Integrating Improvement Science Into Diverse District Work Streams: An Advanced Partnership's Efforts

• In Event: 77.016 - Preparing Leaders for Continuous Improvement: Addressing Systemic Educational Inequities Through Preparation Partnerships

Abstract

Purposes

While Improvement Science (IS) is framed as a school-based process (Berman, 1981; Bryke et al, 2015), central office staff may also see value in using IS tools and methods in their work. This paper examines the value central office staff ascribe to the IS process and its potential to enhance their professional practice. The paper explores how central office staff working in a large district took initiative to acquire, explore, and integrate IS into their specialized work routines. The central research question is: How do central office staff in a large district value and utilize Improvement Science in their work?

Theoretical framework.

The study uses an implementation-as-adaptation approach (Fullan, 2007) to understand the meaning and value district staff see in the IS process. The theoretical framework draws on three lenses (Peters, et al.,2013): implementation research (factors), variation in use across subunits (application), and intersubjectivity (district staff meaning-making).

Methods.

The study utilizes a qualitative case study approach (Merriam,1998) to explore how central office staff notice, assess, and apply IS within their specialized responsibilities. Of interest is understanding the value and meaning district staff see in this process for their individual work, and within/across work teams at the central office.

Data Sources.

The study utilizes diverse data sources: 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews with central office staff representing subunits within school services; artifacts that reflect the use and meaning of IS for staff; and formal and informal documents guiding staff knowledge and action. Data include: staff descriptions of noticing, exploring, using and adapting IS tools; the meaning and value of this process to their work; customization of tools and process to fit staff needs; and perceived learning and outcomes from using IS principles and tools.

Results

While central office staff range in knowledge, experience, and interest with IS, all experimented within their own sphere of influence. However, staff uptake was partial in terms of knowledge and fidelity to the IS process. Administrators used a subset of tools they felt comfortable with, e.g., “5-Whys” and “Fishbone”, causal analysis tools popular for brainstorming. Only a handful of district staff engaged the full IS cycle of inquiry, typically those interacting with school-based leaders and coaches. Barriers noted by staff include: high workload and competing priorities; low application; favorite tools; professional learning communities (PLCs) as a legacy alternative; and current role groups, routines, and rules that constrain collaboration.

Scholarly Significance.

IS is taking hold at the school, district and state levels. Educational practitioners, researchers and policy-makers need to understand how district educators notice, value, use, and adapt this process in different educational contexts. This study provides insight into how a large, innovative, bellwether district took steps to introduce IS to district leaders and staff. This study calls attention to the meaning and value district staff/leaders see in the IS process. It also offers insight into how staff adapted IS to fit their needs, with attention to supporting problem-solving and collaborative capacity at the district and school levels.

Author

• Marian A. Robinson, The George Washington University