995. “Change without Difference: School Restructuring in Historical Perspective,”Harvard Educational Review, 65(1): 1–28.
15.
HargreavesA.1995. “Renewal in the Age of Paradox,”Educational Leadership, 52(4): 14–19.
16.
HargreavesA.1991. “Contrived Collegiality: The Micropolitics of Teacher Collaboration,” in The Politics of Life in Schools, BlaseJ., ed., Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
JoyceB., and CalhounE.1995. “School Renewal: An Inquiry, Not a Formula,”Educational Leadership, 52(4): 51–55.
19.
LiebermanA.1995. “Restructuring Schools: The Dynamics of Changing Practice, Structure, and Culture,” in The Work of Restructuring Schools: Building from the Ground Up, LiebermanA., ed., New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
MurphyJ.1993. “Restructuring: In Search of a Movement,” in Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts, MurphyJ., and HallingerP., eds., CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
21.
MurphyJ.1991. Restructuring Schools: Capturing and Assessing the Phenomena.New York: Teachers College Press.
22.
NewmannF., and WehlageG.1995. Successful School Restructuring.Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
23.
PrinceJ.1989. Invisible Forces: School Reform versus School Culture.Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research.
24.
ReitzugU., and ReevesJ.1992. “Miss Lincoln Doesn't Teach Here: A Descriptive Narrative and Conceptual Analysis of a Principal's Symbolic Behavior,”Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(2): 185–219.
25.
RosenholtzS.1989. Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools.New York: Longman Press.
26.
SarasonS.1990. The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course before It's Too Late?San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27.
SarasonS. (1982). The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. 2nd Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
28.
ScheinE.1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
29.
SmircichL.1983. “Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 338–358.
30.
SykesG.1990. “Teaching Incentives: Constraint and Variety,” in Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now, LiebermanA., ed., New York: Falmer Press, pp. 103–126.
31.
TaylorD., BogotchI., and KirbyP.1994. “Voices from the Field: What Restructuring Means to Teachers and Administrators,” paper presented at the Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Philadelphia, PA
32.
TimarT.1989. “The Politics of School Restructuring,”Phi Delta Kappan, 71(4): 265–274.
33.
YinR.1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 5.California: Sage Publications.
