Leading From the Middle and Achieving Coherence Between the Central Office and the Schools

• In Event: Roundtable Session 56
  In Roundtable Session: Leading From the Middle: Coherence, Cohesion, and Circulation in System-Wide Educational Change

Abstract

Purpose:

Debate persists about the role of school districts in US public education. Although the authority for managing schools rests in the central office, the essential work of teaching and learning occurs in the schools. The principal acts as the school’s primary advocate in acquiring resources, making decisions, and leading the school. However, central office administrators also expect the principal to implement the district’s policies. Therefore, principals must manage the often-competing expectations of school constituents and district officials.

Although considerable research exists about both school and district leadership, few studies focus on the intersection between the two. Those who have studied this relationship find that a basic tension exists between the priorities of administrators in the central office and those in the schools (Honig & Hatch, 2004; Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010; Supovitz, 2006; Thompson, Sykes, & Skrla, 2008). However, researchers have only begun to examine how principals and district officials manage their shared responsibilities.

Reformers’ recommendations for resolving this tension between the priorities and practices of the district and the schools typically swing between centralization (concentrating authority and resources in the central office) and decentralization (dispersing decision rights and resources to the schools). However, little is known about how either approach works day-to-day or how principals respond. In this presentation, I will report findings about the working relationship between central office administrators and principals in five large urban districts (three centralized and two decentralized), paying close attention to where and how key decisions are made.

Methods of Inquiry/Data Sources:

In 2011, we conducted site visits in a purposive sample of five large urban districts (Aldine, TX; Baltimore City, MD; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC; Long Beach, CA; and Montgomery County, MD,) all nationally recognized for success. We analyzed research studies, media reports, and local documents to assemble an overview of each district’s approach to managing its many schools. We then interviewed 32 central office administrators and 31 principals to learn where and how decisions were made about three strategic priorities: budgeting, staffing, and the academic program (curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment).

Conclusions:

Principals did not have a clear preference for either centralized or decentralized management. Far more important was whether the parts of a district’s chosen approach were coherent (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). Respondents reported that centralized approaches succeeded when the district’s key decisions were continuously informed by educators at all levels of the system. Decentralized policies and practices were said to be effective when the central office provided schools with the assistance and training they needed to make good decisions and rich opportunities to learn from one another. Coherent practices were said to be key in building trust between central administrators and principals.

Scholarly Significance:

By investigating the intersection between district and school-based responsibilities, with specific attention to staffing, budgeting, and the academic program, our study substantially advances and enriches what is known about how large districts successfully address the enduring tension between the central office and the schools. The study also has practical lessons for school and district officials.

Author

• Susan M. Johnson, Harvard University