How Do States Influence Leadership in Small Districts?

Abstract

This article examines whether centrally developed initiatives at the state level have an impact on how districts in the U.S. think about their role in providing direction and support for student learning, and also examines how districts view the strategies that state governments use to initiate change at the local level. Our focus is on smaller districts, a context that has been underexamined in recent investigations of the effects of the changing educational policy environment. Our framework draws on perceptions of power, networking, and loose coupling to examine four small districts. Our study suggests that there is considerable variation in how smaller districts react to state standards and accountability, but none of the four districts describe their situation in ways that suggest that they feel besieged or victimized by state standards. All four saw themselves as being able to harness state policy to local priorities. There were, however, differences between the districts' orientations to state policy that correspond to the larger political culture of the state in which they are located.

Notes

1. Datnow, Lasky, Stringfield, & Teddlie (2006) propose an integrated framework for examining the relationship among policies at different levels, but emphasize the district's role in resource allocation and “gatekeeping” rather than policy development.

2. One additional small district met these criteria, but it was unusual because the student body reflected a community with a single religious group whose presence affected many aspects of district decision making and achievement. Because of its unique characteristics, it would have been impossible to guarantee confidentiality.

3. District and individual names are pseudonyms. Some minor facts have been changed to protect anonymity.

4. Only one middle school in this sample had become involved in state mandated school improvement interventions by 2008.

5. To validate the analysis of district office interviews, we also did a quick analysis of the principal interviews to ensure that we had not missed a major issue raised from a school perspective. Because the principal interviews did not emphasize interactions with the state, we do not include them in this analysis.

6. District office professional staff size ranged from three to seven. Staffing details are reported within each case.

7. In 2007, the state legislature voted to replace the district-based assessments with common statewide tests, to be phased in over a five-year period. The implications of this were not fully felt at the time of our last visit to Johnston County.

8. The district also employed a business officer and several school-based technology coordinators.

9. One new principal commented that the leadership team meetings were the most powerful professional development experience that she had in her career.

10. Herzik (1985) classified Nebraska as individualist-moralistic.

11. This finding is consistent with the data in the smaller districts that are not included in this analysis.