View/Open - Drake University

seaI.cI1 (711 uihal lo engender better schools. Key of this approach to
school im~l-ovcnlenl i\ that performance information urill drive change becallse the
and snnctio~s emkdded ufirhin it will motivate teachers and
106
to improve (Massell_
1998) Fro111 adlninistr:lti\'e kders to leacher-led study teams, and from u.riting standards
and hcnchnlaks lo leading comnlunity in\tol\~ement, each district had, over time, woven
together its 0a.n plan for improvement long before the ad\rent of 1272. This histoy is an
incredibly important piece of the implementation puzzle, according to Elmore (2002) who
argues that the best predictor of how a school will respond to state policy is its organizational
culture when the policy becomes effective.
kndessliip
Just as in the past. leaders at every level in the district proved to be critical to
~mproving schools under the new state policy. As had been the case prior to 2272, in each of
the three districts studied, superintendents and curriculum directors assumed primary
rc.\pon\ihilit! for the i~nplcnlentatinn process. As the first line of information gathering. these
kc.? ctiucarol-s plavcd ;I number of roles. including support and encourazement for other
mcmhcr, of' rhc administrative team and teachers. grant tvriting. and procurement of outside
rcsourcc\ \uch as AEA staff or specialty area consultants. Firestone (2001) sug5ests. "that
u.hcn lllc kc!, decision nlakers in a district have a propensity to act in aceflain direction md
tile policy 3s con[rihu[inr lo their oa.n IS. they will implement it a!!~es~i\'~~!'" (p.
1 4 ) Adminis[ra[ors sa\\? the State policy as a of doing the). had 'vmted
to do ;lnyw;ly. >~ennu~llilem principals acted as ballast to stead!, the boat i* maintainins
prc-Jicc;,hilily in wl,orrl
learning even while SO llluch amund them a.as chancing'