Northwest Education

Winter 2007 / Volume 12, Number 2.

• Home
• Archives

Research Brief

What Matters at the District Level By Rhonda Barton

In the wake of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), public attention has zeroed in on school performance. However, the accountability spotlight is now shifting to the district level. Most states began identifying school districts for sanctions in the 2004–2005 school year. Under NCLB, if the district fails to make adequate yearly progress for four years, states must take corrective action that can range from reducing administrative funds or replacing personnel to the draconian step of abolishing the district (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).

The heightened importance of districts in achieving NCLB goals has underscored the lack of scientific research on the district’s role in school improvement. Shannon and Bylsma (2004) assert, “Many studies have documented the characteristics of improved schools, but relatively little is known about districts that have shown significant improvement” (p. 1). They point out that such research is limited to the last 10–15 years, consists primarily of case studies, and mostly focuses on improvements at the elementary school level.

Characteristics of Improved Districts

Under the aegis of Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Shannon and Bylsma analyzed more than 80 research articles, concentrating on 23 studies that looked at multiple school districts. They identified 13 characteristics of improved school districts and grouped those into four broad categories: effective leadership; quality teaching and learning; support for systemwide improvement; and clear and collaborative relationships.

Among their findings were:

• Effective leadership that focuses on all students learning is at the core of improved school districts. Leadership is committed, persistent, proactive, and distributed throughout the system. Reform efforts are sustained over time.
• In improved districts, all adults in the educational system are held accountable for student learning—starting with the superintendent. The district communicates high expectations, aligns curriculum and assessment, and provides embedded professional development. District leaders also develop a shared vision of quality teaching and learning, monitoring classroom practice to ensure that the vision is carried out.
• Improved districts use data to guide instructional decisions and allocation of resources. District staff provides training in the use of data and helps schools collect and interpret information. The district reviews and revises policies to make sure that there’s coherence across programs and a focus on equitable and excellent learning.
• Improved districts nurture collaborative relationships. They “build a culture of commitment, collegiality, mutual respect, and stability” (p. 46). They serve as helpful mentors to schools, balancing state and federal policies with local policies. They also manage family and community partnerships and “buffer” schools against external distractions.

The two authors emphasize that these characteristics work in concert: “[T]hey are connected, impact one another, and infuse the organization” (p. 1). Shannon and Bylsma conclude that the studies show “school districts can create [a] vision, a professional culture, and a sense of urgency among stakeholders and implement teaching and learning strategies to advance the work of educational reform” (p. 55).

They suggest that districts initiate their own action research projects—not only to inform their instructional decisions, but to add to the body of knowledge on systemwide improvements.

Agents of Change

Like Shannon and Bylsma, Dailey and his colleagues (2005) found the research base on district improvement limited, though expanding. In an American Institutes for Research review, they write that district leaders have traditionally been viewed as “barriers” rather than “key agents” of sustained school improvement (p. 1). But, they believe that negative image is changing as more researchers and educational foundations examine district reform and invest in it.

After analyzing 20 recent reports, studies, and policy statements on higher performance in high-poverty districts, the researchers found a surprising degree of consensus on the components of successful reform. The most prominent were:

• An overriding focus on student achievement and learning
• A theory of action, with clear goals, on how to improve student achievement
• Comprehensive, coherent policies to support the goals
• An increased sense of personal responsibility at all levels for improving student learning
• Opportunities for meaningful professional development
• Use of data-based decision making
• Regular monitoring of progress with recognition for successful schools and intervention for ones that are still struggling

The synthesis lists a number of other factors that are important in district reform, though to a lesser degree. These include stakeholder involvement; the need for both district-school collaboration and autonomy; equitable resource distribution; and tailored support for schools.

While the authors are encouraged by the fact that so many studies produced similar conclusions, they caution that the findings have somewhat limited applicability. According to Dailey and his colleagues, “There is certainly no step-by-step ‘road map’ to success, since districts must view the broad principles and then figure out how to put them into practice in ways that make sense in their own contexts. Needless to say, there is no guarantee of success” (2005, p. 8).

The Effect of Superintendents

A recent meta-analysis by Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) homed in on the role of the superintendent in creating effective school districts. A team led by McREL’s Tim Waters and Robert Marzano (2006) found a statistically significant relationship between school district leaders and student achievement. Waters and Marzano looked at 27 studies with rigorous methodology conducted since 1970. The studies included 2,817 districts and the test scores of 3.4 million students—resulting in what McREL terms “the largest-ever quantitative examination of research on superintendents” (p. 3).

In addition to establishing that district leadership matters, Waters and Marzano identified five responsibilities of leaders that correlate with student achievement:

• Including all stakeholders in setting goals for the district
• Ensuring that non-negotiable goals address student achievement and classroom instruction
• Keeping the board focused on, and supportive of, the goals
• Monitoring district progress toward the goals
• Providing sufficient financial and human resources to accomplish the goals

Waters and Marzano found that stability in the superintendent’s office also has an impact on student achievement. Quoting from Chris Whittle’s book Crash Course (2005), they point out that the chief executive officers of many major U.S. corporations typically have tenures of a decade or more. In contrast, superintendent turnover in large urban districts may occur every one or two years. They state, “Superintendents should note the importance of remaining in a district long enough to see the positive impact of their leadership on student learning and achievement. Of equal significance is the implication of this finding for school boards as they frequently determine the length of superintendent tenure in their districts” (p. 20).

Leading Reform

Fullan, Bertani, and Quinn (2004) also discuss the role of the superintendent in reform, noting that effective district leaders leverage their position to implement their vision of large-scale change. However, they stress that district leaders can’t do the job alone: They need to build a coalition of leaders or “teams of people creating and driving a clear, coherent strategy” (p. 1).

In their work with six districts in the United States, Canada, and England, the authors saw the need for a “moral imperative” giving everyone responsibility for improving education in a broad context. They assert, “District leaders must foster a culture in which school principals are concerned about the success of every school in the district, not just their own. Districts must be concerned about other districts and the overall environment in which they are working” (p. 2).

By broadening their perspective and working to nurture a number of good leaders, district leaders can help ensure that the progress they make is sustainable. After all, the researchers point out, the main mark of success is not what impact leaders have had during their tenure, but how many people they leave behind to improve upon the work.

References

Dailey, D., Fleishman, S., Gil, L., Holtzman, D., O’Day, J., & Vosmer, C. (2005, May). Toward more effective school districts: A review of the knowledge base. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from www.air.org/projects/

Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). Leading in tough times: New lessons for districtwide reform. Covington, LA: Center for Development & Learning. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from www.cdl.org/resource-library/ articles/leading_in_tough_times/

Shannon, G.S., & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of improved school districts: Themes from research. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from www.k12.wa.us/research/pubdocs/ DistrictImprovementReport.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind: A desktop reference. Washington, DC: Author, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Waters, J.T., & Marzano, R.J. (2006, September). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement [A working paper]. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from www.mcrel.org/topics/Leadership/ products/244/

Whittle, C. (2005). Crash course. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.