Implementing Site-Managed Educational Changes: Examining Levels of Implementation and Effect

Although states have attempted to influence educational outcomes through decentralizing decision-making authority over the past decade, the evidence that such reforms encourage schools to implement programs that improve outcomes has been slow to accumulate. This study examines the effect of a statewide policy intended to raise student achievement in schools serving high numbers of at-risk students through emphasizing teacher participation in school-based decision making about school needs. The results indicated that the policy was successful in encouraging teacher participation in decisions about student needs and the selection of improvement activities. Subsequently, features of the participating schools' environments and teachers' beliefs about the value of chosen improvement activities combined to produce successful site implementation. Some evidence also suggested the policy led to improved student reading achievement in the early elementary grades among schools that had participated in the program over several years.

[1]  Karen Seashore Louis,et al.  Improving the Urban High School: What Works and Why , 1990 .

[2]  Mark A. Smylie.  Teacher Participation in School Decision Making: Assessing Willingness to Participate , 1992 .

[3]  E. Glaser.  Planned Organizational Change , 1986 .

[4]  Carol H. Weiss,et al.  Trouble in Paradise: Teacher Conflicts in Shared Decision Making , 1991 .

[5]  Joseph Murphy,et al.  Handbook of Research on Educational Administration , 1999 .

[6]  P. B. Sebring.  Tinkering toward Utopia , 1997 .

[7]  M. Mclaughlin.  The Rand Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro Perspectives and Micro Realities , 1990 .

[8]  Sharon Conley,et al.  Review of Research on Teacher Participation in School Decision Making , 1991 .

[9]  Janet Ouston.  School Effectiveness and School Improvement: Critique of a Movement , 1999 .

[10]  Mark A. Smylie,et al.  Instructional Outcomes of School-Based Participative Decision Making , 1996 .

[11]  Stanley Pogrow,et al.  Success for All Does Not Produce Success for Students , 2000 .

[12]  Karen Seashore Louis,et al.  Does Teacher Empowerment Affect the Classroom? The Implications of Teacher Empowerment for Instructional Practice and Student Academic Performance , 1997 .

[13]  S. Mohrman,et al.  New Boundaries for School-Based Management: The High Involvement Model , 1994 .

[14]  M. Mclaughlin,et al.  Implementation of Educational Innovation , 1976 .

[15]  R. Heck,et al.  Teacher Involvement in School-Conducted Needs Assessments , 1994 .

[16]  Paula A. White.  Teacher Empowerment Under “Ideal” School-Site Autonomy , 1992 .

[17]  Mark A. Smylie.  Redesigning Teachers' Work: Connections to the Classroom , 1994 .

[18]  Louise Stoll,et al.  Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement: Issues and Possibilities , 1996 .

[19]  Mark A. Smylie.  Chapter 3: Redesigning Teachers' Work: Connections to the Classroom , 1994 .

[20]  Tony Bush,et al.  Educational Management: Redefining Theory, Policy and Practice , 1999 .

[21]  R. Heck,et al.  The use of teacher expertise in decision making during school-conducted needs assessments: a multilevel perspective , 1998 .

[22]  C. Teddlie,et al.  The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research , 1999 .

[23]  K. Seashore,et al.  Rethinking school improvement , 1999 .

[24]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling With the Simplis Command Language , 1993 .

[25]  G. Hess,et al.  Understanding Achievement (and Other) Changes Under Chicago School Reform , 1999 .