Exploring the Politics of Differential Resource Allocation: Implications for Policy Design and Leadership Practice

Abstract

This qualitative case study explores the political and leadership challenges imbedded within the implementation of a district-wide resource reallocation policy. Based on a two-year study of a medium-sized district’s efforts to address changing demographics of families in the district and a widening achievement gap, we draw upon concepts from education finance and the politics of policymaking to better understand the strategies used to introduce and implement a differential resource-allocation formula. Leadership strategies are explored, with a focus on anticipated areas of both internal and external “pushback,” and a discussion of the cycle of political support for equity-focused policy initiatives.

Notes

1. The larger study in which this research was nested linked three lines of investigation through overlapping samples. All districts in the study were proactively pursuing an improvement agenda by emphasizing leadership development and the improvement of leadership practice. School sites (3–5 per district) represented all levels (elementary, middle, and high schools) and were among the schools in the district serving the most diverse student populations.

2. We note that our examination of the political and leadership challenges involved in creating and sustaining support for differential resource allocation did not include an examination of whether the reallocation initiatives were successful in improving student learning outcomes, as it was beyond the scope and timeline of this particular study. We acknowledge this is an equally important area in which additional inquiry would be very illuminating.

Additional information

Funding

This article was made possible, in part, through a grant from The Wallace Foundation to the Center for the Study of Teaching & Policy at the University of Washington, to support the Study of Leadership for Learning Improvement from 2006–2011. The views presented here reflect those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Foundation.