Journals / Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL) / 2018 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

District Strategic Teaming: Leadership for Systemic and Sustainable Reform

Pages
139–177
Publication Date
2018-12-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Despite these challenges, the longitudinal study revealed substantive improvement in organizational culture and reduction of systemic barriers for innovation through the process described in this article.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Reform efforts in schools have become increasingly focused on the nature and direction of teamwork in efforts to achieve sustained and systemic districtwide capacity for innovation and needed change.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This reform process, called District Strategic Teaming, involved a representative vertical cross-section of members from the district office to school-based support staff.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Despite these challenges, the longitudinal study revealed substantive improvement in organizational culture and reduction of systemic barriers for innovation through the process described in this article.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:District Strategic Teaming · Educational Reform and Innovation · Rural Schools

Abstract

Reform efforts in schools have become increasingly focused on the nature and direction of teamwork in efforts to achieve sustained and systemic districtwide capacity for innovation and needed change. The six-year study reported in this article involved development, implementation, and assessment of a unique collaborative process for districtwide reform in some of the most challenging and fluid educational settings in the United States of America. This reform process, called District Strategic Teaming, involved a representative vertical cross-section of members from the district office to school-based support staff. Participating schools are located in isolated, rural communities in the south-eastern region of the United States of America that experience high rates of teacher turnover and serve student populations living in abject poverty. Despite these challenges, the longitudinal study revealed substantive improvement in organizational culture and reduction of systemic barriers for innovation through the process described in this article.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALSBURY, T. L., BLANCHARD, M. R., GUTİERREZ, K. S., ALLRED, C. M., TOLİN, A. D. (2018). District Strategic Teaming: Leadership for Systemic and Sustainable Reform. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL), Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 139–177. https://ajindex.com/articles/139203

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Alsbury, T. L. (2007). Systemic variables influencing scaling and succession in district reform efforts: An empirical study. In B. Despres (Ed.), System thinkers in actions: A field guide for effective change leadership in education (pp. 135-175).
  2. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Alsbury, T. L. (2008). Promoting sustainable leadership within the reform system. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic (pp. 177-194).
  3. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Alsbury, T. L., Militello, M., Fusarelli, B., Overstreet, A., & Jackson, K. (2009, November). Translational leadership: Building districtwide capacity through innovative partnership & practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Anaheim, CA. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322-360. doi: 10.1002/sce.20298 Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N (2015). Theorizing teacher agency and reform: How institutionalized instructional practices change and persist. Sociology of Education, 88(2), 140-159.
  4. Chaikoed, W., Sirisuthi, C., & Numnaphol, K. (2017). Collaborative network management for enhancing quality education of primary schools. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(6), 303-311.
  5. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
  6. Coburn, C. E., Bae, S., & Turner, E. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 364-399.
  7. Coburn, C. E., & Meyer, E. R. (1998, April). Shaping context to support and sustain reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Coburn, C. E., Russell, J. L., Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 137-182. doi: 10.1086/667699 Coburn, C. E., Toure, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115-1161.
  8. Cohen, D. K. & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement [Research Report Series RR-43]. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Re