Guiding Principles and Resources

An overview of the research base that provides the foundation for our work

Our  district and school improvement approach, protocols, and strategies are based upon a range of education and policy oriented literature. 

Childress, S.,  Elmore, R., and Grossman, A.  (2006).  How to manage urban school  districts.  Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-68.  

Corcoran,  T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001). The district role in  instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78-84. 

Darling-Hammond,  L. (2003). Enhancing Teaching. In William Owings and Leslie Kaplan  (Eds.), Best Practices, Best Thinking, and Emerging Issues in School  Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.  

Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Albert Shanker Institute  

Fuhrman,  S., Clune, W.H., & Elmore, R.F. (1988). Research on education  reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College  Record, 90(2), 237-257.  

Hatch,  T.  (2001).  Incoherence in the system: Three perspectives on the  implementation of multiple initiatives in one district. American Journal  of Education, 109, 407–437.  

Honig, M, & Hatch, T.  (2004).   Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external  demands.  Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.  

Knapp, M.S.,  Copland, M.A., & Talbert, J.E. (2003). Leading for Learning:  Reflective Tools for School and District Leaders. Center for the Study  of Teaching and Policy. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.   http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/LforLSummary-02-03.pdf  

Leithwood,  K., Jantzi, D., and McElheron-Hopkins, C.  (2006).  The development and  testing of a school improvement model.  School Effectiveness and School  Improvement, 17(4), 441-464.  

Martin-Kniep,  G. (2007). Developing Learning Communities that Learn Lead and Last:  Building and Sustaining Educational Expertise: San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.  

Massell, D. (2000). The District Role in Building  Capacity: Four Strategies. Policy Briefs. Consortium for Policy Research  in Education. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.   http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rb32.pdf  

McLaughlin,  M. & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming Districts: How Districts Support  School Reform. A Research Report. Center for the Study of Teaching and  Policy. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.   http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/ReformingDistricts-09-2003.pdf  

Rorrer,  A., Skrla, L, & Scheurich, J.  (2008).  Districts as institutional  actors in educational reform.  Educational Administration Quarterly,  44(3), 307-358  

Spillane, J. Distributed Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.  

St. John, M. & Stokes, L. (2008). Lessons to be Learned from the National Writing Project, Inverness Research Inc. (Link)  

An overview of a few of the key  research, policy, and theoretical documents (all continuously evolving) that informs and grounds our work are listed below.

Argyris, C., and Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading:MA: Addison-Wesley.

Coburn,  C.E. (2001). Collective sense-making about reading: How teachers  mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational  Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.  

Dwyer, C. (2005).  Leadership Capacities for a Changing Environment: State and District  Responses to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Providence, RI: The  Education Alliance at Brown University.  

Elmore, R.F. (1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decision. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-609.  

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press  

Gigerenzer, G. & Selton, R. (2001).  Rethinking rationality. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selton (Eds.), Bounded  rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  

Hannaway, J. & Woodroffe, N. (2004). Policy Instruments in Education. Review of Research in Education, 27, 1-24.   

Hargreaves, D. (2003). Working Laterally: How Innovation Networks Make an Education Epidemic.  

Leedom,  D. (2001). Final report: Sense-making symposium. Command and Control  Research Program, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. Vienna, VA: Evidence  Based Research. Inc. (Link)  

Lusi, S. (1997). The role of state departments of education in complex school reform. New York: Teachers College Press.  

McLaughlin, M.W.  (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation.  Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178. 

O’Day, J.  (2002).  Complexity, accountability, and school improvement.  Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.  

Ogawa,  R.T., & Bossert, S.T. (1995). Leadership as an organizational  quality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224-243.  

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.   

Spillane,  J.P., Reiser, B. & Reimer, T. (2002) Policy Implementation and  Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of  Educational Research, 72(3), 387 431.  

Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.    

Vera,  D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic Leadership and Organizational  Learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222-240.  

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications  

Wise,  A. (1984). Why education policies often fail: The hyperrationalisation  hypothesis. In J.J. Prunty (Ed.), A critical reformulation of education  policy analysis. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press..

How can districts initiate, support, and sustain rapid improvement?

Recent  studies of district improvement and turnaround provide the key characteristics of improving districts (Sykes et al., 2009) and the  strategies used by effective district leaders (Waters and Marzano,  2006). Various district improvement frameworks, both academic (Rorrer et  al., 2008) and action-oriented (Childress et al., 2006; Connell, 2000;  Marsh, 2005), are beginning to show how, when strategically implemented,  district improvement strategies can together to initiate and sustain  rapid improvements in district capacity, instructional quality, and  student performance. 

The  core of our work involves the integration of research on district  improvement into actionable tools, guidance, and principles as used by  states, districts, and schools. While recent research on district  improvement tells us much about the characteristics of improving districts, it does not provide much guidance on how districts actually initiate and sustain rapid improvement. 

To address this gap, we developed and use a Framework for District Capacity Building and Improvement. Initially developed in partnership with the  National Center on Innovation and Improvement, the Framework advances  ongoing work around district improvement by clarifying relationships among the core functions of a district, the capacity of a district to  leverage its core functions to focus exclusively on improving all  aspects of the district, including instruction, and those key  drivers (e.g., triggers, events, incentives, opportunities, and a  threshold of capacity) that must be present if a district is to embark  on the path towards rapid improvement. The Framework builds directly upon a review of the research on district improvement and incorporates our current research on Turnaround Practices for Effective School Turnaround. 

Shared Resources from INSTLL

• Framework for District Capacity and Improvement
• District Indicators
• Primer on District Improvement (slide deck)

References

The five studies used extensively to inform the Framework for District Capacity Building and Improvement include:

Leithwood, et al. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning.

Marsh, J. et al. (2005). The Role of Districts in Fostering Instructional Improvement: Lessons from Three Urban Districts

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming Districts: How Districts Support School Reform. A Research Report.

Snipes, et al. (2002). Foundations for Success: Case Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve Student Achievement.

Rorrer, A., Skrla, L, & Scheurich, J. (2008).  Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. 

Additional References:

Connell,  J. P., & Klem, A. M. (2000). You Can Get There From Here: Using a  Theory of Change Approach to Plan Urban Education Reform. Journal of  Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(1), 93-120.

Childress,  S., Elmore, R., and Grossman, A.  (2006).  How to manage urban school  districts.  Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-68. 

Marsh,  J., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmere, R.  W., Barney, H. (2005). The Role of Districts in Fostering Instructional  Improvement: Lessons from Three Urban Districts Partnered with the  Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Rorrer,  A., Skrla, L, & Scheurich, J.  (2008).  Districts as institutional  actors in educational reform.  Educational Administration Quarterly,  44(3), 307-358.

Sykes,  G., O’Day, J., & Ford, T. G. (2009). The District Role in  Instructional Improvement. In Handbook of Education on Policy Research,  New York: Routledge.

Waters,  J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School District Leadership that  Works: The Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement, A  Working Paper. Denver, CO: MCREL

How can schools initiate, support, and sustain rapid improvement?

The ability of individual schools - their leaders, teachers, and students - to work together effectively depends on district capacity, district supports, and local, or school-based capacity. Districts must ensure that the conditions are in place for schools to be successful. At the school-level, three elements are paramount: (1) effective and engaged school leadership; (2) capable, engaged, and skilled teachers and support staff; and (3) a well-constructed core curriculum, units and lessons, and assessments. While additional features characterize effective schools (e.g., trusting relationships among adults, engaged parents, engaged students, non-academic supports and enrichment activities); we see these features as dependent on leadership and teachers working together collaboratively to proactively meet the needs of students and families.

Paralleling the three elements listed above (leadership, skilled teachers, and core curriculum and assessments) is a growing body of research on how schools engage in rapid improvement and accelerate learning for all students. We have refined these as a set of Practices for Accelerated Improvement that collectively provide a detailed road map for how districts and schools can move forward, especially schools with high populations of low income students and that may be disproportionately African-American or Hispanic. 

We use these Accelerated Practices for School Improvement as our framework for all school-based improvement activities. The practices (listed in brief below) include a set of components and detailed indicators, and are based on 5 years of research and practice in partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Accelerated Practices for School  Improvement

Practice #1: Leadership, Shared Responsibility, and Professional Collaboration. 

The school has established a community of practice through leadership, shared responsibility, and professional collaboration.

Practice 2:  Intentional Practices for Improving Instruction

The school employs intentional practices for improving teacher-specific and student-responsive instruction.

Practice 3:  Providing Student-Specific Supports and Instruction to All Students

The school is able to provide student-specific supports and interventions informed by data and the identification of student-specific needs.

Practice 4:  School Climate and Culture

The School has established a climate and culture that provides a safe, orderly and respectful environment for students and a collegial, collaborative, and professional culture among teachers that supports the school’s focus on increasing student achievement.