Citation
Growing pains on the road to scale

Material Information

Title:
Growing pains on the road to scale three comprehensive school reform models
Creator:
Banks, Debra C
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
277 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Educational change -- United States ( lcsh )
School choice -- United States ( lcsh )
School improvement programs -- United States ( lcsh )
Educational change ( fast )
School choice ( fast )
School improvement programs ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 267-277).
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
Debra C. Banks.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
45224784 ( OCLC )
ocm45224784
Classification:
LD1190.E3 2000d .B36 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
GROWING PAINS ON THE ROAD TO SCALE:
THREE COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM MODELS
by
Debra C. Banks
B.A., University of Colorado at Boulder, 1980
MA, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1983
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
2000


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Debra C. Banks
ujiLm
Date


Banks, Debra C. (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Growing Pains On The Road To Scale: Three Comprehensive School
Reform Models
Thesis directed by Professor Rodney Muth
ABSTRACT
This study examines the growth and capacity-building strategies of
three comprehensive school reform models. Federal legislation passed in
1997 allocated start-up funds for schools and districts to contract with these
models for services. At issue is whether or not these CSR organizations
can indeed deliver on the challenge of meeting the demands for reform.
The comprehensive school reform models advanced by these
organizations support schools and districts on school-wide reform efforts,
emphasize school change, and focus on seven elements associated with
the core of schooling: curriculum, instruction, professional development,
standards and assessments, governance and community involvement. The
models are programmatic- or principle- based in their approach to school-
wide reform.
As third party providers, these organizations are increasingly another
service provider to schools. A number of these models existed before the
m


legislation; however, demand has increased as states have applied for
funds to support low-performing schools.
All organizations go through a set of stages that mark growth and
development into successful organizations. Most of these model providers
began as small programs, often housed in a university. How they develop
and grow into autonomous organizations and the challenges that they face
was the focus of this work. In addition, specific strategies that supported
the growth and increased the capacity of the organization while delivering
services to schools are identified.
A review of national documents focusing on comprehensive school
reformin particular documentation of the three organizations I
studiedpaved the way for the case studies conducted on the growing
pains and capacity-building strategies of comprehensive school reform
models. Data were obtained from annual reports, strategic plans, marketing
materials, interviews, conference participation, observations and personal
communications with model providers and teachers who work with them.
Tnis abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
tv


DEDICATION
l dedicate this dissertation to my dad Joseph M. Cowan,
for staying alive through thick and thin,
so that he could witness its completion!
To my mom Tess Cowan,
who just assumed I could do it
And to Gordon,
who had to live with me everyday.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation would not have possible without the
encouragement and support of many people. The staff of the School of
Education leant their patience to the endeavor, especially my advisor
Rodney Muth, who set high standards and never gave up on me through
the years. Appreciation is due to those people who supported this work, in
particular Robert Palaich for our thoughtful conversations often driving
home on Highway 36. I also acknowledge my fellow graduate
studentswho listened and laughed over enough coffee to purchase a
Starbucks chainand my close friends who have been neglected for years
through this project These people and many more believed in me, even
when l was less sure of myself, and I am forever grateful.


CONTENTS
Figures....................................................xv
Tables .................................................. xvi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION............................................1
Choice................................................2
Market Theory ..................................3
New Choices: More of the Same, Yet Different? --6
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
Program........................................11
The Evolution of Comprehensive School Reform
Models.........................................13
CSR Models: A Description .....................14
Paths to Scaling-Up............................20
Scale-Up.......................................21
Scale-Up: System Roles...............................25
District Role .................................26
State Role.....................................28
A Missing Piece
29


A Missing Piece...................................29
The Challenge ....................................30
The Problem.......................................31
2. CAPACITY-BUILDING .........................................36
Notions of Capacity.....................................39
Human Capital ..........................................41
Social Capital .........................................44
Trust.............................................44
Communication.....................................45
Electronic Media..................................47
Dissemination.....................................48
Organizational Capacity ................................49
Service Delivery..................................50
Organizational Structure..........................51
Partnerships......................................51
Service Product.........................................53
Financial Capital.......................................55
Non-profit Status ................................56
Time..............................................57
Reciprocal Capacity-Building ...........................58
VIII


3.
ORGANIZATIONAL LIFECYLES
61
Niches, Lifecycles, and Power ..........................62
Market Niche .....................................65
Politics .........................................67
Organizational Lifecycles ..............................68
Birth: Entrepreneurship...........................69
Growth: Collectivity..............................70
Formalization and Control ........................72
Elaboration of Structure..........................74
Decline...........................................75
Integration of the Models ........................76
Lifecycles and Effectiveness .....................82
Capacity-building & Lifecycles: Bringing Them Together .. 84
4. METHODOLOGY.............................................87
Methods Applied to Understand the Madness ..............88
Preliminary Data Colleciton ......................88
The Art of Asking Questions.......................89
Criteria for Inclusion in the Study: CSR Models ........89
Cases ..................................................96
Candidate Selection...............................97
be
I


Development of the Interview Instrument........99
Data Analysis .......................................99
5. SOUTHERN CLASSICAL CENTER...........................102
The Southern Classical Center Today ................106
Services Delivered............................107
SCC Delivers to Schools: Staffing ............109
National Faculty..............................110
Professional Development Schools..............111
Leadership....................................113
Staff Development.............................116
A Sense of Team...............................118
University Affiliation..............................120
Capital ......................................121
Challenges .........................................124
Hope................................................127
6. BELAY ON EDUCATION .................................129
SeesofBOE.....................................131
Enter New American Schools Development Corporation 134
The Evolution of Belay........................135
Parent and Child: BOUSA and BOE...............137
x


Second Parents and Siblings: NAS & BOE .........141
People Make It Work: Staffing ..................146
Promising Projects..............................153
Coming Together at Conferences .................155
Tools for Dual Purposes...............................158
Core Benchmarks................................ 158
Subject Matter Platforms .......................162
Looking Back to the Future............................163
Quality ........................................164
Future Tensions ......................................165
7. THE PRINCIPLE GROUP, INC..............................170
Early Growth.................*......................173
Futures Committee...............................174
From To: PGl Organizational Structure.........176
The Executive Board ............................177
The National Office.............................179
Centers.........................................180
Schools.........................................182
Governing Through Congress............................184
Sense of Congress...............................187
XI


CP: Democracy and Equity ........................189
Tensions.........................................190
Leadership in PGI................................192
Loose Coupling, Accountability, and Fidelity............194
Intersections with CSR...........................199
8. TAKING THE LONG VIEW..................................201
Human Capital Bin ....................................203
Leadership.......................................204
Principle-based..................................208
Transmission of Culture..........................211
Social Capital Bin ................................... 214
Annual Conferences...............................215
Web-site Networking Technology...................217
Organizational Bin......................................220
Organizational Structure.........................221
"Nested" in the parent Organization..............225
Product/Service Bin.....................................228
Importance of Master Teachers....................229
Benchmarks.......................................230
Recent Benchmark Developments....................234
xii


Capital Bin..........................................235
Foundation! Grants............................236
Deficient Spending............................238
Venture Capital...............................240
Conclusions..........................................241
9. GROWING PAINS AND CAPACITY BUILDING.................245
Lessons in Capacity-Building ........................248
Lesson One ...................................249
Lesson Two ...................................251
Lesson Three..................................252
Lesson Four...................................253
What Might We Want to Know Next? ....................254
Question One..................................254
Question Two..................................255
Question Three................................256
Question Four.................................256
Question Five.................................257
Question Six..................................257
In Closing....................................258
XIII


APPENDIX
A. LETTER OF CONSENT .....................260
B. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ....................262
REFERENCES.......................................267


FIGURES
Figure
6.1 Belay on Education Principles................................138
6.2 Organization Structure of BOE ...............................151
7.1 The Organizing Principles of the PGI.........................171
7.2 The Common Principles of the Principle Group, Inc.............172
7.3 Governance Structure of the Principle Group, Inc..............178
8.1 Organizational Structure One .................................221
8.2 Organizational Structure Two .................................222
8.3 Organizational Structure Three................................223
8.4 Organizational Structure Four.................................224
XV


TABLES
Table
1. CSR Externally Developed Models ..............................19
2. CSR Models In the Year 2000 ..................................33
2.1 Capacity Building Strategies for Comprehensive School Reforem
Models.................................... .................59
3.1 Summary of Organizational Lifecycle Models ...................78
4.1 Comprehensive School Reform Models: Age, Size and
Organizational Structure ....................................95
5.1 SCC Organizational Chart.....................................110
8.1 Human Bin....................................................204
8.2 Social Bin...................................................215
8.3 Organizational Bin...........................................221
8.4 Service/Product Bin..........................................228
8.5 Capital Bin..................................................236
8.6 Capacity-building Strategies fo Three Comprehensive School
Reform Models...............................................243
XVI


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Although educators are surprised at the longevity of standards-based
reforms in education, concerns are growing among policymakers,
researchers, and school reformers, that standards alone will not raise
student achievement (Education Commission of the States, 1996; Massell,
1998). The rallying call for greater accountability of students, teachers,
schools, districts, and state departments of education has crossed the
nation by example of the number of states with accountability plans and
policies (Education Commission of the States, 1998). The pressure on
schools and districts to perform well on standardized assessments and
report their performance to the public has prompted weil-intentioned school
reformers to search for answers to their problem.
To adapt to the demands changing public education, schools,
districts, and states must be flexible enough to address calls for greater
efficiency and productivity. Anchoring flexible options for school systems
are state accountability systems that combine state standards and a set of
assessments that measure how well students are meeting the standards.
1


These are coupled to a greater willingness of the public to consider market
alternatives as competition to bureaucracies. While flexibility is not a
panacea, it offers advantages over the one best system (Tyack, 1974)
and is meant to increase freedom of action for schools.
Districts nationwide are choosing a variety of alternatives, creating a
system of schools versus a unified school system. Large urban districts
have a variety of choice school options within the district for students,
parents, and teachers: charter schools, post-secondary options, magnet
schools, "focus" schools, and open-enrollment options. Voucher proposals
have been considered since the mid-fifties by policymakers (Wells, 1993),
and they are gaining renewed interest with policymakers (Ziebarth, 1999)
including recent legislation by Florida. Flexibility has the potential to
encourage schools to be more responsive to the needs of parents,
students, teachers, and administrators, while supporting schools to use
their resources more efficiently (Education Commission of the States,
1996).
Choice
Over the years, options for choice within the educational system
have evolved. Parents with the means to do so could always opt out of
2


public schools and enroll their child in a private school. However, choice
within the public school system has been perceived as a mechanism to
reach the common good for all students (Wells, 1993). Choice has been
viewed as a good in its own right and seen as freedom of choice and an
indicator of a better society (Levin, 1990). Hence, districts, state
policymakers, and the federal government have, all at one time or another,
been engineers of school choice. School districts have experimented with
alternative schools, open-enrollment plans, and school-within-schoo! plans.
The federal government has required desegregation in cities leading to
magnet schools as a choice within larger urban districts. State
policymakers have legislated charter schools as one vehicle to introduce
innovation into districts (Fuller, Elmore & Orfield, 1996; Wells, 1993;) and
voucher proposals are recycling through state policy circles.
Market Theory
Levin distinguishes between market choice and a public choice
system (1990). The mosaic of public school choice options include magnet
schools, alternative schools, open enrollment plans, post-secondary
options and charter schools; while the market-choice system is comprised
of vouchers and tax credits (Levin, 1990). While these approaches differ in
3


many respects, they share the assumption that school selection can be
used to leverage improvement in the education system (Loveless, 1998).
Many choice supporters subscribe to market theory (Chubb & Moe, 1990;
Gerstner, Semerad, Doyle, & Johnston, 1994), which argues that
competition among schools will lead to continuous improvement of
individual schools and that multiple providers will break the monopoly of
school districts (Chubb & Moe, 1990). If faced with competition, the natural
operations of markets will require poor performing schools to improve or
force them to close their doors. Choice advocates argue that choice
provides an array of options for parents, students, and educators and
assume that these parties will actively choose the best situation for each
individual's learning (Nathan, 1997; Raywid, 1992).
On the demand side of the argument parents and students are
presumed to be motivated consumers. Families will shop for the school that
best meets their needs. Teachers and administrators would work harder to
attract and keep the students who chose their school. On the supply
side, schools will be compelled to improve, to attract and retain students,
and reach higher standards of student achievement or face reconstitution
or other sanctions. Critics argue that even the most motivated parents
cannot judge fairiy the quality of a school, and the argument assumes that
4


parents can and will shop around, which is not always possible, particularly
for lower socioeconomic status families (Wells, 1993).
In addition to widespread dissatisfaction with public schools, Fuller,
Elmore, and Orfield (1996) attribute the increasing interest in school choice
to three factors. The Civil Rights movement which led to legislation and
experimentation with magnet schools as the answer to desegregation is the
first factor. Second is diminishing upward mobility perceived by many
American citizens, which has increased pressure on the public schools to
raise achievement levels. The third attribute is rising ethnic diversity in the
United States that is driving attempts to serve various communities and
parents with multiple forms of schooling. In addition, the rise of privatization
has also fueled the choice debate. Forces behind the privatization of
schooling have gained momentum from widespread discontent with
educational services, the belief that government is not performing well,
discontent with public bureaucracy, and the debate regarding the
appropriate role of government in society (Murphy, 1996).
Many of todays choice advocates tend to be more interested in
fostering economic competitiveness, thus seeking to make schools more
efficient and accountable by forcing them to compete with one another in
an educational market (Fuller, Elmore & Orfield, 1997; Levin, 1990; Wells,
5


1993;). Choice advocates call for schools to leam from the best practices
of the corporate sector and embed them into the business of schooling."
Champions argue that choice is a tool that will improve educational
outcomes, thus enabling the United States to compete more effectively in a
global economy (Gerstneretal., 1994). These factors combined are
continuing to drive choice as an issue d'jour for policymakers and
community members as people strive to reach higher goals for all students.
New Choices: More of the Same. Yet Different?
School choice has been a controversy since the 1950s when Milton
Friedman first introduced the idea of vouchers (Levin, 1990; Weiss, 1996).
Weiss notes:
The debate about school choice continues in the absence of much
data on its effects on student achievementor on anything else.
Only a few extensive school choice programs have been adopted in
this country, and only a limited number of families have taken
advantage of the choice programs that exist The strongest finding is
that the specific features of the program make a great deal of
difference. The devil is in the details, (p. vii)
While policymakers have been focusing on charter schools and
vouchers as choice opportunities, comprehensive school reform models
have been making headway implementing their philosophy, structure, and
pedagogical models in 1000s of schools across the United States
6


(Stringfield & Datnow, 1998). The oldest, and perhaps most well
knownthe Coalition of Essential Schools (CES), Accelerated Schools
Project (ASP), School Development Program (SDP), Success for All (SFA)
and the seven designs of the New American Schools (NAS)have
implemented their models in over 3000 schools nationwide (Education
Commission of the States, 1997b).
Henry Levin, an economist and the developer of the Accelerated
Schools Project, believes in the power of public school choice (Levin,
1990). He explains a framework of choices that would create a system of
schools within districts. In the nine years since the publication of his article
on choice, all of the options he mentions are now commonplace in the
discussion of public school choice mechanisms: open-enrollment, magnet
schools, mini-schools, post-secondary options and school-site governance.
Levin (1990) also describes the potential of private contractors:
One version of this alternative would be to let contractors compete
with the public schools to provide instruction in specified subjects as
alternatives for parents who were not satisfied with the progress of
their children in regular classes. An alternative is for schools to hire
private contractors to provide educational services in those areas
where the school system did not have a strong record of success, or
the immediate ability to improve matters. In both cases, the
contractual agreement might call for payment on the basis of
improvement in student performance according to specified criteria,
creating a strong incentive to produce results, (p. 265)
7


Comprehensive school reform (CSR) models may, perhaps, be the
latest choice option to come of age for school districts. Many of the models
are matched to low-performing schools by district administrators, providing
a vehicle for the troubled schools to improve. The pressure on schools and
districts to perform well on standardized assessments and report their
performance to the public has fueled well-intentioned school reformers to
search for answers to their problem. Rebecca Herman (1999), the project
director of the American Institute of Researchs (AIR) recent report on CSR
models writes:
The task of taking a critical look at schoolwide reform is unusual.
With overwhelming public opinion that our public schools are in crisis,
and local and national pressure to improve schools quickly, well-
intentioned school reformers do not always have the leisure to
investigate the effects of the approaches they advocate or adopt
(p. i).
Districts may choose to implement a wide variety of models,
providing within-district choice for parents and teachers. Many of the
models expect teacher buy-in before implementation at the school and
provide mechanisms for teachers who wish to remain or leave the school.
CSR models may be compared to the alternative schools most popular in
the 1970s, where teachers came together to create and provide a specific
philosophical approach or theme to educating students, while supported
8


by, funded for, and under the watchful eye" of the school district (Wells,
1993).
Comprehensive school reform models are also beginning to surface
in research as vehicles for changing schools. Early charter school research
(Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1997) cited the connection of comprehensive reform
models and the successful start-up of charter schools, noting that, when
charter schools adopted a CSR model, they were able to implement the
model more efficiently because of the prescriptiveness of the chosen CSR
model. Implementing a prescriptive model enabled charter organizers to
focus their efforts on other, less well-defined and difficult issues such as
facilities and budgeting. It enabled charter organizers to feel confident that
they had consensus about the curriculum and instruction of the school.
Comprehensive school reform model developers market their model
primarily to school districts, adding schools one-at-a-time to the CSR
network or by adding clusters of schools in districts to leverage
economies of scale in delivering services. In some states, a representative
from a specific model might act to facilitate and coordinate services to the
schools statewide, but this activity is conducted through state departments
of education and has gone unnoticed by state policymakers.
9


It has been difficult to build awareness about comprehensive school
reform at the legislative level. A few state policymakers are beginning to
show interest when comprehensive school reform is offered as a solution to
schools who are low performing or facing strict sanctions. Tying the
concept to accountability systems is helping build awareness for the idea,
yet, policymakers have remain largely unaware of the potential impact that
comprehensive school reform could have for creating and sustaining high-
performance schools.
With the addition of the federal funding to states, and the desire for
states to bolster low-performing schools, CSR models are beginning to
market their services to state departments in addition to marketing directly
to schools and districts. In Memphis, Tennessee, urban schools that are
under pressure to turn themselves around or face reconstitution or other
fierce sanctions have begun to show progress after adopting a CSR model
(Smith et ai., 1998). Memphis is an example of a targe district that has
entered into an agreement by signing a memo of understanding with New
American Schools (Smith et al., 1998; Stringfield, Ross & Smith, 1996).
This memo states that Memphis will implement one of the seven NAS
designs in 30% of the districts schools. Gerry House, Memphis
Superintendent, has taken a risk that may be starting to pay off. The
10


schools are beginning to show signs of improvement (Smith et aL, 1998).
Reformers, policymakers, and the federal government are beginning to
take notice.
Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration Program
In November 1997, Congress reallocated $150 million Title 1 dollars
to give schools an opportunity to implement a comprehensive school
reform model in order to spur student achievement in public schools. The
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program (CSRD) is a multi-
year initiative to reorganize and revitalize entire schools, especially those
most in need of improvement The program's purpose is to provide financial
incentives for schools to develop comprehensive school reforms that
address virtually all aspects of schooling and are based on reliable
research and effective practices.
The CSRD program is also significant because it is both connected
to and a departure from other major state and federal reform initiatives. For
instance, the CSRD program has programmatic and research tools in Title
1 that include essential-school-wide components such as professional
development, parent and community involvement and the coordination of
11


technical assistance and other kinds of resources. Federal advocates are
regarding the CSRD program as a test bed for strategies and structures
that are candidates for inclusion in a reauthorized Title 1. It is expected that
information regarding the early implementation of the new federal program
will weigh in the future reauthorization deliberations for Title 1.
CSRD also differs from previous state and federally funded initiatives
insofar as it focuses on raising standards and providing resources for all
students rather than the implementation of interventions targeted at specific
groups of children, like Head Start This shift is based on the recognition
that schools and communities are most apt to determine local needs and
possess the resources to coordinate and implement programs effectively.
The Porter-Obey Bill (P. L. 105-78) provides startup grants
amounting to $50,000 per year, for up to three years, and are available to
schools via competitive proposals to states. Dollars have been awarded to
states as block grants based on their share of Title 1 or non-Title 1 schools.
Since July 1,1998, and as of this research, almost 40 states have received
grants totaling $91 million dollars (personal communication, Julie
Pederson, December, 1998). The federal government defined criteria to
determine what constitutes a CSR model and what infrastructure wilt best
support the success of these schools. States are scrambling to create
12


implementation plans to award the funds, monitor implementation, and
evaluate efforts (United States Department of Education, 1998).
The Evolution of Comprehensive School
Reform Models
What goes around comes around. Consider the following:
The language of educational reform in America has developed and
shifted almost mercurially in the last twenty years. In rapid
succession since Sputnik, we have heard of national curriculum
projects, educational innovation," self-renewal, educational
technology, organizational development," community control,
knowledge utilization," capacity-building, dissemination," R&D
products, mutual adaptation, linkage. And now networking."
(Miles, 1978)
Since the 1980s the explosion of reformers working to fix education
after A Nation at Risk (United States Department of Education, 1983), has
Given rise to the hundreds of educational reform networks that exist in
states, cities, and regions throughout the United States today. Some of
them focus on a specific approach to a curricular subject, like the National
Writing Project or Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Still others, like
the Quality Education Network for Minorities, have a program focus which
provides extended math and science experiences for inner city schools and
students. IMPACT II is an internet-based teacher's network, and
Communities in Schools, Inc., is an organization that serves students by
13


building Groups of community support in schools. These networks are
national in scope, yet their focus is narrower than CSR models.
CSR Models: A Description
Comprehensive school reform models are unique because they are
organized around a broader set of components than a single program or
subject area. A comprehensive school reform program is one that
integrates, in a coherent manner, all nine of the following components
(United States Department of Education, 1998):
1. Effective, research-based methods and strategies
2. Comprehensive design aligned components
3. Professional development
4. Measurable goals and benchmarks
5. Support within the school.
6. Parental and community involvement
7. External technical support and assistance
8. Evaluation strategies
. 9. Coordination of resources.
Most of them include a mix of stakeholders: schools, districts,
universities, community and business members, teachers and often,
14


parents. Ted Sizer (Coalition of Essential Schools), Henry Levin
(Accelerated Schools), Robert Slavin (Success for All and Roots and
Wings), Mortimer Adler (Paideia) and James Comer (School Development
Project), are pioneers of these types of reform efforts. They have all
created projects that have grown and evolved into large school
improvement programs now called comprehensive school reform models."
Joining these distinguished educators in the early 1990s, the New
American Schools (NAS) Design Corporation was created to leverage this
type of model, resulting in the creation of seven distinct comprehensive
school designs" (Stringfield etal. 1996).
A special issue of Education and Urban Society (1998) presented a
series of articles on Scaling-up School Restructuring Designs in Urban
Schools" (p. 269). Definitions for comprehensive school reform models will
be discussed from the primary researchers, Sam Stringfield and Amanda
Datnow (1998) and adopted for use in this study. The concept of whole-
school change has many aliases. The names of the organizations have
primarily stayed the same (Audrey Cohen College became
Purpose-Centered Education when Ms. Cohen passed away in 1997); the
Coalition of Essential Schools, Onward to Excellence, School Development
Project, ATLAS, and so on, but how they are identified in education reform
i


circles has changed. They have been projects (Education Commission of
the States, 1994), school improvement programs (Wang & Haertel, 1996),
networks (Education Commission of the States, 1997), design-based
assistance providers (New American Schools, 1998), and, since the Porter-
Obey funding, comprehensive school reform models or designs (these two
terms are used interchangeably).
The term comprehensive school reform design" refers to a model
for school improvement that is externally developed outside of a school
district by a third party organization (Stringfield & Datnow, 1998). It is
holistic in nature, considering the entire school: what curriculum is taught,
ways to deliver instruction, alignment to standards, what assessments will
be used, forms of professional development, governance models, and
ideas for parent involvement.
Prior to federal reauthorization of Title 1 resulting in the CSR
Demonstration Program (CSRDP), early discussions by Glennan (1997)
provided a definition of a CSR design in the context of critical elements that
should be present in any approach to school improvement. His approach is:
A comprehensive blueprint for a schoolnot simply unrelated pieces
of theory and research, but a thoughtful package of strategies,
methods and practices. A design articulates a schools mission and
goals. It guides the instructional program and shapes the selection
of the staff and the work environment It establishes expectations for
16


behavior, performance and accountability among students, teachers,
and even parents. And it provides the criteria for regular self-
evaluation that are essential for continuing improvement (p. 10)
The CSR model is developed and implemented by an external
organization or design team that conceives of the principles and
philosophy of the model, creates materials for teachers and schools, and
provides technical assistance to schools and districts, in return, CSR
designs receive funding from the district to implement the model in a
school. Schools choose a CSR model, and then a contract is created
between the CSR model and the district for implementation and delivery of
services. Comprehensive school reform models are third party providers
to schools and districts.
Under the CSRD program, schools may implement either one of
two kinds of reform models: those that have been externally developed or
those that have been internally developed in schools. Forty-four externally
developed models are summarized in the first edition catalog produced by
the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory (1998). Twenty-six of these
are whole-school reform models, 17 of which are referenced specifically in
the Obey-Porter legislation as school reform models that have brought
about gains in student performance in a number of schools across the
17


country. The seventeen CSR models included in the Porter-Obey
legislation are included in Table 1.1 on the next page.
These models span a continuum from highly prescriptive designs, in
which the designers have developed the entire model in great detail, like
Roots & Wings, to designs that are more principle-based, like the Coalition
of Essential Schools (Viadero, 1999). Some of the model developers
prescribe a tightly constructed program (Success for All). On the opposite
end of the continuum are those developers that believe that all schools are
unique, and each one should follow its individual path to reach its goals
(e.g., Coalition of Essential Schools). This allows for more flexibility for the
implementing school to adopt the model in light of the schools particular
context. Hence, CSR models can be perceived as another choice option in
the larger spectrum of intra-district choices.
18


Table 1.1: CSR Externally Developed Models
CSR model Abbreviations
Accelerated Schools Project ASP
America's Choice School Design ACh
ATLAS Communities ATLAS
Group of Essential Schools CES
Community for Learning CFL
Co-Nect Schools Co-N
Direct Instruction Dl
Expeditionary Learning OB OBE
High Schools That Work HSTW
Modem Red Schoolhouse MRSh
National Paideia Center NPC
Onward to Excellence OTE
Purpose-Centered Education (Audrey Cohen) P-CE
School Development Program SDP
Success for AH/Roots and Wings S4A/RW
Talent Development High School TDHS
Urban Learning Centers ULC
(Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, 1998)
The American Institute of Research (AIR) released the first research
report rating the effectiveness of the research of these CSR models during
spring 1999. According to the sponsors of the research project (AIR,1999),
they took on the project because most of the prose describing these
approaches remains uncomfortably silent about their effectiveness (p.1).
The importance of the report is twofold. As schools and districts consider
these CSR models, their effectiveness on student achievement is the most
important selling point for district and school personnel. For the CSR
19


models, it means that they will have to prove their effectiveness using
research-backed methods and data.
The AIR report is the first step towards a pool of research about
CSR models and their effectiveness as a schoolwide reform strategy. The
report measures the available research on effectiveness of the model, the
variety and type of technical assistance provided to a school to implement
fully the model, and the associated costs of contracting with a developer.
Paths to Scaling-Up
Although an opportunity potentially exists for millions of dollars to
reach schools via CSRD, no guarantee says that the 17 models identified
in the Porter-Obey bill will lead to profound changes in educational practice
or impact a critical mass of high performing schools across the nation
(Lewis, 1998). For the younger CSR models (5 years old or less), it is too
early to obtain possible effects on student achievement (Bodilty et at.,
1998; Smith, et al., 1998). Current research conducted has been on the
implementation of the model in schools (Smith et al., 1998; Stringfield &
Datnow, 1998). Individual design organizations are conducting research on
the effects on students, but the majority of it has not been replicated
successfully or has been conducted on too small a sample of students
20


(American Institute of Research, 1998; Northwest Education Regional
Laboratory, 1998). However, researchers, federal agencies, and others are
calling for research that examines CSR designs plan, or lack thereof, for
scale-up and its impact on participating schools (Education Commission of
the States, 1998).
Scale-Up
Scale-up can be defined simply as increasing the numbers of
schools engaged in a certain design (e.g., implementing the Modem Red
Schoolhouse in 3000 schools nationwide). Elmore (1996) argues, The
problem of scale depends on the demand for new ideas and understanding
how schools seek new knowledge and actively use it to change the
fundamental processes of schooling" (p. 4). If the larger reform question
calls for sustaining high performing schools raising student achievement in
ail of the nations schools, then is this demand lever" strong enough to
facilitate the changes that Elmore argues?
Healey and DeStephano would agree on the need for demand, but
would include other components. Their work on scaling up education
reform efforts in Africa points to the lack of a supportive environment in the
host country necessary to sustain reform (1997). They argue:
21


Instead of replicating the reform itself, we contend it is the conditions
which give rise to the reform in the first place that should be
replicated. We maintain that by doing so, reformers not only improve
the prospects of education/school reform going to scale, but also
create a reform environment that will spawn multiple innovations,
and with that, the potential for significant knowledge sharing, (p. 13)
Comprehensive school reform designs can grow naturally or
planned, rapidly and exponentially, and most often through district-wide
implementation (Stringfield & Datnow, 1998). Time becomes an important
variable, because, when scale-up happens very fast, the support
infrastructure may not be in place, leading to failure of the reform in schools
and, consequently, in the model as well. This dissertation examines the
growth strategies of CSR design organizations, which will be discussed in
depth in the next section.
Most of the CSR models began as small programs. As they grew,
many developed into more expansive programs, reaching the size and
scope needing organizational structures to support their continued growth.
For example, structures include accounting systems, a strong funding
base, and a larger personnel needed to deliver services and the systems
necessary to track these staff. Schorr (1997) believes that small, effective
programs remain as small, effective programs because the conditions
necessary (flexibility and responsiveness) are not in a characteristic of the
22


I
larger system. Consequently, "scale-up" does not occur, and programs do
not reach their full potential. She writes:
When the model is expected to become the norm, it can no longer
evade the barriers of traditional financing, accountability,
governance, and public perception. Failure to recognize this fact has
seriously impeded efforts to scale-up. When effective programs
aiming to reach large numbers encounter the pressures exercised
by prevailing attitudes and systems, the resulting collision is almost
always lethal to the effective programs. Their demise can be
prevented only by changing systems and public perceptions to make
them more hospitable to effective efforts to change lives and
communities, (p. 19)
How does a CSR model grow from small, flexible, entrepreneurial,
organizational stages to an increased capacity that can effectively reach a
critical mass of schools across the nation? To what extent are CSR
designers concerned with increasing the numbers of schools using their
approach versus with sustaining high performing schools after the three
year period in which they are initially funded? How do CSR developers
increase the capacity of their organization while delivering services to the
schools with which they are currently contracting? And how do model
providers maintain a standard of quality and fidelity to the model as it is
replicated across the nation? These questions are the focus of this study.
Looking at the concept of scale-up from outside of the education
world, research has been conducted on the role of non-government
23


organizations (NGOs) in the development of third world countries (Uvin &
Miller, 1996). The work of NGOs seeks to increase the capacity of people
and communities toward self-reliance, to change the conditions of their
livesin short, to be empowered. This paradigm of participation centers
on the creation and the strengthening of community-based, grassroots
organizations (p. 345). If one switches the context to schools, the
sentiments expressed would not be too far off from the charge of CSR in
regard to low-performing schools. It also appears that the NGO researchers
are struggling with many of the issues that I pose about CSR designs and
their path to growth. The authors wonder
However, some important questions about scaling-up need to be
answered. The basic, as yet unanswered, issue concerns its relation
to participation: How can development initiatives move beyond their
original local constituencies and have a larger impact while
continuing to foster participation? Can participatory, bottom-up
programs and organizations scale-up without becoming
cumbersome, over-staffed, and unaccountable to the communities
they claim to represent? The second question raises the dilemma of
external funding and support for scaling-up versus autonomy and
self-reliance: Is there a relationship between donor support of
scaling-up and degree and kind of constituent participation? (p. 344)
Now, consider this excerpt
To grasp the role, relevance and impact of grassroots organizations
as they scale-up, we need also to understand the dynamics,
objectives, strengths, and weaknesses of other institutions in
society, as well as their interactions with NGOs. It is impossible to
make general claims on the functions and strengths of NGOs
24


without putting them in their social context (p. 345)
I will return to the theoretical thinking of NGOs and scaling-up in
future sections. The social context that CSR design organizations are a
part of, namely, the school system is where I want to direct our attention.
Scale-Up: System Roles
When considering the nature of complex reform efforts (Smith &
O'Day, 1991), it is doubtful that CSR models can act alone in the system to
reach their goal. The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
(CSRD) Program Guidance document spells out the relationship between
the legislation and other education initiatives, how this federal program fits
within the broader context of school improvement efforts, and possible
roles for states and districts for effective implementation in schools (United
States Department of Education, 1998). Factors involved in the success
rate for CSR models include a combination of organizational fit with the
schools and districts with which they are partnering and the extent that the
district and state policy environment allows these designs to expand and
increase the impact of innovations. As in many systems, the district and
state roles are somewhat similar, the difference lies in the populations
targeted for their efforts.
25


District Role
The district rale is one of facilitating and monitoring the choices
schools make, ensuring readiness and rightness of fit between a CSR
design and a school, and creating the larger district environment for such
school choices to exist (New American Schools, 1998a; Education
Commission of the States, 1996). Districts need to develop a culture that
supports the policies necessary for the type of flexibility, responsiveness,
and accountability that comes with having a variety of CSR models housed
in them (Bodilty, Keltner, Purnell, Reichardt, & Schuyler, 1998). New
American Schools outlined the attributes of a supportive district
environment (Bodilly et al., 1998; New American Schools, 1998a). They
are: (a) school autonomy, (b) high standards, (c) appropriate assessments,
(d) sources of assistance, (e) professional development, (f) technology, (g)
community services and supports, (h) public engagement, (i) capacity and
willingness to invest, (j) systems management and governance.
Early implementation research of the NAS designs in districts in
seven states shows that implementation of CSR models is enhanced when
incentives and sanctions are in place that help schools in their efforts to
change their strategies to serve their student community (Bodilly et aL,
1998). Success also depends on whether the district has reallocated
26


resources to sustain model implementation and has provided adequate
professional development time for teachers to learn about and fully
integrate the methods and philosophy associated with each model (Bodilly
et at., 1998; New American Schools, 1998a; Smith et al., 1998).
Finally, districts must be willing to help build community support for
the districtwide environment necessary for these models to take root and
provide opportunities for community members to learn firsthand about the
CSR models. Districts can act as disseminators of information about CSR
models by hosting design fairs" (New American Schools, 1998a) that build
awareness about the host of CSR models available to schools.
Managing various school choices while upholding high standards for
school and student performance may be forcing the type of change
directed at districts for many years. A main argument for whole-school
designs is that they must be managed in a holistic manner, supporting the
total set of schools versus a singular component of an individual schools
program (Bodilly et al., 1998; New American Schools, 1998a; Stringfield et
al., 1996). It requires a change in the way districts serve their schools.
Successful implementation of CSR models may add to the pressure of
charter schools and other choice options that may force district change.
27


State Role
States also play a complex role in the CSR process. Some
advocates believe that state educational policy should reflect the flexibility
and accountability needed at the district level (Education Commission of
the States, 1997b). Necessary are high standards, accountability
measures, choice and decentralization, funding streams that allow schools
to allocate and reallocate necessary monies for in-depth professional
development and other mechanisms to successfully operate and sustain
effective schools (Bodilly etal., 1998; Education Commission of the States,
1997b; New American Schools, 1998a). Like districts, state policy can
support setting and sustaining the type of conditions for CSR models to
flourish in districts. In addition, state policy can work to ensure equitable
access to CSR models (Education Commission of the States, 1997b). They
can create processes to ensure that rural and large urban districts have
equal access for contracting with models.
The CSRD guidance suggests that states also have a role in
providing information for districts to be informed consumers making smart
choices in partnering with CSR models (United States Department of
Education, 1998). The guidance also outlines a state role as an evaluator
of qualify of the CSR model's ability to meet its demands and promises to
28


districts and schools. In addition, state departments can act as
watchdogs, collecting, crunching, analyzing, and disseminating the district
data on student achievement, measuring how well students faired and
possibly singling out what progress was attributable to participating in a
CSR design.
A Missing Piece
Left out of the discussion on scale-up and system roles is the role of
the CSR model. Most early innovation efforts are structured as pilot
programs. They are small beacons of success that once underway attempt
to expand and reach greater numbers of people (Kanter, 1983; Rogers,
1995; Schorr, 1997). Scaling-up" presents a complex set of issues for
each stakeholderschools, districts, statesand third party providers. The
focus of early research has been predominantly on the effect of the model
on school restructuring through its implementation efforts (Bodilly et al.,
1998; Bol, L., Nunnery, J., Lowthier, D., Dietrich, A., Pace, J., Anderson,
R., Bassoppo-Moyo, T., and L. Phillipsen 1998; Cooper, Slavin, & Madden,
1998; Smith et al., 1998; Stringfield & Datnow, 1998). Comprehensive
school reform models and their organizational viability as educational
29


service providers to districts and schools need further study to determine
their potential effects on raising student achievement in schools.
The Challenge
Comprehensive school reform designers have been marketing their
models to schools and districts. They have sold their ideas, philosophies,
and organizing structures to districts and individual schools on the rhetoric
that their model will raise student achievement. Before the Porter-Obey bill,
CSR developers operated in a free market. Few, if any, accountability
measures were placed on the design organizations. It was the CSR
developers that chose with which schools and districts they were going to
partner to deliver their set of services. As the stakes for high-performing
schools has increased, all states have come under increasing pressure to
intervene on behalf of failing schools. For many states, the dollars
associated with the CSR Demonstration Program is the needed push to
funnel extra funds to low tax-based districts that have traditionally had
difficult times initiating and/or sustaining other types of restructuring effort.
Consequently, the CSR Demonstration Program seems like a viable
strategy to states. State education agencies will be learning as much as
they can about these models and create an implementation plan that meets
30


the guidance devised by the U.S. Department of Education for their share
of funds. The bill, passed in November 1997, allocates funds over a three-
year period, which became available to states in July 1998. To date, over
40 states have received the first of three installments from the U.S.
Department of Education, reaching over $91 million dollars. Roughly
57,000 schools could implement a CSR model. Demand is up.
The Problem
Supply, however, is another issue. As states proceed with their
planning efforts, four issues must be addressed. First, a push for states to
become savvy consumers" of CSR design organizations, with the intent of
helping schools make the best match with a design, creates sustained
partnerships between schools and designs, and districts and designs, and
ensuring for quality of services rendered (Hassel, 1998). Second, strategies
must ensure that implementation plans fit into the larger systemic plan of a
state (Bodilly et al., 1998). Third, states will be in the position of evaluating
CSR designs and schools implementing designs to track and evaluate
whether or not CSR designs have been instrumental in raising student
achievement (United States Department of Education, 1998).
31


Capacity is the fourth and most complex issue, it is not enough for
organizations to have an outstanding product to succeed. Organizations
must focus their efforts internally while sustaining their success with the
services they deliver. It is the ability for CSR models to build their own
capacity to grow organizationally, while delivering services to schools and
districts that I am interested in observing. What are the skills, roles, and
resources available to the CSR developers, districts and states to support
scale-up of designs? Are enough trained professionals available to provide
the necessary human capital needed to reach 1,000s of schools with
quality services? Can supply meet the current demand?
Taking a quick look at what is possible, Table 1.2 on the next page
shows the number of schools that CSR designs reported they would scale-
up by the year 2000, and the percentage of those schools compared to the
total number of public schools in the nation. Using the number of schools
currently in operation and the number projected by the year 2000 as
reported by CSR design models, it is possible to calculate the increase of
schools per CSR model (Education Commission of the States, 1998).
Based on the 87,125 (total number) schools in the nation (National
Education Association of Statistics, 1998), by the year 2000 only 11% of
the nation's schools at best could be implementing a CSR design. Clearly,
32


this is not critical mass of the nations schools; however, it still raises the
question, If CSR designs are intended to serve 1,000s of schools, what
capacity building strategies will accelerate their ability to reach their goals?
Table 1.2: CSR Models in the year 2000
Comprehensive School Reform Design Models 1997 #of schools #0f addl schools 2000 # of schools % of nations schools
Accelerated Schools Project 1000 400 1400 1.60%
Americas Choice School Design 300 400 700 0.80%
ATLAS Communities 57 83 140 0.16%
Group of Essential Schools 1000 200 1200 1.37%
Community for Learning 53 647 700 0.80%
Community Learning Centers 5 30 35 0.04%
Co-Nect Schools 65 350 415 0.40%
Different Ways of Knowing 300 100 400 0.46%
Direct Instruction 52 48 100 0.11%
Edison Project 25 16 41 0.05%
Expeditionary Learning OB 47 60 107 0.12%
High Schools That Work 800 550 1350 1.55%
High/Scope 42 28 70 0.08%
League of Professional Schools 103 100 203 0.23%
Modem Red Schoolhouse 45 60 105 0.23%
Montessori 214 60 274 0.31%
National Paideia Center 80 30 110 0.13%
Onward to Excellence 200 150 350 0.40%
Purpose-Centered Ed (Audrey Cohen) 16 unlimited* unlimited* unknown
School Development Program 721 150 871 1.00%
Success for AII/R & W 750 1000 1750 2.00%
Talent Development High School 6 40 46 0.05%
Urban Learning Centers 19 120 139 0.16%
Total 5900 4622 9740 11%
"Purpose-Centered Ed. did not provfde a number of additional schools added to the
existing network. When asked, they responded that the number was, unlimited.
1998 NEA Education Statistics at a Glance = 87,125 public schools
Comprehensive school reform models will need to meet and exceed
the challenges facing them to be considered as a sustaining reform
33


strategy versus another fad. First, many of the CSR models must position
themselves as solid service providers to states. CSR models must prove
themselves as viable organizations. They also need to decide how many
schools to serve in addition to the current number they are serving and
determine the level of quality that they will strive to achieve for their total
set of schools. Simultaneously, they must build their internal capacity to
deliver services to new schools, while sustaining the original pilot schools
and marketing to additional new schools. They must manage many schools
to serve in addition to the current number they are serving and determine
the level of quality that they will strive to achieve for their total set of
schools. Simultaneously, they must build their internal capacity to deliver
services to new schools, while sustaining the original pilot schools and
marketing to additional new schools. They must manage training and
communication across multiple sites with limited personnel and resources;
negotiate a variety of state and district laws, regulations, and testing
requirements; monitor fidelity to the design and its philosophy; and gather
and compare data on implementation and student achievement from site to
site. Successful scale-up is no small feat
CSR models existed before the Porter-Obey bill, and most of them
will probably outlive the Porter-Obey era," perhaps changing the names
34


they go by, while continuing to work in schools. However, they will survive.
Thus, it is important to observe and study their functioning and growth while
they are under the current limelight Research is needed to understand the
effectiveness of the models, and research about the organizations behind
the models themselves and their paths toward growth, professionalism, and
institutionalization is also needed for schools, districts, and state
departments of education to become savvy" consumers of such models.
They may add to the evolution of thinking about how schooling could be
done differently, and perhaps, done better.
35


CHAPTER 2
CAPACITY-BUILDING
Identifying the capacity needed for comprehensive school reform
design organizations to scale-up the number of schools they serve is a
complicated task. First, what is meant by capacity? Webster (1988) defines
capacity as:
1. The ability to receive and hold
2. The volume or amount that can be contained
3. Intellectual ability
4. Function, position
5. Maximum producing ability
6. Legal qualification.
Capacity is like a holding area or space that is increased as a result
of a treatment to the object. For example, exercising can increase lung
capacity and is often defined as the amount of available oxygen that the
lungs can hold. The more one exercises, the more lung capacity increases,
which, in turn, allows an individual to exercise more. Capacity has
increased as a result of the treatment (exercising). Davenport (1999)
36


argues that capacity should be considered as increasing the value or worth
of something, so building capacity emphasizes strengthening the elements
that add value to the whole. In the context of education, consider the
definition of ODay, Goertz, and Roden (1995):
Within the context of systemic reform, capacity is the ability of the
education system to help all students meet more challenging
standards. If the capacity of the system is insufficient for
accomplishing a desired goal, capacity may be increased by
improving the performance of workers (e.g., teachers); by adding
resources such as personnel, materials, or technology; by
restructuring how work is organized and by restructuring how
services are delivered, (p. 1)
Capacity may be increased by improving or changing a number of
factors: improving the performance of workers, adding resources, or
restructuring how work is delivered or services delivered. Masselt (1998)
uses a similar definition: Capacity in this [state] policy context refers to the
wherewithal needed to translate high standards and incentives into
effective instruction and strong student performance" (p. iii).
Discussions about capacity are often framed by the beliefs about
what is essential to implementing ideas. Corcoran & Goertz (1995) argue:
Those who advocate school-by-school change, capacity building means
the creation of learning communities, changes in governance, and
opportunities for teachers to share their craft knowledge" (p. 27). For
37


Corcoran, Goertz, and Spillane (1997), capacity is composed of three sets
of variables: (a) intellectual ability, (b) knowledge, and the skills of teachers
and other staff; the quality and quantity of available resources for carrying
out effective teaching; and (c) the instructional culture of the school.
The entrepreneurs who create CSR designs must have unique and
complex skills. Comprehensive school reform designers require a
combination of business management; a solid understanding of teaching,
learning, and educational reform issues; and the leadership skills to bring
vision into reality. Success depends on the mixture of these skill-sets. From
a business perspective, creating a quality product, effectively marketing the
product, and creating and maintaining an organizational structure that will
meet the needs of a specific client group are crucial to development
Educationally, a CSR designer must know how their product" fits and adds
value to the existing educational system, what reform efforts (like
standards-based reform) require CSR design alignment and the specific
context in states and school districts where the CSR design will be
implemented. Additionally, the designer must possess the leadership skills
necessary to hire and train the stafFthat will work: to achieve the ultimate
goal, bringing their vision into reality. These issues are at the center of how
CSR model organizations build capacity.
38


Clearly, the task is demanding, and strategies to build capacity of
the organization must take a broader approach than strategies to build
capacity of the entrepreneurial individual. Organizations are comprised of
individuals and structures that govern how the individuals will work together
and alone to provide their service or product to their constituents or
customers. This study will uncover how CSR model providers build capacity
through an organizational perspective to meet their goals (Morgan 1986).
Notions of Capacity
A number of educational researchers have considered capacity-
building strategies for teachers, schools, districts, and state departments of
education (Corcoran & Goertz, 1995; Lusi, 1997; Massell, 1998; Spillane &
Thompson, 1997). Their premise is that schools and districts need to
increase their ability to achieve sustained self-renewal and reform by
viewing school improvement as a process of continuous improvement
(Susan Lusi, personal communication, November 13,1998) cycle. These
authors group capacity-building efforts into three categories: human capital,
social capital, and financial capital (Corcoran & Goertz, 1995; Spillane &
Thompson, 1997).
39


As third party providers, CSR model organizations must have a
product and/or service that is perceived as worthy of teachers' time and
attention as well as of quality that can be sustained. Although monies are
available to states, districts, and schools, the final consumers are
classroom teachers, so the product and service that CSR models are
marketing must be palatable to those who ultimately will be implementing
the methodology. CSR model developers need to build capacity to
continuously improve their products and services, while building their
credibility with educators and administrators. Finally, organizational
capacity building around the CSR design is a key ingredientto expansion
and growth. This can determine the ultimate test of a CSR design
organization, its ability to go from an entrepreneurial organization to one
that has formal operations, and systems, and is perceived as a professional
organization.
The following section examines each of these capacity-building
categories and their application in comprehensive school reform
organizations. Although I will describe each of the five capacity-building
categories separately, it will become clear through the examples and
discussion that the five capacity-building bins are not isolated silos".
Instead, they overlap like the five rings in the Olympic symbol; each bin has
40


unique capacity-building strategies while many strategies cross multiple
organizational bins.
Human Capital
The term human capital originated with the Nobel Prize winning-
economist, Theodore W. Schultz. In 1961, he penned an article called
Investment in Human Capital for the American Economic Review. Since
then, other economists (Becker, 1993) have agreed that human capital
consists of ability (which includes knowledge and skills), experiences,
commitment, and effort (Davenport, 1999). From within an educational
context, Smvlie (1996), expands the economic definition to include
knowledge, skills, dispositions, and social resources of adults that can be
applied to promote learning and development
The commitment, knowledge, and attitude of reform designers are
important components of CSR designs capacity. Those who are committed
to reforming schools, who are immersed in the principles and concepts of
their design, and who are knowledgeable about issues of teaching and
learning are crucial to the success of the reform effort. In addition,
leadership, vision, and management are necessary for the organization to
accomplish its goals. The combination of strong business management
41


skills and innovative thinking are a tough leadership package to fill and
develop.
However, for a CSR organization to grow, it needs more than one
innovative and credible leader (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). Capacity is built
by the number of people working for the organization who are as committed
and knowledgeable as the initial model developers. Kouzes and Posner
argue: Leaders must develop the capacity of the people in the organization
by expanding the potential of the people* (p. 155).
Not all organizations, however, have the available resources needed
to fulfill this goal. For example, the National Paideia Center (NPC) serves
80 schools in 6 states. It has an intensive design that relies heavily on in-
service training of faculty with follow-up coaching and facilitation by the
NPC trainer (Terry Roberts, personal communication, November, 1997).
Currently, the Center has 6 full-time employees, which is approximately a
1:13 ratio of trainers to schools. Terry Roberts, the executive director of the
NPC, knows that staff burnout is a probability; however, it is a quality
catch-22. In order to increase capacity to serve more schools, NPC
should increase its total number of staff; however, they can only do so if
they take on more schools. This may consequently lower the quality of
services delivered to schools because NPC may be unable to match
42


seasoned trainers to all of the new schools that they have acquired, while
simultaneously training new NPC staff.
Continuing to use the newly hired staff at NPC as an example,
consider the knowledge necessary for new staff to understand fully and be
able to implement the concepts and instructional principles that are the
underpinnings of the Paideia approach. Roberts must gauge how much
information the new staff have acquired and evaluate how well they have
mastered it in order to feel comfortable sending these staff into schools to
facilitate the Paideia approach. Until the staff is sufficiently trained, the
burden of serving schools remains with the existing staff of the NPC; yet,
training new staff and serving schools may also strain the existing
organization. The tension between training staff while serving schools may
pose a challenge for CSR organizations growing to meet demand, but it
does not free CSR leaders from the responsibility to create educational
opportunities to increase the knowledge and skills of their staff (Kouzes &
Posner, 1993). As Smylie (1996) insists, human capital is built through
learning" (p.11).
43


Social Capital
Moving from the one to the many, social capital development refers
to the social networks, resources and relationships that contribute to
learning (Smylie, 1996). One method that builds social capital is creating
and sustaining professional networks for educators using the CSR model
(Firestone & Pennell, 1997; Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996). These networks
facilitate knowledge capital creation and dissemination, which builds
educators' human capital. Social interactions surface insights,
understandings, and new perspectives on subjects. Although these
networks are created and managed by the CSR model for the participating
educators, the networking function may build capacity for both the
designers and the educators engaged in learning about the design.
Trust
Building trust between the CSR designers and the educators with
whom they are working in schools may be one of the most important
components of increasing social capital, the capacity that arises from the
prevalence of trust in a society (Fukuyama, 1995, p. 26). Each school is
unique, requiring the building and nurturing of a trusting relationship
between the school (teachers and principal) and the CSR design team or
44


identified CSR design facilitator. Building trust takes an enormous amount
of time and energy and needs to be continually nurtured. If CSR designers
and facilitators are perceived as faltering in their relationship with a school,
trust levels decrease, and the likelihood of sustained success for adopting
the model will likely go down (Bodilly, et al. 1998).
Communication
Various communication strategies also build social capacity.
Comprehensive school reform designers hold annual meetings where
people come together to network, discuss, and share information about the
design. These meetings reinforce peoples interest in the design, while
adding to their knowledge and providing new material, ideas, and concepts
for them to implement in their schools. Teachers reportedly come away with
a sense of renewal as a result of sharing and learning with their peers
(Firestone & Pennell, 1997; Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; Lieberman &
McLaughlin, 1992).
One of the most basic communication strategies is publishing
monthly or biannual newsletters that share information, provide news about
the CSR design, and provide updates on upcoming meetings. Although
newsletters may be expensive and time consuming to create, print and
45


mail, many teachers receive them and then pass them around to fellow
teachers, which may increase exposure of the CSR design to other
teachers. This is a simple networking technique, but one, which is
successful (Nohria & Eccles, 1992).
The oldest form of networking is through face-to-face meetings
(Nohria & Eccles, 1992). Comprehensive school reform designs host
annual meetings for their primary customers. Many CSR designs hold
design fairs" for potential district "customers" and are sometimes
sponsored by supportive state department school improvement or Title 1
personnel (New American Schools, 1998a). These are usually one-day
events for teachers and administrators from schools within a district. The
intent is to build awareness of a number of designs, facilitate talk firsthand
with the CSR design leaders, and get a feeling for the designs before
entering into a contract for service between a CSR organization and the
district or school.
In addition to meetings held by CSR designers, districts and states,
other meetings sponsored by other organizations (e.g., federal and state
education departments, the Education Commission of the States, and the
Annenberg Institute for School Reform) provide exposure and increase
publicity about CSR designs (Education Commission of the States, 1997b).
46


These meetings raise awareness about the CSR model in the minds of
federal, state, and district policy makers. Participating in these meetings
allows informal networking of the CSR design leaders to talk together,
discussing their strategies to expand and disseminate information about
their design.
Electronic Media
The internet and web-site capability are important technological
innovations that has benefited CSR models in a social capacity (Nohria &
Eccles, 1992). Being connected within a CSR network enables staff to work
together electronically. This is especially important for those organizations
that have CSR design facilitators living in geographic areas other than the
CSR headquarters. Dede (1998) argues that using technology-based
innovations offer special opportunities that foster communities of learning
and can add in scale-up efforts.
Most web-sites include basic information about the CSR design, a
calendar of events and meetings, a listing of all of the schools involved in
the CSR design, and updates pertaining to research on CSR model
effectiveness. Many of them include a database of everyone within the
design family, enabling teachers to share information, and on-line
47


discussion groups which allow teachers to chat with each other, post
questions, or offer advice about how ideas worked in their school. Many
web-sites also include a best practices database, which gives teachers
access to different ideas and practices that they can implement in their
classrooms immediately. Such electronic networks are especially important
to smaller CSR organizations where financial resources are stretched.
Websites are a prime example of how technology is one form of glue that
can help a CSR organization reach its potential.
Dissemination
Gaining publicity through the productive use of the media is another
communication strategy. CSR leaders who submit articles to Education
Week. Educational Leadership. Phi Delta Kappan. and other publications
reach a wider educational audience than those already participating in the
design. Given increased public interest in education, other media with a
broader audience than educators (National Public Radio, Wall Street
Journal, and Atlantic Monthtvi bring attention to CSR designs. These media
spots bring attention to CSR designs, which could create new demands for
the model.
48


The combination of building social and human capital is perhaps one
of the foremost goals for education. Spillane and Thompson (1997) reflect
on their research on building local capacity in districts: Human and social
capacity are interdependent, they develop in tandem" (p. 3). All of the
social components of capacity building require more than one individual in
order for them to be successful. Although human and social capital may
create a strong culture and community among the participants, they are not
sufficient if financial resources are not available to market and spread the
CSR model's vision, principles, and strategies for implementation in
schools.
Organizational Capacity
Building organizational capacity is the third category. CSR designers
build capacity through how well they navigate their internal organizational
processes for growth (Ftamholtz, Coff, & Randle, 1992). All organizations
go through a series of transitions during their early stages of development
(Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Kimberly & Miles, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981).
In addition, organizations must overcome the liabilities of newness and
smallness (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Stinchecombe, 1965) rf they are to
49


sustain themselves overtime. Long-term planning enables CSR
organizations to be strategic about how they plan to grow.
Service Delivery
Determining to whom and how CSR models will deliver services is
an important decision. CSR organizations need to decide if they should
market themselves to individual schools with the resources to purchase
their services or to schools within proximity of others already engaged in
the design. Some CSR design organizations are attempting to create a
group of schools that cluster" together to bring the design to them. This is
an economies-of-scafe strategy, capitalizing on places where the design is
already in existence or adding a large enough set of schools (or districts) to
make it cost effective for the CSR developer to travel to the site. Another
strategy is to increase the numbers of schools in a given state versus
beginning in a new state. Finally, CSR design organizations can decide to
focus their efforts on inner-city schools or rural districts. Considering all of
these possibilities requires well thought out decision making on the part of
the CSR design leadership and a healthy dollop of risk-taking.
50


Organizational Structure
Issues of growth and service delivery raise questions about
organizational structure. Many CSR design organizations (and
organizations worldwide) begin as a small group of people designing and
delivering a product with limited resources. Upon sustained success and
growth into new geographical locations and markets, the organizational
structure must change in order to meet the requirements of a larger
organization (Flamholtz, 1990; Ulrich & Lake, 1990. A few CSR models
have evolved into a federation of schools, implementing the model across a
number of states. More commonly, CSR models have adapted into a
franchise structure (Bradach, 1998) which incorporates regional centers
or partnerships with universities as a means to manage many schools and
districts nationally from a singular central organizational headquarters.
Partnerships
Partnering with another institution (education or otherwise) can
support the CSR model organization with a variety of resources.
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB), for example, is housed at
the National Outward Bound Center in New York and has another national
office in Boston, Massachusetts. ELOB also has formed partnerships with
51


the seven Outward Bound Schools in the nation as well as with Harvard
University, which has a small Outward Bound Project in the Graduate
School of Education. Name recognition with Outward Bound has helped
ELOB build awareness of the model and has served as a metaphor for the
philosophy of the design (Greg Farrell, personal communication, March,
1998).
Universities are another potential prospect for CSR organizations to
build organizational capacity. Many of these programs leave the university
and become autonomous organizations. The Accelerated Schools National
Center, for instance, was housed at Stanford University and now is a
separate entity; Success for Alt and Roots and Wings began at Johns
Hopkins University, and has recently split to create the Success for All
Foundation in Baltimore, Maryland. Universities can provide student
teachers that can work for the organization while earning their degree. The
university can also offer research possibilities with graduate students who
are interested in studying the design which, in turn, serves the design by
meeting the established criteria for the Porter-Obey guidelines (Terry
Roberts, personal communication, November, 1998).
Affiliations to a state department of education may also be a viable
form of capacity building because of the resources the state department
52


can bring that can increase the districts understanding and knowledge
about a design. State departments can allocate a design facilitator who
represents the design but who works (and is on the payroll) of the state
department. Missouri, for one, has a design facilitator who represents both
the Coalition of Essential Schools and Accelerated Schools (Education
Commission of the States, 1997b).
Service/ Product
As third party providers to educators in schools, the most important
aspect of delivering a service is to know what the service is, and to
effectively provide it to the customer. This sounds so simple, and yet, is so
complex. CSR model providers have a package of services to sell to
educators in schools. The nature of comprehensive school reform means
that it is not a single program with a specific budget attached and a certain
amount of days allocated to it for implementation in the school. CSR takes
teachers to understand and implement the program; administrators to
allocate substantial resources (staffing, dollars and professional
development time, to name a few) to the effort; districts to support it
through standards, accountability measures, and decentralized authority;
and parents to know and understand it (New American Schools, 1998).
53


Each of these components alone can be monumental to Implement in a
school or district
Once a CSR design is bought* the basic contract between the
model provider and the school or district should dearly state the
parameters of the services to be delivered, on what timeline, and for how
much money (Keltner, 1998). Then the model provider begins work in the
school. This typically takes the form of release days for teachers to work
with a model provider (often called school designer" or facilitator) to learn
about the philosophy of the model and to begin to implement it in their
classrooms. Because this aspect of service delivery encompasses theory
on professional development, and teaching and learning, I am not including
it in this study. My focus is not on how effective the professional
development offered is at impacting teachers in classrooms. My focus is on
the various types of professional development offered by CSR model
organizations. Professional development is one aspect of service delivered
to schools. Other services include providing annuaf conferences (previously
discussed in the social section) and the use of web-sites to share
information.
A majority of the CSR models have inadequately proven their
effectiveness at raising student achievement (AIR, 1999). As a result, it
54


seems obvious that CSR organizations would conduct evaluations on the
models impact on students. For those who have engaged in evaluation
activity, it is clear that reports such as the AIR report, with support and
backing from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and American
Association of School Administrators (AASA) will continue to place
pressure on CSR organizations to prove that the models are worthy
reforms. Likewise, in an effort to remain a desirable product, CSR model
providers will work to incorporate new knowledge and technologies into
their existing design. Evaluations and integrating new technologies can be
costly, so I will now turn attention to the fifth capacity bin, financial capital.
Financial Capital
Although articles have been written recently about how schools need
to change with little or no extra resources (Odden, 1997), it is unrealistic to
expect that learning, building trusting relationships, and the time needed to
accomplish these efforts will occur in a financial vacuum. The greater the
pot of dollars in a CSR design organizations coffers the more likely it will
have the resources to expand and grow. This will increase the CSR
organizations ability to hire and train additional staff to deliver services.
55


which will, in turn, afford them the opportunity to serve more schools and
districts.
Financial resources also support research and design of new
instructional materials for the CSR design facilitator to introduce, teach
from, and leave with the teachers who are implementing the CSR design.
Developing new instructional materials sends an important message to
teachers and administrators that the CSR model is committed to continuous
improvement and will not continue using tired or outdated instructional
materials.
Non-profit Status
Most CSR models are non-profit organizations. With this status, they
are able to secure grants (often called soft funds") from foundations. This
revenue stream has both beneficial and challenging aspects for CSR model
providers. Non-profit organizations can secure the grant and use the funds
(with tax breaks) from foundations that are looking for social investment
opportunities.
The term soft funds refers to typical foundation grants. Grants are
given primarily to develop and test new ideas, often funding the program in
its start-up and demonstration phase (Letts, Grossman, & Ryan, 1977).
56


They are short-term funding cycles, often for 3-5 years, and the majority of
the funds are earmarked to flow through the non-profit directly into the
program that the foundation has contracted to fond. These funds are
sometimes difficult to sustain because, among many other factors, funders
may change their funding preferences and discontinue funding (providing
the money was used appropriately and according to the granting contract)
a certain social program for a newer, sexier" idea.
Time
Another financial dimension for building capacity is how time is
allocated and used (Corcoran & Goertz, 1995; O'Day, Goertz, & Roden,
1995). For classroom teachers, spending time with CSR design facilitators
to understand the reform model and how best to implement it in their school
is the most important commodity. For CSR design teams, time is essential
to generate new business strategies while supporting the ones currently in
use. Time is also necessary to train new staff in order to expand the design
into new schools. Also, time is in relation to working within schools. Design
facilitators need to be in schools in persontravel, planning, delivering
services, and debriefing the in-service lessons provided by a design
facilitator; and all of these activities take time.
57


Table 2.1 (on the next page) shows the five capacity-building bins
and strategies that could stimulate growth and support the movement from
one stage of lifecycle development and into another. What is absent are
activities that CSR models providers engage in that support capacity-
building in the organization as a whole. The intent of this study is to
cover what activities CSR organizations pursue and their potential
effectiveness.
Reciprocal Capacity-Building
While thinking about capacity building as a foundational strategy for
CSR models to engage in for growth and sustainability, one other form of
capacity building is worth noting. I call it reciprocal capacity-building.
Reciprocal capacity building is created by strategies that enhance the
abilities of the educators implementing the CSR model via participation with
the model as well as the CSR model provider. As I have argued in previous
sections, if CSR models are to sustain themselves, they need to build their
own capacity. Likewise, if they are to grow as a viable solution for schools,
they need to increase the capacity of those implementing the model.
[Hence, I will be on the lookout for strategies that increase the knowledge,
skills and assets of all of the parties engaging in the activity.]
58


Table 2.1: Capacity Building Strategies for Comprehensive School
Reform Models
Capacity Bins Capacity-Building Strategy
Human Leadership Setting vision, mission, and purpose Knowledge of craft Knowledge of educating: Teaching & learning, staff development concepts Knowledge of model philosophy Knowledge of education reform
Social Relationship building & Networking Establish, build, and sustain trust within organization Establish, build, and sustain relationships with clients Establish, build and sustain partnerships that support the model
Organizational Leadership Providing organizational leadership Building organizational culture Structure Clarity of employee roles and responsibilities Organizational hierarchy Operations Formalization of operations Technology Use
Service/ Product Delivery of service Clear understanding the deliverables" Providing high quality services Being efficient Research & development Proving model is effective Incorporating cutting edge information as approphate Marketing Raising awareness and selling the service
Capital Finance Raise capital Allocate available resources Fiscal conservatism Time allocation Creating time for individual & organizational growth
59
i


This chapter has identified and explored categories for building
capacity in CSR designs. These categories serve as the conceptual
framework from which three CSR designs have been examined as case
studies, spotlighting the strategies they used to build capacity and to what
ends were they successful. The following chapter outlines organizational
life-cycle literature and its application to CSR models and their growing
pains. This literature will serve as the theoretical framework for this study.
60


CHAPTER 3
ORGANIZATIONAL LIFECYCLE
No one best theory" of organizations explains or predicts how
organizations will behave in various situations (Shafritz & Ott,1992). Some
theories build upon others; some use the same language and jargon.
Further, no consensus exists on what constitutes an encompassing
organizational theory. This has not, however, deterred scholars from putting
forth their best ideas. Anyone is free to join the school of organization
theory... but before casting your lot with one school, consider the options
(Shafritz & Ott, 1992, p. 4.).
A substantial body of theoretical research identifies a host of
obstacles standing between success and decline of new organizations.
Comprehensive school reform organizations are considered unique
institutions because they are third-party providers of complete educational
packages for schools and districts that contract with them (Education
Commission of the States, 1997). In the 1980s, only a handful of whole
school reform models existed in school districts, but the fast 10 years has
seen an expansion of these entities into the educational marketplace.
61


Additionally, the potential expansion of CSR organizations created by the
Porter-Obey legislation has widened the niche pool for such organizations
to grow and prosper.
This section explains how three forces work continuously to
influence the development of organizations. Two of them are external to the
organization. They are the environment that creates a market and potential
niche for the organization to fill and the politics that fledgling organizations
must address while in early stages of growth and development The third is
the lifecycle of the organization itself, the stages it must go through to grow
successfully and remain viable.
Niches. Lifecycles, and Power
Sociologists have expressed interest in the founding of new
organizations, especially in the circumstances that encourage some
emergent enterprises to grow and mature while others struggle without
achieving sustained success (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Downs, 1967;
Flamholtz, 1990; Kimberly & Mites, 1980; Stinchecombe, 1965). Three sets
of forces trigger change in and around organizations (Kanter, Stein, & Jick,
1992): the market niche the organization will be competing in, the life cycle
of the organization as it grows and matures, and, finally, the political forces
62


that impact the organization. All three have an impact on the organization's
survival. The focus is not organizational aging but on evolutionary forces
outside the organization that catalyze the need for change and the intra-
organizational dynamics that facilitate or inhibit change (Kanteret al.,
1992).
Since the creation of new organizations entails a selection and start-
up process, it is important to understand the environment that is conducive
to their birth (Pennings, 1980). The population ecology model (Hannan &
Freeman, 1977) has its roots in the theory of biological evolution (Aldrich,
1979). The argument is that, while organizations have some control and
choice over changes in their environment; most sources of change are a
result of external conditions in the environment It is from an ecological
framework (Hannan & Freeman, 1977) which understanding can arise
about the various environmental factors that lead to the birth of an
organization.
Two basic propositions in the population ecology model exist
(Aldrich, 1979). The first is that a natural selection process occurs in the
environment, which determines the structural forms of organizations. The
second is that organizational forms must either fit their environmental
niches or they tail. The process of natural selection means that
63


organizations move towards a better fit with their environments overtime.
This shift over time is examined in three stages (a) variation, (b) selection
and (c) retention, which are both biological and sociological (Aldrich, 1979;
Kanter, 1983). The theory focuses on organizational survival.
The second force affecting organizational success are the growth or
lifecycles" they pass through as they evolve from a start-up, emergent
organization to one that has been successful for fifty plus years, or one that
has declined or died (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Downs, 1967; Kimberly &
Miles, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981). Stinchecombe (1965) notes that
organizations are particularly vulnerable during their infancy. During this
time, they must overcome their liability of newness" which is a combination
of inefficiency (due to inexperience), lack of stability, lack of an internal
strategy, unclear vision, insufficient funding, and uncertain customers
(Stinchecombe, 1965). For organizations that are able to pass their
survival threshold (Downs, 1967), many of them find they are confronted
with the paradox of success (Kimberly, 1980), defined as the effect on
organizations that are successful in early start-up, but then taper off as
institutionalism sets in.
Organizations are groups of people, with multiple interests,
preferences and competing beliefs and values about how the organization
64


should operate. Many stakeholders have an interest in the organization
itself as well as what the organization produces. Politics and how
organizations gain and use power is the third influence affecting
organizations (Kanter et af.t 1992). Politics can be perceived as the
jockeying for position that goes on as groups of individuals advance there
own interests (p. 46). Politics and power do not always have to be cast in a
negative light. Studies of innovation show that when power is
decentralized, innovation can occur (Kanter, 1983). Grassroots groups
have been able to change services provided to them by dominant
governments. Other examples include dictators who have been ousted and
governments that have been turned over. Needless to say, market niches,
organizational lifecycles, power and politics can shape an organizations
direction in profound ways (Kanter et al., 1992). These represent forces
that keep organizations in constant flux, demanding attention and
readiness for change of entrepreneurial leaders who are working to realize
their visions.
Market Niche
The primary market for CSR organizations has been defined and
determined. The pressure for school districts to reach certain levels of
65


achievement for all of their schools has created a potential market across
the nation for providers to fill, and prove their product desirable and
effective. The nine criteria in the Porter-Obey bill help to define the
parameters for CSR organizations that want to compete in the market.
Those CSR organizations with a greater alignment with the nine criteria
have a better chance of funding by districts for schools than those who
meet fewer than the nine.
Another factor defining the niche is targeting who is most in need of
the CSR intervention. The CSRDP guidance suggests that state
departments of education should possibly consider allocating money to
those districts that are specifically using CSR as a strategy to support low-
performing schools (United States Department of Education, 1998).
Charter schools are a growing secondary market for CSR models.
Wohlstetter's (1998) work in California mentioned that those charter
schools that had adopted a CSR model had more available time to spend
on the difficulties of buildings and fiscal constraints that many charter
schools face. Subjects in the research study identified CSR models as a
way to address curriculum and instruction. In both cases, the niche has
been defined and filled first by pioneers like Slavin, Sizer, and Comer. As a
result of Porter-Obey, the market is open, allowing room for competition
66


between various providers and plenty of opportunity in the 53,000 school
districts to fill the perceived need.
Politics
Politics also play an important role, although less internally within
CSR model organizations. Fewer power struggles occur in the early stages
of an organizations development because of the high commitment to the
goals of creating an organization in its early, formative stages. However,
the possibility exists for greater political tension between the CSR design
organization and the districts and schools it contracts with to deliver
services. Using standardized testing as an example, political tensions could
occur with a school implementing a CSR model that obtains a district
waiver to bypass administering the state standardized test The school files
for the waiver because this form of evaluation goes against the philosophy
of the CSR model. Other schools in the district may also be obtaining the
same waiver, but the possibility exists that the CSR model gets more of the
blame" for non-compliance with state regulations. Frustration from the
central administration in the district may be displaced onto the CSR model.
Focusing on the capacity-building strategies for CSR model
organizations is less about how the CSR models manage the environment
67


they live in (although isolating this factor fails to provide a complete
perspective). It is more about how they build the internal organizational
capacity to gain a competitive position on other organizations in the same
market and better manage those external forces. All organizations
experience lifecycle issues as they compete in their identified niche and
navigate politically. Development of organizations is an important focus
because changes in lifecycles seem to occur more rapidly in younger
organizations than in older, more established organizations (Quinn &
Cameron, 1981). The main focus of this study is on the capacity-building
strategies that CSR model organizations use to grow and develop while
expanding their market niche. Considering the focus of this study,
examining the literature on organizational lifecycles is necessary. The next
section delves into organizational lifecycles from birth to death.
Organizational Lifecycles
Big news! We are able to operationalize the PGI. Are we obtaining
our goals? Our very first strategic plan identifies three priorities. HP
Consultants helped us to sharpen our focus. We're past the infancy
stage and more like a toddler. (CSR Model developer, 1999)
68


Birth: Entrepreneurship
Considerable organizational theory has dealt with social structure
and change of existing organizations, but less interest has been expressed
in the creation of new organizations (Quinn & Cameron, 1981). The most
important contributions on organizational birth do not come from
organizational theory but from literature on entrepreneurship (Pennings,
1980). Using the metaphor of birth, this first stage encompasses the
activities of the entrepreneur that conceive the idea that will become the
basis for the development of the organization. The creation of the ideology
(Kimberly, 1980), and the entrepreneurial activities that engage the
founders to dream up what we might do (Adizes, 1979), are the earliest
organizational development activities.
Concurrently, the founder or entrepreneur is strategically evaluating
the market niche that the new venture may thrive in. Millions of good
ideas are generated every day. Hundreds of business books are written to
help entrepreneurs match their good idea" to the right niche, be it creating
a market or taking advantage of an opportunity. It is one of the fundamental
aspects of starting a new business venture (Drucker, 1985; Flamholtz,
1990).
69


Although having a good idea and knowing the niche to be filled is
crucial to launching a new organization, marshalling the necessary
resources to get off the ground is the third non-negotiable of the
organizational birth process (Flamholtz, 1990; Quinn & Cameron, 1981).
Seed money, venture capital, and organizational angels" (rapidly
growing in the high-technology sector) are often the places where
entrepreneurs in the private sector go to look for start-up money.
Entrepreneurs in the service non-profit sector tend to build seed money
from foundation grants or private donors looking for a tax write-off.
Partnerships are formed with larger institutions of a similar kind (universities
are one example) to the new venture in order to create a partnership that
serves both. The important point is that capital is a requirement
Growth: Collectivity
Launching a new venture can be exciting, tenuous, risky, and
precarious. For any idea to reach and affect consumers, the organization
will have to grow in order to meet the demand. This second stage of
successful organizational growth is typified by expansion of the
organization (Adzes, 1979; Downs, 1967; Flamholtz, 1990; Quinn &
Cameron, 1981). The entrepreneur is successful in surpassing the
70


survival threshold" (Downs, 1967) getting the product to initial customers,
and, rf successful, the number of customers is multiplying. The demand
created by initial success has the small group of employees moving at top
speed, innovating and creating systems to support the product while
improving it and continuing to deliver rt (Adizes, 1979; Flamholtz, 1990;
Greiner, 1972). Along with high commitment by employees (Quinn &
Cameron, 1981), this stage is exemplified by a high sense of organizational
mission (Kimberly, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981). Internal communication
systems are informal (Adizes, 1979; Flamholtz, 1990; Greiner, 1972; Quinn
& Cameron, 1981), and decision-making is intuitive, frequent, and
decentralized (Adizes, 1979; Kimberly, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981).
Flamholtz (1990) describes ten growing pains that organizations
experience, often during this stage of development (p. 53):
1. People feel there are not enough hours in the day."
2. People are spending too much time putting out fires.
3. Many people are not aware of what others are doing.
4. There is a lack of understanding about where the firm is
headed.
5. There is not a sufficient number of good managers.
6. Everybody feels l have to do it myself if l want to get it done
correctly.
7. Most people feel Our meetings are a waste of time."
8. When plans are made, there is very little follow-up and things
just don't get done.
9. Some people have begun to feel insecure about their place in
the organization.
71


10. The organization has continued to grow in sales but not in
profits.
Another growing pain that can be felt by organizations which have
stretched their resources too thin, creating a strain to meet the increasing
demands in its market niche. Just as children who grow six inches in a
year, and have insatiable appetites, the challenges in this stage are
associated with rapid growth versus survival (Flamholtz, 1990).
Moving from this stage and into the next is crucial because it signals
the change from an entrepreneurial organization to a professionally
managed one (Flamholtz, 1990). Any new organization faces two general
problems, argues Kimberly (1980, p. 22). First is a problem of getting off
the ground. Second is the problem of institutionalization.
Formalization and Control
At some point during the chaos and growth that is experienced in
stage two, the leadership of the organization realizes that it must attend to
the infrastructure of the organization to meet the demands of the service or
product it is delivering. At this point, the organization shifts from its
entrepreneurial or informal approach to one that introduces the
operational systems and processes needed to professionalize the
72


organization and begin moving towards efficiency (Adizes, 1979; Downs,
1967; Flamholtz, 1990; Greiner, 1972; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kimberly, 1980;
Quinn & Cameron, 1981).
The leadership and top tier of managers also shifts, requiring people
to engage in more management types of activities versus acting as a group
of individual entrepreneurs. Rules, policies, and procedures are
established (Downs, 1967; Flamholtz, 1990; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kimberly,
1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981), and long-term versus short-term strategic
planning is often first used (Flamholtz, 1990). Formalization of the
organization occurs, the emphasis shifting away from innovation, flexibility
and rapid change.
Once the organization has made a transition to professional
management attending to the corporate culture becomes critical
(Flamholtz, 1990). By the time an organization has reached this stage, it
has hired many new people and has expanded into a much larger
organizational structure. Possibly, the founding entrepreneur and original
employees are no longer working for the organization. Transmitting the
corporate culture in an organization the size of 10 employees requires a
different strategy than in one of200 employees (Deal & Kennedy, 1982).
The challenge is to transmit the values, norms, and beliefs of the
73


organization and support the culture throughout the organization
(Pettigrew, 1972; Schein, 1985).
Elaboration of Structure
Much of the literature on organizational lifecycle models begins to
taper off at this point. Downs (1967), Adizes (1979), and Kimberly (1980),
complete their models at the last stage as indicated by the summary model
by Quinn and Cameron (1981). If the organization has reached this stage, it
is typically adapting to its changing market (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Quinn &
Cameron, 1981) and continuing to strengthen its internal structures.
This is not, however, a minor stage. In fact, this is the stage that
receives the most research conducted on organizations. The Change
Masters (Kanter, 1983), Buift to Last (Collins & Porras, 1994) and tn
Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman, 1982) are among the classic
business books written in the last 15 years. In the cases studied in these
three studies, the companies were in this stage of development All of the
organizations had been in existence for over 15 years (in Built to Last, the
companies were at least 50 years old), and were being studied to identify
what factors lead to their continued existence at the top of their industries.
While it is true that many of the companies included in In Search of
74


Excellence have now fallen from the top of the business charts, the
strategies identified by these authors and others have generated a huge
business for organizational health, strategic advancement, and continued
improvement
Decline
It is the societal norm to grow and think new and improved"
(Morgan, 1986; Whetten, 1987). Because of this, the literature on declining
organizations is thin. A variety of reasons exist for this, including: (a)
difficulty in gaining access to organizations in decline (typically,
organizations move to an entrenched mode of operating when faced with
indicators of decline), (b) support for organizational research is usually
financed to study managers and their techniques who foster innovation and
growth, and (c) not all organizations decline and die (Whetten, 1987).
The strategies employed by organizations in decline are different
than those used during growth (Cameron, 1984; Whetten, 1987). Levines
typology (1978) defining decline in organizations identified internal and
external situations or crises that trigger organizational decline such as
organizational atrophy, political vulnerability, and environmental entropy.
Decline is the result of toss of organizational muscle tone." Once success
75


is achieved, organizations may not be as sharp or as hungry" for
competitive advantage (Ulrich & Lake, 1990).
Although this study does not focus on the decline of organizations,
at least 50% of the new ventures begun every year do not sustain
themselves to become a mature organization (Drucker, 1985; Kanter et al.,
1992; Stinchecombe, 1965). Reviewing lifecycle models provides important
clues about the dominant criteria of capacity-building strategies that are
likely to be present in CSR design models. My findings on what strategies
have successfully supported and moved a CSR model towards a sustaining
organization may lend insight to other organizations similar to CSR models.
Integration of the Models
Table 3.1 on the next several pages presents a summary model
(Quinn & Cameron, 1981, p. 35), combining the common organizational
characteristics typical of each stage. All of the models progress through a
similar set of development and growth lifecycle stages. Most of the models
stop before the decline and death stages.
Reading across the table, each author's set of lifecycle stages is
depicted. However, reading down the columns, similarities across the
76


models are readily apparent So, although titles for the individual authors
may be different they agree on ideas within each stage.
Notice that a consistent pattern of development occurs in
organizations overtime. More importantly, the strategies and activities used
in one stage are not the same as ones needed in another stage of
development. It may be possible that identifying and evaluating capacity-
building strategies for various CSR design models will be different
depending on the stage of development of the organization. Additionally,
consensus exists across the lifecycle models on the point of advancement
through stages (Cameron, 1984; Flamholtz, 1990; Kanter, 1983; Whetten,
1987).
Organizations will recycle through developmental stages as a result
of changes in the external or internal environment. For example, a change
77


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3,1; Summary of Organizational Lifecycle models
Summery 1, Birth: Entrepreneurial 2, Growth: Collectivity 3. Formalization & Control 4. Elaboration of Structure
Model Quinn & Marshalling of resources Informal communication & Formalization of rules Elaboration of structure
Cameron, Lois of ideas structure Stable structure Decentralization
(1981) Entrepreneurial activities Sense of collectivity Emphasis on efficiency & Domain expansion
Little planning Long hours spent maintenance Adaptation
& coordination Sense of mission Conservatism Renewal
Formation of a "niche" Innovation continues Institutionalized procedures
"Prime mover" has power High commitment
Downs, (1967) Struggle for Autonomy Rapid Growth Deceleration
Legitimize die function to the Innovators and climbers have Increased size & complexity
external environment control causes coordination problems
Obtain autonomy from parent or Emphasisoninnovationand innovation is de-cmphasized
competing bureaus expansion Smoothness and predictability
Stabilize resources Occurrence of an "age jump" in are emphasized
Achieve survival threshold membership "Conservers" have control Formalized and elaborate role
systems Reduced flexibility
Katz& Primitive System Stable Organization Blaborative Supportive
Kahn, Cooperation endeavors based on Coordination & formalization Structures
(1978) common needs and expectations Authority systems arise Adaptation systems arc
of member Informal structure arises formed, i,e, procurement
Rule enforcement systems, disposal systems,
Maintenance systems arise institutional relations systems


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3,1 (Cont.): Summary of Organizational Lifecycle models
<0
Summary 1, Entrepreneurial
Model __________________________
2. Collectivity
3. Formalization & Control
4, Elaboration of Structure
Greiner,
(1972)
Functional structure established
Accounting system set up
Specialization of tasks
Formalized rules and policies
Flamho)tz( New Ventura
1990) Make & sell
Define markets & niche
Develop core products
Informal
t Thin resources
CrsatiyitY
Emphasis on producing a
product
Long hours or work with
modest rewards
Informal communication
structure
o Expansion
0 Expand resources & Products
0 New products
0 Developing operations
0 Informal, but understood
Delegation
Decentralization of structure
Decision making pushed lower in
the hierarchy
Management by exception
Goofination
New systems arise
Product groups form
Long term planning
Profit sharing programs
Collgfepration
0 Professionalization
0 Build management
infrastructure
0 Formalizing operational and
management systems
0 Established products
0 Increasing surplus of resources
0 Consolidation
0 Spread (be corporate culture
0 Formal management systems
0 Well developed operations
0 Well-defined market____________
Team action
Spontaneity in management
Confrontation in interpersonal
problems
Self-discipline
Multi-purpose systems set up
DivorsMon
Encourage innovation
Define new markets & niche
Develop new products


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.1 (Coni); Summary of Organizational lifecycle models


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3,1 Continued: Summary of Organizational Lifecycle models
OO
Summary t. Entrepreneurial
2, Collectivity
3. Formalization & Control
4, Elaboration of Structure
Kimberly, Eii#
(1979) Marshaling of resources
Creation of an ideology
Second
m
Formation of identity
Sense of collectivity of family
High member involvement in
Pursuit of organizational
mission
Postponing individual need
fulfilling temporarily
Fourth
Obtaining support for the
external environment
Choice of a "Prime mover"
Staffing of the organization
Frequent, discrete decisions are
made
Formalized structure
Policies and rules set up
Internal organizational competition
Stabilized external relations
Conservative trend


in customer interest away from large, fuel-inefficient, automobiles in the
1970s, towards smaller, gas-efficient, vehicles illustrates an industry
responding to external pressure. The impact on an organization as a result
of an unsuccessful merger is an example of internal pressure. Do not be
fooled into thinking that, once an organization has passed" through a
stage, it will never have the need to revisit it later in its history. Problems
present at one stage will not be solved as a result of moving toward the
next stage (Quinn & Cameron, 1981). It is a recycling phenomenon and is
dependent on the multiple pressures and environmental changes that
present change to the organization (Kanter, et al., 1993). Additionally, it is
important to differentiate between growth stages, problem stages, and
decline.
Lifecycles and Effectiveness
Consensus does not exist among scholars about whether or not
lifecycle models can measure organizational effectiveness (Cameron &
Whetten, 1983). Their differences depend on what conceptualizations and
assumptions the researcher holds about organizations. Different mindsets
about what an organization is and what it has set out to achieve, create
different effectiveness models; hence, the lack of consensus by
82


researchers declaring one model above the rest If one is evaluating an
organization based on product output then a model that measures outputs
is a worthy model to measure effectiveness. On the other hand, an
organizational model that makes a strong internal culture central to
effectiveness would yield a different evaluative model.
Researchers have created a palette of models to understand and
explain the myriad of effectiveness theories (Cameron, 1984). The models
themselves offer different perspectives from which to assess organizational
effectiveness. Within the set of models is the competing values model
(Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). This model emphasizes four major areas in
organizations: organizational, which includes the human and social areas
that I discuss, financial, strategic, and technological, which is about the
product or service, and matches those to lifecycle stages of organizations.
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) discovered that individuals make evaluations
about the effectiveness of organizations based on three dimensions. They
are: (a) an internal versus external focus (individual achievement versus
organizational goal accomplishment), (b) a concern for flexibility versus a
concern for control (innovation and adaptability versus predictability and
stability) and, (c) a concern for ends versus the means.
83


Quinn & Rohrbaugh found that clusters of effectiveness criteria and
the dimensions that represent them are consistent with the four stages of
organizational lifecycles. Effective organizations do not emphasize activities
in only one of the quadrants, but maintain some balance or capacity among
ail four (Cameron & Quinn, 1988). Effectiveness criteria in different
organizational areas were emphasized in different lifecycle stages. What
was defined as effective performance in one stage was contradictory to
effectiveness in another stage. However, a predictable pattern of change
was found: criteria in one stage preceded criteria in stage two, which
preceded stage three criteria, and so on.
Capacity-building & Lifecycles: Bringing Them Together
In the preceding chapter, a set of capacity-building issues were
identified and discussed. These capacity-building strategies fait into five
categories:
1. Human, the individual knowledge and skills about the service
and its place in the educational marketplace and the leadership and
commitment necessary to sustain the vision of the organization;
2. Social, the collective knowledge and the relationships
necessary to build and sustain partnerships between multiple stakeholders
84


Full Text

PAGE 1

GROWING PAINS ON THE ROAD TO SCALE: THREE COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM MODELS by Debra C. Banks B.A., University of Colorado at Boulder, 1980 M.A . University of Colorado at Boulder, 1983 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Leadership and Innovation 2000

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Debra C. Banks Date

PAGE 3

Banks, Debra C. (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation) Growing Pains On The Road To Scale: Three Comprehensive School Reform Models Thesis directed by Professor Rodney Muth ABSTRACT This study examines the growth and capacity-building strategies of three comprehensive school reform models. Federal legislation passed in 1997 allocated start-up funds for schools and districts to contract with these models for services. At issue is whether or not these CSR organizations can indeed deliver on the challenge of meeting the demands for reform. The comprehensive school reform models advanced by these organizations support schools and districts on school-wide reform efforts, emphasize school change, and focus on seven elements associated with the core of schooling: curriculum, instruction, professional development, standards and assessments, governance and community involvement. The models are programmatic-or principlebased in their approach to schoolwide reform. As third party providers, these organizations are increasingly another service provider to schools. A number of these models existed before the iii

PAGE 4

legislation; however, demand has increased as states have applied for funds to support low-performing schools. All organizations go through a set of stages that mark growth and development into successful organizations. Most of these model providers began as small programs, often housed in a university. How they develop and grow into autonomous organizations and the challenges that they face was the focus of this work. In addition, specific strategies that supported the growth and increased the capacity of the organization while delivering services to schools are identified. A review of national documents focusing on comprehensive school reform-in particular documentation of the three organizations I studied-paved the way for the case studies conducted on the growing pains and capacity-building strategies of comprehensive school reform models. Data were obtained from annual reports, strategic plans, marketing materials, interviews, conference participation, observations and personal communications with model providers and teachers who work with them. Tnis abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. recommend its publication. Signed iv

PAGE 5

DEDICATION l dedicate this dissertation to my dad Joseph M. Cowan, for staying allve through thick and thin, so that he could witness its completion[ To my mom Tess Cowan, who just assumed l could do it And to Gordon, who had to live with me everyday.

PAGE 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have possible without the encouragement and support of many people. The staff of the School of Education leant their patience to the endeavor. especially my advisor Rodney Muth, who set high standards and never gave up on me through the years. Appreciation is due to those people who supported this work, in particular Robert Palaich for our thoughtful conversations often driving home on Highway 36. I also acknowledge my fellow graduate students-who listened and laughed over enough coffee to purchase a Starbucks chain-and my close friends who have been neglected for years through this project. These people and many more believed in me, even when r was less sure of myself, and I am forever grateful.

PAGE 7

CONTENTS Figures .............................................. xv Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 Choice .......................................... 2 Market Theory .............................. 3 New Choices: More of the Same, Yet Different? .... 6 Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Evolution of Comprehensive School Reform Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CSR Models: A Description . . . . . . . . . 14 Paths to Scaling-Up ........................ 20 Scale-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Scale-Up: System Roles ........................... 25 District Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 State Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 A Missing Piece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 vii

PAGE 8

A Missing Piece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2. CAPACITY-BUILDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Notions of Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Human Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Electronic Media ........................... 47 Dissemination ............................. 48 Organizational Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Service Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . 51 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Service Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Rnancial Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Non-profit Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Reciprocal Capacity-Building . . . . . . . . . . 58 viii

PAGE 9

3. ORGANIZATIONAL LIFECYLES .................... 61 Niches, Lifecycles, and Power . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Market Niche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Organizational Lifecycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Birth: Entrepreneurship ....................... 69 Growth: Collectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Formalization and Control . . . . . . . . . . 72 Elaboration of Structure . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Integration of the Models . . . . . . . . . . 76 Lifecycles and Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . 82 Capacity-building & Lifecycles: Bringing Them Together .. 84 4. METHODOLOGY ................................ 87 Methods Applied to Understand the Madness . . . . . 88 Preliminary Data Colleciton . . . . . . . . . 88 The Art of Asking Questions . . . . . . . . . 89 Criteria for Inclusion in the Study: CSR Models . . . . 89 Cases ......................................... 96 Candidate Selection . . . . . . . . . . . 97 ix

PAGE 10

Development of the Interview Instrument ......... 99 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 5. SOUTHERN CLASSICAL CENTER ................. 102 The Southern Classical Center Today . . . . . . . 106 Services Delivered . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 07 SCC Delivers to Schools: Staffing . . . . . . 1 09 National Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 0 Professional Development Schools . . . . . . 111 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Staff Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 A Sense of Team .......................... 118 University Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Hope ......................................... 127 6. BELAY ON EDUCATION ......................... 129 Sees of BOE ........................... 131 Enter New American Schools Development Corporation 134 The Evolution of Belay . . . . . . . . 135 Parent and Child: BOUSA and BOE . . . . . . 137 X

PAGE 11

Second Parents and Siblings: NAS & BOE . . . 141 People Make It Work: Staffing . . . . . . . . 146 Promising Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Coming Together at Conferences . . . . . . 155 Tools for Dual Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Core Benchmarks .................. . . . . 158 Subject Matter Platforms . . . . . . . . . . 162 Looking Back to the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Future Tens ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 7. THE PRINCIPLE GROUP, INC. . . . . . . . . . . 170 Early Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Futures Committee . . . . . . . . . . 17 4 From-To: PGl Organizational Structure ........ 176 The Executive Board . . . . . . . . . . . 177 The National Office . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Governing Through Congress . . . . . . . . . . 184 Sense of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . 187 xi

PAGE 12

CP: Democracy and Equity . . . . . . . . . 189 Tensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Leadership in PGI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Loose Coupling, Accountability, and Fidelity . . . . . 194 Intersections with CSR ...................... 199 8. TAKING THE LONG VIEW ........................ 201 Human Capital Bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Principle-based . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Transmission of Culture ..................... 211 Social Capital Bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Annual Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Web-site Networking Technology .............. 217 Organizational Bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Organizational Structure ..................... 221 "Nested" in the parent Organization . . . . . . 225 Product/Service Bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 lmportance of Master Teachers .............. 229 Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Recent Benchmark Developments . . . . . 234 XJ1

PAGE 13

Capital Bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Foundation! Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Deficient Spending ......................... 238 Venture Capital ............................ 240 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 9. GROWING PAINS AND CAPACITY BUILDING ........ 245 Lessons in Capacity-Building . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Lesson One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Lesson Two .............................. 251 Lesson Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Lesson Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 What Might We Want to Know Next? ................ 254 Question One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Question Two ............................. 255 Question Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 Question Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 Question Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Question Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 In erasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 xiii

PAGE 14

APPENDIX A. LETTER OF CONSENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 B. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ........................ 262 REFERENCES ............................................ 267 xiv

PAGE 15

FIGURES Figure 6.1 Belay on Education Principles ........................... 138 6.2 Organization Strudure of BOE .......................... 151 7.1 The Organizing Principles of the PGI ...................... 171 7.2 The Common Principles of the Principle Group, Inc ........... 172 7.3 Governance Structure of the Principle Group, Inc ............ 178 8.1 Organizational Strudure One ........................... 221 82 Organizational Strudure Two ........................... 222 8.3 Organizational Structure Three .......................... 223 8.4 Organizational Strudure Four ........................... 224

PAGE 16

TABLES Table 1. CSR Externally Developed Models . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2. CSR Models in the Year 2000 ............................ 33 2.1 Capacity Building Strategies for Comprehensive School Reforem Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 59 3.1 Summary of Organizational Lifecycle Models ................ 78 4.1 Comprehensive School Reform Models: Age, Size and Organizational Structure ............................... 95 5.1 SCC Organizational Chart .............................. 110 8.1 Human Bin .......................................... 204 8.2 Social Bin .......................................... 215 8.3 Organizational Bin ................................... 221 8.4 Service/Product Bin ................................... 228 8.5 Capital Bin ........................................ 236 8.6 Capacity-building Strategies fo Three Comprehensive School Reform Models ....................................... 243 xvi

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Although educators are surprised at the longevity of standards-based reforms in education, concerns are growing among policymakers, researchers, and school reformers, that standards alone will not raise student achievement (Education Commission of the States, 1996; Massell, 1998 ). The rallying call for greater accountability of students, teachers, schools, districts, and state departments of education has crossed the nation by example of the number of states with accountability plans and policies (Education Commission of the States, 1998). The pressure on schools and districts to perform well on standardized assessments and report their performance to the public has prompted wen-intentioned school reformers to search for answers to their problem. To adapt to the demands changing public education, schools, districts, and states must be flexible enough to address calls for greater efficiency and productivity. Anchoring flexible options for school systems are state accountability systems that combine state standards and a set of assessments that measure how well students are meeting the standards. 1

PAGE 18

These are coupled to a greater willingness of the public to consider market alternatives as competition to bureaucracies. While flexibility is not a panacea, it offers advantages over the "one best system" (Tyack, 197 4) and is meant to increase freedom of action for schools. Districts nationwide are choosing a variety of alternatives, creating a system of schools versus a unified school system. Large urban districts have a variety of choice school options within the district for students, parents, and teachers: charter schools, post-secondary options, magnet schools, "focus" schools, and open-enrollment options. Voucher proposals have been considered since the mid-fifties by policymakers (Wells, 1993), and they are gaining renewed interest with policymakers (Ziebarth, 1999) including recent legislation by Florida. Flexibility has the potential to encourage schools to be more responsive to the needs of parents, students, teachers, and administrators, while supporting schools to use their resources more efficiently (Education Commission of the States, 1996). Choice Over the years, options for choice within the educational system have evolved. Parents with the means to do so could always opt out of 2

PAGE 19

public schools and enroll their child in a private school. However, choice within the public school system has been perceived as a mechanism to reach the "common good" for aU students (Wells, 1993). Choice has been viewed as a good in its own right and seen as freedom of choice and an indicator of a better society (Levin, 1990). Hence, districts, state policymakers, and the federal government have, all at one time or another, been engineers of school choice. School districts have experimented with alternative schools, open-enrollment plans, and school-within-school plans. The federal government has required desegregation in cities leading to magnet schools as a choice within larger urban districts. State policymakers have legislated charter schools as one vehicle to introduce innovation into districts (Fuller, Elmore & Orfield, 1996; Wells, 1993;) and voucher proposals are recycling through state policy circles. Market Theory Levin distinguishes between market choice and a public choice system (1990). The mosaic of public school choice options include magnet schools, alternative schools, open enrollment plans, post-secondary options and charter schools; while the market-choice system is comprised of vouchers and tax credits (Levin, 1990). While these approaches differ in 3

PAGE 20

many respects, they share the assumption that school selection can be used to leverage improvement in the education system (Loveless, 1998). Many choice supporters subscribe to market theory (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Gerstner, Semerad, Doyle, & Johnston, 1994), which argues that competition among schools will lead to continuous improvement of individual schools and that multiple providers will break the monopoly of school districts (Chubb & Moe, 1990). If faced with competition, the natural operations of markets will require poor performing schools' to improve or force them to close their doors. Choice advocates argue that choice provides an array of options for parents, students, and educators and assume that these parties will actively choose the best situation for each individual's learning (Nathan, 1997; Raywid, 1992). On the "demand .. side of the argument, parents and students are presumed to be motivated consumers. Families will shop for the school that best meets their needs. Teachers and administrators would work harder to attract and keep the students who chose their school. On the "supply schools will be compelled to improve, to attract and retain students, and reach higher standards of student achievement or face reconstitution or other sanctions. Critics argue that even the most motivated parents cannot judge fairly the quality of a school, and the argument assumes that 4

PAGE 21

parents can and will shop around, which is not always possible, particularly for lower socioeconomic status families (Wells, 1993 ). In addition to widespread dissatisfaction with public schools, Fuller, Elmore, and Orfield ( 1996) attribute the increasing interest in school choice to three factors. The Civil Rights movement. which led to legislation and experimentation with magnet schools as the answer to desegregation is the first factor. Second is diminishing upward mobility perceived by many American citizens, which has increased pressure on the public schools to raise achievement levels. The third attribute is rising ethnic diversity in the United States that is driving attempts to serve various communities and parents with multiple forms of schooling. In addition, the rise of privatization has also fueled the choice debate. Forces behind the privatization of schooling have gained momentum from widespread discontent with educational services, the belief that government is not performing well, discontent with public bureaucracy, and the debate regarding the appropriate role of government in society (Murphy, 1996). Many of today's choice advocates tend to be more interested in fostering economic competitiveness, thus seeking to make schools more efficient and accountable by forcing them to compete with one another in an educational market (Fuller, Elmore & Orfield, 1997; Levin, 1990; Wells. 5

PAGE 22

1993; ). Choice advocates call for schools to learn from the "best practices" of the corporate sector and embed them into the "business of schooling." Champions argue that choice is a tool that will improve educational outcomes, thus enabling the United States to compete more effectively in a global economy (Gerstner et al., 1994). These factors combined are continuing to drive choice as an issue d'jour for polfcymakers and community members as people strive to reach higher goals for all students. New Choices: More of the Same. Yet Different? School choice has been a controversy since the 1950s when Milton Friedman first introduced the idea of vouchers (Levin. 1990; Weiss, 1996). Weiss notes: The debate about school choice continues in the absence of much data on its effects on student achievement-or on anything else. Only a few extensive school choice programs have been adopted in this country, and only a limited number of families have taken advantage of the choice programs that exist. The strongest finding is that the specific features of the program make a great deal of difference. The devil is in the detaUs. (p. vii) While policymakers have been focusing on charter schools and vouchers as choice opportunities, comprehensl'le school reform models have been making headway implementing their philosophy, structure, and pedagogical models in 1 OOOs of schools across the United States 6

PAGE 23

(Stringfield & Datnow, 1998). The oldest, and perhaps most well known-the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES), Accelerated Schools Project (ASP), School Development Program (SOP), Success for All (SFA) and the seven designs of the New American Schools (NAS)-have implemented their models in over 3000 schools nationwide (Education Commission of the States, 1997b ). Henry Levin, an economist and the developer of the Accelerated Schools Project, believes in the power of public school choice (Levin, 1990). He explains a framework of choices that would create a system of schools within districts. In the nine years since the publication of his article on choice, alf of the options he mentions are now commonplace in the discussion of public school choice mechanisms: open-enrollment, magnet schools, mini-schools, post-secondary options and school-site governance. Levin (1990) also describes the potential of private contractors: One version of this alternative would be to let contractors compete with the public schools to provide instruction in specified subjects as alternatives for parents who were not satisfied with the progress of their children in regular classes. An alternative is for schools to hire private contractors to provide educational services in those areas where the school system did not have a strong record of success, or the immediate ability to improve matters. ln both cases, the contractual agreement might call for payment on the basis of improvement in student performance according to specified criteria, creating a strong incentive to produce results. (p. 265) 7

PAGE 24

Comprehensive school reform (CSR) models may, perhaps, be the latest choice option to come of age for school districts. Many of the models are matched to low-performing schools by district administrators, providing a vehicle for the troubled schools to improve. The pressure on schools and districts to perform well on standardized assessments and report their performance to the public has fueled well-intentioned school reformers to search for answers to their problem. Rebecca Herman (1999), the project director of the American Institute of Research's (AIR) recent report on CSR models writes: The task of taking a critical look at schoolwide reform is unusuaL With overwhelming public opinion that our public schools are in crisis, and local and national pressure to improve schools quickly, well intentioned school reformers do not always have the leisure to investigate the effects of the approaches they advocate or adopt (p. i). Districts may choose to implement a wide variety of models, providing within-district choice for parents and teachers. Many of the models expect teacher buy-in before implementation at the school and provide mechanisms for teachers who wish to remain or leave the school. CSR models may be compared to the alternative schools most popular in the 1970s, where teachers came together to create and provide a specific philosophical approach or theme to educating students, while supported 8

PAGE 25

by. funded for. and under the watchful "eye" of the school district (Wells, 1993). Comprehensive school reform models are also beginning to surface in research as vehicles for changing schools. Early charter school research (Wohlstetter & Griffin. 1997) cited the connection of comprehensive reform models and the successful start-up of charter schools, noting that, when charter schools adopted a CSR model. they were able to implement the model more efficiently because of the prescriptiveness of the chosen CSR model. Implementing a prescriptive model enabled charter organizers to focus their efforts on other, less well-defined and difficult issues such as facilities and budgeting. lt enabled charter organizers to feel confident that they had consensus about the curriculum and instruction of the schooL Comprehensive school reform "model developers" market their model primarily to school districts. adding schools one-at-a-time to the CSR "network" or by adding clusters of schools in districts to leverage economies of scale in delivering services. ln some states. a representative from a specific model might act to facilitate and coordinate services to the schools statewide. but this activity is conducted through state departments of education and has gone unnoticed by state policymakers. 9

PAGE 26

It has been difficult to build awareness about comprehensive school reform at the legislative level. A few state policymakers are beginning to show interest when comprehensive school reform is offered as a solution to schools who are low performing or facing strict sanctions. Tying the concept to accountability systems is helping build awareness for the idea, yet. policymakers have remain largely unaware of the potential impact that comprehensive school reform could have for creating and sustaining high performance schools. Wrth the addition of the federal funding to states, and the desire for states to bolster low-performing schools, CSR models are beginning to market their services to state departments in addition to marketing directly to schools and districts. In Memphis, Tennessee, urban schools that are under pressure to tum themselves around or face reconstitution or other fierce sanctions have begun to show progress after adopting a CSR model (Smith et al., 1998). Memphis is an example of a large district that has entered into an agreement by signing a "memo of understanding,. with New American Schools (Smith et al., 1998; Stringfield, Ross & Smith, 1996). This memo states that Memphis will implement one of the seven NAS designs in 30% of the districts schools. Gerry House. Memphis' Superintendent. has taken a risk that may be starting to pay off. The 10

PAGE 27

schools are beginning to show signs of improvement (Smith et al., 1998). Reformers, policymakers, and the federal government are beginning to take notice. Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program ln November 1997, Congress reallocated $150 million Title 1 dollars to give schools an opportunity to implement a comprehensive school reform model in order to spur student achievement in public schools. The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program (CSRD) is a multi-year initiative to reorganize and revitalize entire schools, especially those most in need of improvement The program's purpose is to provide financial incentives for schools to develop comprehensive school reforms that address virtually all aspects of schooling and are based on reliable research and effective practices. The CSRD program is also significant because it is both connected to and a departure from other major state and federal reform inHiatives. For instance, the CSRD program has programmatic and research tools in Title 1 that include essential-school-wide components such as professional development, parent and community involvement and the coordination of 11

PAGE 28

technical assistance and other kinds of resources. Federal advocates are regarding the CSRD program as a test bed for strategies and structures that are candidates for inclusion in a reauthorized Title 1. It is expected that information regarding the early implementation of the new federal program will weigh in the future reauthorization deliberations for Trtle 1. CSRD also differs from previous state and federally funded initiatives insofar as it focuses on raising standards and providing resources for all students rather than the implementation of interventions targeted at specific groups of children, like Head Start This shift is based on the recognition that schools and communities are most apt to determine local needs and possess the resources to coordinate and implement programs effectively. The Porter-Obey Bill (P. L. 105-78) provides startup grants amounting to $50,000 per year, for up to three years. and are available to schools via competitive proposals to states. Dollars have been awarded to states as block grants based on their share of Trtle 1 or nonTrtle 1 schools. Since July 1, 1998, and as of this research, almost40 states have received grants totaling $91 million dollars (personal communication, Julie Pederson, December, 1998). The federal government defined criteria to determine what constitutes a CSR model and what infrastructure will best support the success of these schools. States are scrambling to create 12

PAGE 29

implementation plans to award the funds, monitor implementation, and evaluate efforts {United States Department of Education, 1998). The Evolution of Comprehensive School Reform Models What goes around comes around. Consider the following: The language of educational reform in America has developed and shifted almost mercurially in the fast twenty years. In rapid succession since Sputnik, we have heard of "national curriculum projects," "educational innovation," "self-renewal," "educational technology," "organizational development," "community control," "knowledge utilization," "capacity-building," "dissemination," "R&D products," "mutual adaptation," "linkage." And now "networking." (Miles, 1978) Since the 1980s the explosion of reformers working to "fix" education after A Nation at Risk (United States Department of Education, 1983 ), has Given rise to the hundreds of educational reform "networks" that exist in states, cities, and regions throughout the United States today. Some of them focus on a specific approach to a curricular subject, like the National Writing Project or Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Still others. like the Quality Education Network for Minorities, have a program focus which provides extended math and science experiences for inner city schools and students. IMPACT U is an Internet-based teacher's network, and Communities in Schools, Inc., is an organization that serves students by 13

PAGE 30

building Groups of community support in schools. These networks are national in scope, yet their focus is narrower than CSR models. CSR Models: A Description Comprehensive school reform models are unique because they are organized around a broader set of components than a single program or subject area. A comprehensive school reform program is one that integrates, in a coherent manner, all nine of the following components (United States Department of Education, 1998): 1. Effective, research-based methods and strategies 2. Comprehensive design aligned components 3. Professional development 4. Measurable goals and benchmarks 5. Support within the schooL 6. Parental and community involvement 7. External technical support and assistance 8. Evaluation strategies 9. Coordination of resources. Most of them include a mix of stakeholders: schools, districts, universities, community and business members. teachers and often, 14

PAGE 31

parents. Ted Sizer (Coalition of Essential Schools), Henry Levin (Accelerated Schools), Robert Slavin (Success for All and Roots and Wings), Mortimer Adler (Paideia) and James Comer (School Development Project), are pioneers of these types of reform efforts. They have all created projects that have grown and evolved into large school improvement programs now called "comprehensive school reform models." Joining these distinguished educators in the early 1990s, the New American Schools (NAS) Design Corporation was created to leverage this type of model, resulting in the creation of seven distinct "comprehensive school designs" (Stringfield et al. 1996). A special issue of Education and Urban Society (1998) presented a series of articles on "Scaling-up School Restructuring Designs in Urban Schools" (p. 269 ). Definitions for comprehensive school reform models will be discussed from the primary researchers, Sam Stringfield and Amanda Datnow (1998) and adopted for use in this study. The concept of whole school change has many aliases. The names of the organizations have primarily stayed the same (Audrey Cohen College became Purpose-Centered Education when Ms. Cohen passed away in 1997}; the Coalition of Essential Schools, Onward to Excellence, School Development ATLAS, and so on, but how they are identified in education reform 15

PAGE 32

circles has changed. They have been projects (Education Commission of the States, 1994), school improvement programs (Wang & Haertel, 1996), networks (Education Commission of the States, 1997), design-based assistance providers (New American Schools, 1998}, and, since the PorterObey funding, comprehensive school reform models or designs (these two terms are used interchangeably). The term "comprehensive school reform design" refers to a model for school improvement that is externally developed outside of a school district by a third party organization (Stringfield & Datnow, 1998}. It is holistic in nature, considering the entire school: what curriculum is taught, ways to deliver instruction, alignment to standards, what assessments will be used, forms of professional development, governance models, and ideas for parent involvement. Prior to federal reauthorization of Tltle 1 resulting in the CSR Demonstration Program (CSRDP}, early discussions by Glen nan (1997) provided a definition of a CSR design in the context of critical elements that should be present in any approach to school improvement. His approach is: A comprehensive blueprint for a school-not simply unrelated pieces of theory and research, but a thoughtful package of strategies, methods and practices. A design articulates a school's mission and goals. It guides the instructional program and shapes the selection of the staff and the work environment. It establishes expectations for 16

PAGE 33

behavior, performance and accountability among students, teachers, and even parents. And it provides the criteria for regular self evaluation that are essential for continuing improvement (p. 1 0) The CSR model is developed and implemented by an external organization or "design team" that conceives of the principles and philosophy of the model, creates materials for teachers and schools, and provides technical assistance to schools and districts. In return, CSR designs receive funding from the district to implement the model in a school. Schools choose a CSR model, and then a contract is created between the CSR model and the district for implementation and delivery of services. Comprehensive school reform models are "third party providers" to schools and districts. Under the CSRD program, schools may implement either one of two kinds of reform models: those that have been externally developed or those that have been internally developed in schools. Forty-four externally developed models are summarized in the first edition catalog produced by the Northwest Regional Education laboratory (1998). Twenty-six of these are whole-school reform models. 17 of which are referenced specifically in the Obey-Porter legislation as school reform models that have brought about gains in student performance in a number of schools across the 17

PAGE 34

country. The seventeen CSR models included in the Porter-Obey legislation are included in Table 1.1 on the next page. These models span a continuum from highly prescriptive designs, in which the designers have developed the entire model in great detail. like Roots & Wings, to designs that are more principle-based, like the Coalition of Essential Schools (Viadero, 1999) Some of the model developers prescribe a tightly constructed program (Success for All). On the opposite end of the continuum are those developers that believe that all schools are unique. and each one should follow its individual path to reach its goals (e.g . Coalition of Essential Schools). This allows for more flexibility for the implementing school to adopt the model in light of the school's particular context. Hence, CSR models can be perceived as another choice option in the larger spectrum of intra-district choices. 18

PAGE 35

Table 1.1: CSR Externally Developed Models CSRmodel Abbreviations Accelerated Schools Project ASP America's Choice School Design ACh ATLAS Communities ATLAS Group of Essential Schools CES Community for Learning CFL Co-Nect Schools Co-N Direct Instruction Dl Expeditionary Learning 08 OBE High Schools That Work HSTW Modem Red Schoolhouse MRSh National Paideia Center NPC Onward to Excellence OTE Purpose-Centered Education (Audrey Cohen) P-CE School Development Program SOP Success for All/Roots and Wings S4AIRW Talent Development High School TDHS Urban Learning Centers ULC (Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. 1998) The American Institute of Research (AIR) released the first research report rating the effectiveness of the research of these CSR models during spring 1999. According to the sponsors of the research project (AlR.1999), they took on the project because "most of the prose describing these approaches remains uncomfortably silent about their effectiveness .. (p.1 ). The importance of the report is twofold. As schools and districts consider these CSR models, their effectiveness on student achievement is the most important "selling point" for district and school personneL For the CSR 19

PAGE 36

models, it means that they will have to prove their effectiveness using research-backed methods and data. The AIR report is the first step towards a pool of research about CSR models and their effectiveness as a schoolwide reform strategy. The report measures the available research on effectiveness of the model, the variety and type of technical assistance provided to a school to implement fully the model, and the associated costs of contracting with a developer. Paths to Scaling-Up Although an opportunity potentially exists for millions of dollars to reach schools via CSRD, no guarantee says that the 17 models identified in the Porter-Obey bill will lead to profound changes in educational practice or impact a critical mass of high performing schools across the nation (Lewis. 1998). For the younger CSR models (5 years old or less). it is too early to obtain possible effects on student achievement (Bodilly et al., 1998; Smith, et al., 1998). Current research conducted has been on the implementation of the model in schools (Smith et al.. 1998; Stringfield & Datnow. 1998). Individual design organizations are conducting research on the effects on students, but the majority of it has not been replicated successfully or has been conducted on too small a sample of students 20

PAGE 37

(American Institute of Research, 1998; Northwest Education Regional Laboratory, 1998}. However, researchers, federal agencies, and others are calling for research that examines CSR designs' plan, or lack thereof, for scale-up and its impact on participating schools (Education Commission of the States, 1998). Scale-Up Scale-up can be defined simply as increasing the numbers of schools engaged in a certain design (e.g., implementing the Modem Red Schoolhouse in 3000 schools nationwide}. Elmore (1996) argues, "The problem of scale depends on the demand for new ideas and understanding how schools seek new knowledge and actively use it to change the fundamental processes of schooling" (p. 4 }. If the larger reform question calls for sustaining high performing schools raising student achievement in all of the nation's schools, then is this demand "lever" strong enough to facilitate the changes that Elmore argues? Healey and DeStephano would agree on the need for demand, but would include other components. Their work on scaling up education reform efforts in Africa points to the lack of a supportive environment in the host country necessary to sustain reform (1997). They argue: 21

PAGE 38

Instead of replicating the reform itself, we contend it is the conditions which give rise to the reform in the first place that should be replicated. We maintain that by doing so, reformers not only improve the prospects of education/school reform going to scale, but also create a reform environment that will spawn muHiple innovations, and with that, the potential for significant knowledge sharing. (p. 13) Comprehensive school reform designs can "grow" naturally or planned, rapidly and exponentially, and most often through district-wide implementation (Stringfield & Datnow, 1998). Time becomes an important variable, because, when scale-up happens very fast, the support infrastructure may not be in place, leading to failure of the reform in schools and, consequently, in the model as well. This dissertation examines the growth strategies of CSR design organizations, which will be discussed in depth in the next section. Most of the CSR models began as small programs. As they grew, many developed into more expansive programs, reaching the size and scope needing organizational structures to support their continued growth. For example, structures include accounting systems, a strong funding base, and a larger personnel needed to deliver services and the systems necessary to track these staff. Schorr (1997) believes that small, effective programs remain as small, effective programs because the conditions necessary (flexibility and responsiveness) are not in a characteristic of the 22

PAGE 39

larger system. Consequently, "scale-up" does not occur, and programs do not reach their full potential. She writes: When the model is expected to become the norm, it can no longer evade the barriers of traditional financing, accountability, governance, and public perception. Failure to recognize this fact has seriously impeded efforts to scale-up. When effective programs aiming to reach large numbers encounter the pressures exercised by prevailing attitudes and systems, the resulting collision is almost always lethal to the effective programs. Their demise can be prevented only by changing systems and public perceptions to make them more hospitable to effective efforts to change lives and communities. (p. 19) How does a CSR model grow from small, flexible, entrepreneurial, organizational stages to an increased capacity that can effectively reach a critical mass of schools across the nation? To what extent are CSR designers concerned with increasing the numbers of schools using their approach versus with sustaining high performing schools after the three year period in which they are initially funded? How do CSR developers increase the capacity of their organization while delivering services to the schools with which they are currently contracting? And how do model providers maintain a standard of quality and fidelity to the model as it is replicated across the nation? These questions are the focus of this study. Looking at the concept of scale-up from outside of the education world, research has been conducted on the role of non-government 23

PAGE 40

organizations (.NGOs) in the development of third world countries (Uvin & Miller, 1996). The work of NGOs seeks to increase the capacity of people and communities toward self-reliance', to change the conditions of their lives-in short, to be 'empowered'. This paradigm of participation centers on the creation and the strengthening of community-based, grassroots organizations" (p. 345). If one switches the context to schools, the sentiments expressed would not be too far off from the charge of CSR in regard to low-performing schools. It also appears that the NGO researchers are struggling with many of the issues that I pose about CSR designs and their path to growth. The authors wonder: However, some important questions about scaling-up need to be answered. The basic. as yet unanswered, issue concerns its relation to participation: How can development initiatives move beyond their original local constituencies and have a larger impact while continuing to foster participation? Can participatory, bottom-up programs and organizations scale-up without becoming cumbersome, over-staffed, and unaccountable to the communities they claim to represent? The second question raises the dilemma of external funding and support for scaling-up versus autonomy and self-reliance: Is there a relationship between donor support of scaling-up and degree and kind of constituent participatfon? (p. 344) Now. consider this excerpt To grasp the role. relevance and impact of grassroots organizations as they scale-up, we need also to understand the dynamics. objectives, strengths. and weaknesses of other instHutions in society. as well as their interactions with NGOs. It is impossible to make general claims on the functions and strengths of NGOs 24

PAGE 41

without putting them in their social. context. (p. 345) I will return to the theoretical thinking of NGOs and scaling-up in future sections. The "social context" that CSR design organizations are a part of, namely, the school system is where I want to direct our attention. Scale-Up: System Roles When considering the nature of complex reform efforts (Smith & O'Day, 1991 ), it is doubtful that CSR models can act alone in the system to reach their goal. The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Program Guidance document spells out the relationship between the legislation and other education how this federal program fits within the broader context of school improvement efforts, and possible roles for states and districts for effective implementation in schools (United States Department of Education. 1998). Factors involved in the success rate for CSR models include a combination of organizational "fit" with the schools and districts with which they are partnering and the extent that the district and state policy environment allows these designs to expand and increase the impact of innovations. As in many the district and state roles are somewhat similar; the difference lies in the populations for their efforts. 25

PAGE 42

District Role The district role is one of facilitating and monitoring the choices schools make, ensuring readiness and rightness of "fit" between a CSR design and a school, and creating the larger district environment for such school choices to exist (New American Schools, 1998a; Education Commission of the States, 1996}. Districts need to develop a culture that supports the policies necessary for the type of flexibility, responsiveness, and accountability that comes with having a variety of CSR models housed in them (Bodilly, Keltner, Purnell, Reichardt, & Schuyler, 1998}. New American Schools outlined the attributes of a supportive district environment (Bodilly et aL, 1998; New American Schools, 1998a). They are: (a) school autonomy, (b) high standards, (c) appropriate assessments, (d) sources of assistance, (e) professional development, (f) technology, (g) community services and supports, (h) public engagement, (i) capacity and willingness to invest. a> systems management and governance. Earfy implementation research of the NAS designs in districts in seven states shows that implementation of CSR models is enhanced when incentives and sanctions are in place that help schools in their efforts to change their strategies to serve their student community (Bodilly et al.. 1998). Success also depends on whether the district has reallocated 26

PAGE 43

resources to sustain model implementation and has provided adequate professional development time for teachers to learn about and fully integrate the methods and philosophy associated with each model (Bodilly et al., 1998; New American Schools, 1998a; Smith et al., 1998). Finally, districts must be willing to help build community support for the districtwide environment necessary for these models to take root and provide opportunities for community members to leam firsthand about the CSR models. Districts can act as disseminators of information about CSR models by hosting "design fairs" (New American Schools, 1998a) that build awareness about the host of CSR models available to schools. Managing various school choices while upholding high standards for school and student performance may be forcing the type of change directed at districts for many years. A main argument for whole-school designs is that they must be managed in a holistic manner, supporting the total set of schools versus a singular component of an individual school's program (Bodilly et al., 1998; New American Schools, 1998a; Stringfield et al., 1996). It requires a change in the way districts serve their schools. Successful implementation of CSR models may add to the pressure of charter schools and other choice options that may force district change. 27

PAGE 44

State Role States also play a complex role in the CSR process. Some advocates believe that state educational policy should reflect the flexibility and accountability needed at the district level (Education Commission of the States, 1997b ). Necessary are high standards, accountability measures, choice and decentralization, funding streams that aUow schools to allocate and reallocate necessary monies for in-depth professional development and other mechanisms to successfully operate and sustain effective schools (Bodilly et al., 1998; Education Commission of the States, 1997b; New American Schools, 1998a). Like districts, state policy can support setting and sustaining the type of conditions for CSR models to flourish in districts. In addition, state policy can work to ensure equitable access to CSR models (Education Commission of the States, 1997b ). They can create processes to ensure that rural and large urban districts have equal access for contracting with models. The CSRD guidance suggests that states also have a role in providing information for districts to be informed consumers making "smart" choices in partnering with CSR models (United States Department of Education, 1998). The guidance also outlines a state role as an evaluator of quality of the CSR model's ability to meet its demands and promises to 28

PAGE 45

districts and schools. In addition, state departments can act as "watchdogs," collecting, crunching, analyzing, and disseminating the district data on student achievement, measuring how well students faired and possibly singling out what progress was attributable to participating in a CSRdesign. A Missing Piece Left out of the discussion on scale-up and system roles is the role of the CSR model. Most early innovation efforts are structured as pilot programs. They are small beacons of success that once underway attempt to expand and reach greater numbers of people (Kanter, 1983; Rogers, 1995; Schorr, 1997). "Scaling-up" presents a complex set of issues for each stakeholder--schools, districts, states-and third party providers. The focus of early research has been predominantly on the effect of the model on school restructuring through its implementation efforts (Bodilly et al., 1998; Bol, L., Nunnery, J., Lowthier, D., Dietrich, A., Pace, J., Anderson, R., Bassoppo-Moyo, T., and L Phillipsen 1998; Cooper, Slavin, & Madden, 1998; Smith et aL, 1998; Stringfield & Datnow, 1998). Comprehensive school reform models and their organizational viability as educational 29

PAGE 46

service providers to districts and schools need further study to determine their potential effects on raising student achievement in schools. The Challenge Comprehensive school reform designers have been marketing their models to schools and districts. They have sold their ideas. philosophies, and organizing structures to districts and individual schools on the rhetoric that their model will raise student achievement. Before the Porter-Obey bill, CSR developers operated in a free market. Few, ff any, accountability measures were placed on the design organizations. It was the CSR developers that chose with which schools and districts they were going to partner to deliver their set of services. As the stakes for high-performing schools has increased. all states have come under increasing pressure to intervene on behalf of failing schools. For many states, the dollars associated with the CSR Demonstration Program is the needed push to funnel extra funds to low tax-based districts that have traditionally had difficult times initiating and/or sustaining other types of restructuring effort. Consequently, the CSR Demonstration Program seems like a viable strategy to states. State education agencies will be learning as much as they can about these models and create an implementation plan that meets 30

PAGE 47

the guidance devised by the U.S. Department of Education for their share of funds. The bill, passed in November 1997, allocates funds over a threeyear period, which became available to states in July 1998. To date, over 40 states have received the first of three installments from the U. S. Department of Education, reaching over $91 million dollars. Roughly 57,000 schools could implement a CSR model. Demand is up. The Problem Supply, however, is another issue. As states proceed with their planning efforts, four issues must be addressed. First, a push for states to become "savvy consumers .. of CSR design organizatiions, with the intent of helping schools make the best match with a design, creates sustained partnerships between schools and designs, and districts and designs, and ensuring for quality of services rendered (Hassel, 1998}. Second, strategies must ensure that implementation plans fit into the larger systemic plan of a state (Bodilly et aL, 1998}. Third, states will be in the position of evaluating CSR designs and schools implementing designs to track and evaluate whether or not CSR designs have been instrumental in raising student achievement (United States Departrment of Education, 1998}. 31

PAGE 48

Capacity is the fourth and most complex issue. It is not enough for organizations to have an outstanding product to succeed. Organizations must focus their efforts internally while sustaining their success with the services they deliver. It is the ability for CSR models to build their own capacity to grow organizationally, while delivering services to schools and districts that I am interested in observing. What are the skills, roles, and resources available to the CSR developers, districts and states to support scale-up of designs? Are enough trained professionals available to provide the necessary human capital needed to reach 1 ,OOOs of schools with quality services? Can supply meet the current demand? Taking a quick look at what is possible, Table 1.2 on the next page shows the number of schools that CSR designs reported they would "scale up" by the year 2000, and the percentage of those schools compared to the total number of public schools in the nation. Using the number of schools currently in operation and the number projected by the year 2000 as reported by CSR design models, it is possible to calculate the increase of schools per CSR model (Education Commission of the States, 1998). Based on the 87,125 (total number) schools in the nation (National Education Association of Statistics, 1998), by the year 2000 only 11% of the nation's schools at best could be implementing a CSR design. Clearly, 32

PAGE 49

this is not critical mass of the nation's schools; however, it still raises the question, "If CSR designs are intended to serve 1 ,OOOs of schools, what capacity building strategies will accelerate their ability to reach their goals?" Table 12: CSR Models in the year 2000 Comprehensive School Reform 1997 #of 2000 %of Design Models #of add'l #of nations schools schools schools schools Accelerated Schools Proiect 1000 400 1400 1.60% America's Choice School Design 300 400 700 0.80% ATLAS Communities 57 83 140 0.16% Group of Essential Schools 1000 200 1200 1.37% Community for Learning 53 647 700 0.80% Community Learning Centers 5 30 35 0.04% Co-Nect Schools 65 350 415 0.40% Different Ways of Knowing 300 100 400 0.46% Direct Instruction 52 48 100 0.11% Edison Project 25 16 41 0.05% Expeditionary Learning OB 47 60 107 0.12% High Schools That Work 800 550 1350 1.55% High/Scope 42 28 70 0.08% league of Professional Schools 103 100 203 0.23% Modem Red Schoolhouse 45 60 105 0.23% Montessori 214 60 274 0.31% National Paideia Center 80 30 110 0.13% Onward to Excellence 200 150 350 0.40% Purpose-Centered Ed (Audrey Cohen) 16 unlimited* unlimited* unknown School Development Program 721 150 871 1.00% Success for All/R & W 750 1000 1750 2.00% Talent Development High School 6 40 46 0.05% Urban Learning Centers 19 120 139 0.16% Total 5900 4622 9740 11% *Purpose-Centered Ed. did not provide a number of adartional schools added to the existing network.. When asked, they responded that the number was. "unlimited.'" 19_98 NEA Education Statistics at a Glance = 87,125 public schools Comprehensive school reform models will need to meet and exceed the challenges facing them to be considered as a sustaining reform 33

PAGE 50

strategy versus another fad. Rrst, many of the CSR models must position themselves as solid service providers to states. CSR models must prove themselves as viable organizations. They also need to decide how many schools to serve in addition to the current number they are serving and determine the level of quality that they will strive to achieve for their total set of schools. Simultaneously, they must build their internal capacity to deliver services to new schools. while sustaining the original pilot schools and marketing to additional new schools. They must manage many schools to serve in addition to the current number they are serving and determine the level of quality that they will strive to achieve for their total set of schools. Simultaneously, they must build their internal capacity to deliver services to new schools. while sustaining the original pilot schools and marketing to additional new schools. They must manage training and communication across multiple sites with limited personnel and resources; negotiate a variety of state and district laws, regulations, and testing requirements; monitor fidelity to the design and its philosophy; and gather and compare data on implementation and student achievement from site to site. Successful scafe-up is no small feat. CSR models existed before the Porter-Obey bill. and most of them will probably outlive the Porter-Obey '"era." perhaps changing the names 34

PAGE 51

they go by, while continuing to work in schools. However, they will survive. Thus, it is important to observe and study their functioning and growth while they are under the current limelight Research is needed to understand the effectiveness of the models, and research about the organizations behind the models themselves and their paths toward growth, professionalism, and institutionalization is also needed for schools, districts, and state departments of education to become "saVV'f consumers of such models. They may add to the evolution of thinking about how schooling could be done differently, and perhaps, done better. 35

PAGE 52

CHAPTER2 CAPACITY-BUILDING Identifying the capacity needed for comprehensive school reform design organizations to scale-up the number of schools they serve is a complicated task. First, what is meant by capacity? Webster (1988) defines capacity as: 1. The ability to receive and hold 2. The volume or amount that can be contained 3. Intellectual ability 4. Function, position 5. Maximum producing ability 6. Legal qualification. Capacity is like a holding area or space that is increased as a result of a treatment to the object. For example, exercising can increase lung capacity and is often defined as the amount of available oxygen that the lungs can hold. The more one exercises, the more lung capacity increases, which, in tum, allows an individual to exercise more. Capacity has increased as a result of the treatment (exercising). Davenport (1999) 36

PAGE 53

argues that capacity should be considered as increasing the value or worth of something, so building capacity emphasizes strengthening the elements that add value to the whole. In the context of education, consider the definition of O'Day, Goertz, and F!oden (1995): Within the context of systemic reform, capacity is the ability of the education system to help all students meet more challenging standards. If the capacity of the system is insufficient for accomplishing a desired goal, capacity may be increased by improving the performance of workers (e.g., teachers); by adding resources such as personnel, materials, or technology; by restructuring how work is organized and by restructuring how services are delivered. (p. 1} Capacity may be increased by improving or changing a number of factors: improving the performance of workers, adding resources, or restructuring how work is delivered or services delivered. Massell (1998) uses a similar definition: "'Capacit'/ in this (state] policy context refers to the wherewithal needed to translate high standards and incentives into effective instruction and strong student performance" (p. iii}. Discussions about capacity are often framed by the beliefs about what is essential to implementing ideas. Corcoran & Goertz (1995) argue: "Those who advocate school-by-school change, capacity building means the creation of learning communities. changes in governance, and opportunities for teachers to share their craft knowledge" (p. 27). For 37

PAGE 54

Corcoran, Goertz, and Spillane (1997), capacity is composed of three sets of variables: (a) intellectual ability, (b) knowledge, and the skills of teachers and other staff; the quality and quantity of available resources for carrying out effective teaching; and (c) the instructional culture of the school. The entrepreneurs who create CSR designs must have unique and complex skills. Comprehensive school reform designers require a combination of business management; a solid understanding of teaching, learning, and educational reform issues; and the leadership skills to bring vision into reality. Success depends on the mixture of these skill-sets. From a business perspective, creating a quality product, effectively marketing the product. and creating and maintaining an organizational structure that will meet the needs of a specific client group are crucial to development Educationally, a CSR designer must know how their "producf' fits and adds value to the existing educational system, what reform efforts (like standards-based reform) require CSR design alignment. and the specific context in states and school districts where the CSR design will be implemented. Additionally, the designer must possess the leadership skilfs necessary to hire and train the staff that will work to achieve the ultimate goal, bringing theirvision into reality. These issues are at the center of how CSR model organizations build capacity. 38

PAGE 55

Clearly, the task is demanding, and strategies to build capacity of the organization must take a broader approach than strategies to build capacity of the entrepreneurial individual. Organizations are comprised of individuals and structures that govern how the individuals will work together and alone to provide their service or product to their constituents or customers. This study will uncover how CSR model providers build capacity through an organizational perspective to meet their goals (Morgan 1986}. Notions of Capacity A number of educational researchers have considered capacity building strategies for teachers, schools. districts, and state departments of education (Corcoran & Goertz, 1995; lusi, 1997; Massell, 1998; Spillane & Thompson, 1997}. Their premise is that schools and districts need to increase their ability to achieve sustained self-renewal and reform by viewing school improvement as a process of continuous improvement (Susan Lusi, personal communication, November 13, 1998) cycle. These authors group capacity-building efforts into three categories: human capital, social capital, and financial capital (Corcoran & Goertz. 1995; Spillane & Thompson, 1997}. 39

PAGE 56

As third party providers. CSR model organizations must have a product and/or service that is perceived as worthy of teachers' time and attention as well as of quality that can be sustained. Although monies are available to states, districts, and schools, the final consumers are classroom teachers, so the product and service that CSR models are marketing must be palatable to those who ultimately will be implementing the methodology. CSR model developers need to build capacity to continuously improve their products and services, while building their credibility with educators and administrators. Finally, organizational capacity building around the CSR design is a key ingredient to expansion and growth. This can determine the ultimate test of a CSR design organization, its ability to go from an entrepreneurial organization to one that has formal operations, and systems, and is perceived as a professional organization. The following section examines each of these capacity-building categories and their application in comprehensive school reform organizations. Although l will describe each of the fiVe capacity-building categories separately, it will become clear through the examples and discussion that the five capacity-building "bins" are not isolated "silos". Instead, they overlap like the five rings in the Olympic symbol; each bin has 40

PAGE 57

unique capacity-building strategies while many strategies cross multiple organizational bins. Human Capital The term human capital originated with the Nobel Prize winning economist. Theodore W. Schultz. In 1961, he penned an article called "Investment in Human Capital" for the American Economic Review. Since then. other economists (Becker, 1993) have agreed that human capital consists of ability (which includes knowledge and skills), experiences, commitment, and effort (Davenport, 1999). From within an educational context, Smylie (1996}, expands the economic definition to include knowledge, skills. dispositions, and social resources of adults that can be applied to promote learning and development. The commitment, knowledge, and attitude of reform designers are important components of CSR designs' capacity. Those who are committed to reforming schools, who are immersed in the principles and concepts of their design, and who are knowledgeable about issues of teaching and learning are crucial to the success of the reform effort. In addition, leadership, vision, and management are necessary for the organization to accomplish its goals. The combination of strong business management 41

PAGE 58

skills and innovative thinking are a tough leadership package to fill and develop. However, for a CSR organization to grow, it needs more than one innovative and credible leader (Kouzes & Posner, 1993 ). Capacity is built by the number of people working for the organization who are as committed and knowledgeable as the initial model developers. Kouzes and Posner argue: "Leaders must develop the capacity of the people in the organization by expanding the potential of the people" (p. 155). Not all organizations, however, have the available resources needed to fulfill this goaL For example, the National Paideia Center (NPC) serves 80 schools in 6 states. It has an intensive design that relies heavily on in service training of faculty with follow-up coaching and facilitation by the NPC trainer (Terry Roberts, personal communication, November, 1997). Currently, the Center has 6 full-time employees. which is approximately a 1 :13 ratio of trainers to schools. Terry Roberts, the executive director of the NPC, knows that staff burnout is a probability; however, it is a quality .. catch-22 ... ln order to increase capacity to serve more schools, NPC should increase its total number of staff; however, they can only do so if they take on more schools. This may consequently lower the quality of services delivered to schools because NPC may be unable to match 42

PAGE 59

seasoned trainers to all of the new schools that they have acquired, while simultaneously training new NPC staff. Continuing to use the newly hired staff at NPC as an example, consider the knowledge necessary for new staff to understand fully and be able to implement the concepts and instructional principles that are the underpinnings of the Paideia approach. Roberts must gauge how much information the new staff have acquired and evaluate how well they have mastered it in order to feel comfortable sending these staff into schools to facilitate the Paideia approach. Until the staff is sufficiently trained, the burden of serving schools remains with the existing staff of the NPC; yet, training new staff and serving schools may also strain the existing organization. The tension between training staff while serving schools may pose a challenge for CSR organizations growing to meet demand, but it does not free CSR leaders from the responsibility to create educational opportunities to increase the knowledge and skills of their staff (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). As Smylie (1996) insists, "human capital is built through learning" (p.11 ). 43

PAGE 60

Social Capital Moving from the "one to the many", social capital development refers to the social networks, resources and relationships that contribute to learning (Smylie, 1996). One method that builds social capital is creating and sustaining professional networks for educators using the CSR model (Firestone & Pennell, 1997; Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996). These networks facilitate knowledge capital creation and dissemination, which builds educators' human capital. Social interactions surface insights. understandings, and new perspectives on subjects. Although these networks are created and managed by the CSR model for the participating educators, the networking function may build capacity for both the designers and the educators engaged in learning about the design. Building trust between the CSR designers and the educators with whom they are working in schools may be one of the most important components of increasing social capital, the "capacity that arises from the prevalence of trust in a society" 1995, p. 26). Each school is unique. requiring the building and nurturing of a trusting relationship between the school (teachers and principal) and the CSR design team or 44

PAGE 61

identified CSR design facilitator. Building trust takes an enormous amount of time and energy and needs to be continually nurtured. If CSR designers and facilitators are perceived as faltering in their relationship with a school, trust levels decrease, and the likelihood of sustained success for adopting the model will likely go down (Bodilly, et al. 1998). Communication Various communication strategies also build social capacity. Comprehensive school reform designers hold annual meetings where people come together to network, discuss, and share information about the design. These meetings reinforce people's interest in the design, while adding to their knowledge and providing new material, ideas, and concepts for them to implement in their schools. Teachers reportedly come away with a sense of renewal as a result of sharing and learning with their peers (Firestone & Pennell, 1997; Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; Lieberman & Mclaughlin, 1992). One of the most basic communication strategies is publishing monthly or biannual newsletters that share information, provide news about the CSR design, and provide updates on upcoming meetings. Although newsletters may be expensive and time consuming to create, print and 45

PAGE 62

mail. many teachers receive them and then pass them around to fellow teachers, which may increase exposure of the CSR design to other teachers. This is a simple networking technique, but one. which is successful {Nohria & Eccles, 1992). The oldest form of networking is through face-to-face meetings (Nohria & EccJes. 1992). Comprehensive school reform designs host annual meetings for their primary customers. Many CSR designs hold .. design fairs" for potential district "customers" and are sometimes sponsored by supportive state department school improvement or Title 1 personnel (New American Schools. 1998a). These are usually one-day events for teachers and administrators from schools within a district. The intent is to build awareness of a number of designs, facilitate talk firsthand with the CSR design leaders, and get a feeling for the designs before entering into a contract for service between a CSR organization and the district or school. In addition to meetings held by CSR designers, districts and states, other meetings sponsored by other organizations (e.g . federal and state education departments, the Education Commission of the States, and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform) provide exposure and increase publicity about CSR designs (Education Commission of the States, 1997b). 46

PAGE 63

These meetings raise awareness about the CSR model in the minds of federal, state, and district policy makers. Participating in these meetings allows informal networking of the CSR design leaders to talk together. discussing their strategies to expand and disseminate information about their design. Electronic Media The internet and web-site capability are important technological innovations that has benefited CSR models in a social capacity (Nohria & Eccles, 1992). Being connected within a CSR network enables staff to work together electronically. This is especially important for those organizations that have CSR design facilitators living in geographic areas other than the CSR headquarters. Dede (1998) argues that using technology-based innovations offer special opportunities that foster .. communities of leamingn and can add in scale-up efforts. Most web-sites include basic information about the CSR design, a calendar of events and meetings, a listing of aU of the schools involved in the CSR design. and updates pertaining to research on CSR model effectiveness. Many of them include a database of everyone within the design '"family." enabling teachers to share information. and on-line 47

PAGE 64

discussion groups which allow teachers to "chat" with each other. post questions, or offer advice about how ideas worked in their schooL Many web-sites also include a "best practices" database, which gives teachers access to different ideas and practices that they can implement in their classrooms immediately. Such electronic networks are especially important to smaller CSR organizations where financial resources are stretched. Websites are a prime example of how technology is one form of "glue" that can help a CSR organization reach its potential. Dissemination Gaining publicity through the productive use of the media is another communication strategy. CSR leaders who submit articles to Education Week, Educational Leadership. Phi Delta Kappan. and other publications reach a wider educational audience than those already participatif1Q in the design. Given increased public interest in education, other media with a broader audience than educators (National Public Radio, Wall Street Journal. and Atlantic Monthly) bring attention to CSR designs. These media spots bring attention to CSR designs, which could create new demands for the modeL 48

PAGE 65

The combination of building social and human capital is perhaps one of the foremost goals for education. Spillane and Thompson (1997) reflect on their research on building local capacity in districts: "Human and social capacity are interdependent, they develop in tandem" (p. 3). All of the social components of capacity building require more than one individual in order for them to be successful. Although human and social capital may create a strong culture and community among the participants, they are not sufficient if financial resources are not available to market and spread the CSR model's vision, principles, and strategies for implementation in schools. Organizational Capacity Building organizational capacity is the third category. CSR designers build capacity through how wen they navigate their internal organizational processes for growth (Fiamholtz. Coff, & Randle, 1992). All organizations go through a series of transitions during their earty stages of development (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Kimberly & Miles, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981 ). In addition. organizations must overcome the liabilities of newness and smallness (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Stinchecombe, 1965) if they are to 49

PAGE 66

sustain themselves over time. Long-term planning enables CSR organizations to be strategic about how they plan to grow. Service Delivery Determining to whom and how CSR models will deliver services is an important decision. CSR organizations need to decide if they should market themselves to individual schools with the resources to purchase their services or to schools within proximity of others already engaged in the design. Some CSR design organizations are attempting to create a group of schools that "cluster" together to bring the design to them. This is an economies-of-scale strategy, capitalizing on places where the design is already in existence or adding a large enough set of schools (or districts) to make it cost effective for the CSR developer to travel to the site. Another strategy is to increase the numbers of schools in a given state versus beginning in a new state. Finally, CSR design organizations can decide to focus their efforts on inner-city schools or rural districts. Considering all of these possibilities requires well thought out decision making on the part of the CSR design leadership and a healthy dollop of risk-taking. 50

PAGE 67

Organizational Structure Issues of growth and service delivery raise questions about organizational structure. Many CSR design organizations (and organizations worldwide) begin as a small group of people designing and delivering a product with limited resources. Upon sustained success and growth into new geographical locations and markets, the organizational structure must change in order to meet the requirements of a larger organization (Fiamholtz. 1990; Ulrich & Lake, 1990. A few CSR models have evolved into a federation of schools, implementing the model across a number of states. More commonly, CSR models have adapted into a "franchise" structure (Bradach, 1998) which incorporates regional centers or partnerships with universities as a means to manage many schools and districts nationally from a singular central organizational headquarters. Partnerships Partnering with another institution (education or otherwise) can support the CSR model organization with a variety of resources. Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB). for example, is housed at the National Outward Bound Center in New York and has another national office in Boston. Massachusetts. ELOB also has formed partnerships with 51

PAGE 68

the seven Outward Bound Schools in the nation as well as with Harvard University, which has a small Outward Bound Project in the Graduate School of Education. Name recognition with Outward Bound has helped ELOB build awareness of the model and has served as a metaphor for the philosophy of the design (Greg Farrell, personal communication, March, 1998). Universities are another potential prospect for CSR organizations to build organizational capacity. Many of these programs leave the university and become autonomous organizations. The Accelerated Schools National Center, for instance, was housed at Stanford University and now is a separate entity; Success for AU and Roots and Wings began at Johns Hopkins University, and has recently split to create the Success for All Foundation in Baltimore, Maryland. Universities can provide student teachers that can work for the organization while earning their degree. The university can also offer research possibilities with graduate students who are interested in studying the design which, in tum, serves the design by meeting the established criteria for the Porter-Obey guidelines (Terry Roberts, personal communication, November, 1998). Affiliations to a state department of education may also be a viable form of capacity building because of the resources the state department 52

PAGE 69

can bring that can increase the districts understanding and knowledge about a design. State departments can allocate a "design facilitator" who represents the design but who works (and is on the payroll) of the state department. Missouri, for one, has a design facilitator who represents both the Coalition of Essential Schools and Accelerated Schools (Education Commission of the States. 1997b ). Service/ Product As third party providers to educators in schools, the most important aspect of delivering a service is to know what the service is, and to effectively provide it to the customer. This sounds so simple, and yet, is so complex. CSR model providers have a "package" of services to sell to educators in schools. The nature of comprehensive school reform means that it is not a single program with a specific budget attached and a certain amount of days allocated to it for implementation in the schooL CSR takes teachers to understand and implement the program; administrators to allocate substantial resources (staffing, dollars and professional development time, to name a few) to the effort; districts to support it through standards, accountability measures, and decentralized authority; and parents to know and understand it (New American Schools, 1998). 53

PAGE 70

Each of these components alone can be monumental to implement in a school or district. Once a CSR design is "bought" the basic contract between the model provider and. the school or district should clearly state the parameters of the services to be delivered, on what timeline. and for how much money (Keltner, 1998). Then the model provider begins work in the school. This typically takes the form of release days for teachers to work with a model provider (often called "school designer" or facilitator) to learn about the philosophy of the model and to begin to implement it in their classrooms. Because this aspect of service delivery encompasses theory on professional development. and teaching and learning, lam not including it in this study. My focus is not on how effective the professional development offered is at impacting teachers in classrooms. My focus is on the various types of professional development offered by CSR model organizations. Professional development is one aspect of service delivered to schools. Other services include providing annual conferences (previously discussed in the social section) and the use of web-sites to share information. A majority of the CSR models have inadequately proven their effectiveness at raising student achievement (AIR, 1999). As a result. it 54

PAGE 71

seems obvious that CSR organizations would conduct evaluations on the model's impact on students. For those who have engaged in evaluation activity, it is clear that reports such as the AIR report, with support and backing from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and American Association of School Administrators (AASA) will continue to place pressure on CSR organizations to prove that the models are worthy reforms. Likewise, in an effort to remain a desirable product, CSR model providers will work to incorporate new knowledge and technologies into their existing "design". Evaluations and integrating new technologies can be costly, sol will now tum attention to the fifth capacity bin, financial capital. Financial Capital Although articles have been written recently about how schools need to change with little or no extra resources (Odden, 1997), it is unrealistic to expect that learning. building trusting relationships, and the time needed to accomplish these efforts will occur in a financial vacuum. The greater the pot of dollars in a CSR design organization's coffers the more likely it will have the resources to expand and grow. This will increase the CSR organization's ability to hire and train additional staff to deliver services. 55

PAGE 72

which will, in tum, afford them the opportunity to serve more schools and districts. Financial resources also support research and design of new instructional materials for the CSR design facilitator to introduce, teach from, and leave with the teachers who are implementing the CSR design. Developing new instructional materials sends an important message to teachers and administrators that the CSR model is committed to continuous improvement and will not continue using "tired" or outdated instructional materials. Non-profit Status Most CSR models are non-profit organizations. With this status, they are able to secure grants (often called "soft funds") from foundations. This revenue stream has both beneficial and challenging aspects for CSR model providers. Non-profit organizations can secure the grant and use the funds (with tax breaks) from foundations that are looking for social investment opportunities. The term "soft funds" refers to typical foundation grants. Grants are given primarily to develop and test new ideas. often funding the program in its start-up and demonstration phase (Letts. Grossman. & Ryan. 1977). 56

PAGE 73

They are short-term funding cycles, often for 3-5 years, and the majority of the funds are earmarked to flow through the non-profit directly into the program that the foundation has contracted to fund. These funds are sometimes difficult to sustain because, among many other factors, funders may change their funding preferences and discontinue funding (providing the money was used appropriately and according to the granting contract) a certain social program for a newer, "sexier" idea. Another financial dimension for building capacity is how time is allocated and used (Corcoran & Goertz. 1995; O'Day, Goertz, & Roden, 1995). For classroom teachers, spending time with CSR design facilitators to understand the reform model and how best to implement it in their school is the most important commodity. For CSR design teams, time is essential to generate new business strategies while supporting the ones currently in use. Time is also necessary to train new staff in order to expand the design into new schools. Also, time is in relation to working within schools. Design facilitators need to be in schools in person-travel, planning, delivering services. and debriefing the in-service lessons provided by a design facilitator; and all of these activities take time. 57

PAGE 74

Table 2.1 (on the next page) shows the five capacity-building bins and strategies that could stimulate growth and support the movement from one stage of lifecycle development and into another. What is absent are activities that CSR models providers engage in that support capacity building in the organization as a whole. The intent of this study is to cover what activities CSR organizations pursue and their potential effectiveness. Reciprocal Capacity-Building While thinking about capacity building as a foundational strategy for CSR models to engage in for growth and sustainability, one other form of capacity building is worth noting. I call it reciprocal capacity-building. Reciprocal capacity building is created by strategies that enhance the abilities of the educators implementing the CSR model via participation with the model as wen as the CSR model provider. As I have argued in previous sections, if CSR models are to sustain themselves, they need to build their own capacity. Likewise, if they are to grow as a viable solution for schools, they need to increase the capacity of those implementing the modeL [Hence, l will be on the lookout for strategies that increase the knowledge, skills and assets of all of the parties engaging in the activity.] 58

PAGE 75

Table 2.1: Capacity Building Strategies for Comprehensive School Reform Moders Capacity Bins Capacity-Building Strategy Human Leadership Setting vision, mission, and purpose Knowledge of craft Knowledge of educating: Teaching & learning, staff development concepts Knowledge of model philosophy Knowledge of education reform Social Relationship building & Networking Organizational Service/ Product Capital Establish. build. and sustain trust within organization Establish, build, and sustain relationships with clients Establish, build and sustain partnerships that support the model Leadership Providing organizational leadership Building organizational culture Structure Clarity of employee roles and responsibilities Organizational hierarchy Operations Formalization of operations Technology Use Delivery of service Clear understanding the .. deliverables" Providing high quality services Being efficient Research & development Proving model is effective Incorporating cutting edge information as appropriate Marketing Raising awareness and selling the service Finance Raise capital Allocate available resources FISCal conservatism Time allocation Creating time for individual & organizational growth 59

PAGE 76

This chapter has identified and explored categories for building capacity in CSR designs. These categories serve as the conceptual framework from which three CSR designs have been examined as case studies, spotlighting the strategies they used to build capacity and to what ends were they successful. The following chapter outlines organizational life-cycle literature and its application to CSR models and their "growing pains." This literature will serve as the theoretical framework for this study. 60

PAGE 77

CHAPTER3 ORGANIZATIONAL LIFECYCLE No .. one best theory" of organizations explains or predicts how organizations will behave in various situations (Shafritz & Ott, 1992). Some theories build upon others; some use the same language and jargon. Further, no consensus exists on what constitutes an encompassing organizational theory. This has not, however, deterred scholars from putting forth their best ideas ... Anyone is free to join the school of organization theory ... but before casting your lot with one school, consider the options" (Shafritz& Ott, 1992, p. 4.). A substantial body of theoretical research identifies a host of obstacles standing between success and decline of new organizations. Comprehensive school reform organizations are considered unique institutions because they are third-party providers of complete educational packages for schools and districts that contract with them (Education Commission of the States, 1997). In the 1980s. only a handful of whole school reform models existed in school districts, but the fast 10 years has seen an expansion of these entities into the educational marketplace. 61

PAGE 78

Additionally, the potential expansion of CSR organizations created by the Porter-Obey legislation has widened the niche pool for such organizations to grow and prosper. This section explains how three forces work continuously to influence the development of organizations. Two of them are external to the organization. They are the environment that creates a market and potential niche for the organization to fill and the politics that fledgling organizations must address while in early stages of growth and development The third is the lifecycle of the organization itself; the stages it must go through to grow successfully and remain viable. Niches. Lifecycles. and Power Sociologists have expressed interest in the founding of new organizations. especially in the circumstances that encourage some emergent enterprises to grow and mature while others struggle without achieving sustained success (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Downs, 1967; 1990; Kimberly & Miles, 1980; Stinchecombe, 1965). Three sets of forces trigger change in and around organizations (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992}: the market niche the organization will be competing in, the life cycle of the organization as it grows and matures, and, finally, the political forces 62

PAGE 79

that impact the organization. All three have an impact on the organization's survivaL The focus is not organizational aging but on evolutionary forces outside the organization that catalyze the need for change and the intra organizational dynamics that facilitate or inhibit change (Kanter et al., 1992). Since the creation of new organizations entails a selection and startup process, it is important to understand the environment that is conducive to their birth (Pennings, 1980). The population ecology model (Hannan & Freeman, 19n) has its roots in the theory of biological evolution (Aldrich, 1979). The argument is that, while organizations have some control and choice over changes in their environment; most sources of change are a result of external conditions in the environment It is from an ecological framework (Hannan & Freeman, 19n) which understanding can arise about the various environmental factors that lead to the birth of an organization Two basic propositions in the population ecology model exist (Aldrich, 1979). The first is that a natural selection process occurs in the environment, which determines the structural forms of organizations. The second is that organizational forms must either fit their environmental niches or they faiL The process of natural selection means that 63

PAGE 80

organizations move towards a better fit with their environments over time. This shift over time is examined in three stages (a) variation, (b) selection and (c) retention, which are both biological and sociological (Aldrich, 1979; Kanter, 1983}. The theory focuses on organizational survival. The second force affecting organizational success are the growth or "lifecycles" they pass through as they evolve from a start-up, emergent organization to one that has been successful for fifty plus years, or one that has declined or died (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Downs, 1967; Kimberly & Miles, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981). Stinchecombe (1965) notes that organizations are particularly vulnerable during their infancy. During this time, they must overcome their "liability of newness" which is a combination of inefficiency (due to inexperience), lack of stability, lack of an internal strategy, unclear vision, insufficient funding, and uncertain customers (Stinchecombe, 1965). For organizations that are able to pass their "survival threshold" (Downs. 1967), many of them find they are confronted with the "paradox of success" (Kimberly, 1980), defined as the effect on organizations that are successful in early start-up, but then taper off as institutionalism sets in. Organizations are groups of people, with multiple interests, preferences and competing beliefs and values about how the organization 64

PAGE 81

should operate. Many stakeholders have an interest in the organization itself as well as what the organization produces. Politics and how organizations gain and use power is the third influence affecting organizations (Kanter et aL, 1992). Politics can be perceived as "the jockeying for position that goes on as groups of individuals advance there own interests" (p. 46). Politics and power do not always have to be cast in a negative light. Studies of innovation show that. when power is decentralized, innovation can occur (Kanter, 1983). Grassroots groups have been able to change services provided to them by dominant governments. Other examples include dictators who have been ousted and governments that have been turned over. Needless to say, market niches, organizational lifecycles, power and politics can shape an organization's direction in profound ways (Kanter et aL, 1992). These represent forces that keep organizations in constant flux, demanding attention and readiness for change of entrepreneurial leaders who are working to realize their visions. Market Niche The primary market for CSR organizations has been defined and determined. The pressure for school districts to reach certain levels of 65

PAGE 82

achievement for all of their schools has created a potential market across the nation for providers to fill, and prove their "product" desirable and effective. The nine criteria in the Porter-Obey bill help to define the parameters for CSR organizations that want to compete in the market. Those CSR organizations with a greater alignment with the nine criteria have a better chance of funding by districts for schools than those who meet fewer than the nine. Another factor defining the niche is targeting who is most in need of the CSR intervention. The CSRDP guidance suggests that state departments of education should possibly consider allocating money to those districts that are specifically using CSR as a strategy to support low performing schools (United States Department of Education, 1998). Charter schools are a growing secondary market for CSR models. Wohlstetters (1998) work in California mentioned that those charter schools that had adopted a CSR model had more available time to spend on the difficulties of buildings and fiscal constraints that many charter schools face. Subjects in the research study identified CSR models as a way to address curriculum and instruction. In both cases, the niche has been defined and filled first by pioneers like Slavin, Sizer, and Comer. As a result of Porter-Obey, the market is open, aUowing room for competition 66

PAGE 83

between various providers and plenty of opportunity in the 53,000 school districts to fill the perceived need. Politics Politics also play an important role. although less internally within CSR model organizations. Fewer power struggles occur in the early stages of an organization's development because of the high commitment to the goals of creating an organization in its early, formative stages. However, the possibility exists for greater political tension between the CSR design organization and the districts and schools it contracts with to deliver services. Using standardized testing as an example, political tensions could occur with a school implementing a CSR model that obtains a district waiver to bypass administering the state standardized test. The school files for the waiver because this form of evaluation goes against the philosophy of the CSR modeL Other schools in the district may also be obtaining the same waiver, but the possibility exists that the CSR model gets more of the for non-compliance with state regulations. Frustration from the central administration in the district may be displaced onto the CSR modeL Focusing on the capacity-building strategies for CSR model organizations is less about how the CSR models manage the environment 67

PAGE 84

they live in (although isolating this factor fails to provide a complete perspective). lt is more about how they build the internal organizational capacity to gain a competitive position on other organizations in the same market and better manage those external forces. All organizations experience lifecycle issues as they compete in their identified niche and navigate politically. Development of organizations is an important focus because changes in lifecycles seem to occur more rapidly in younger organizations than in older. more established organizations (Quinn & Cameron. 1981 ). The main focus of this study is on the capacity-building strategies that CSR model organizations use to grow and develop while expanding their market niche. Considering the focus of this study. examining the literature on organizationallifecycles is necessary. The next section delves into organizational lifecycles from birth to death. Organizational Lifecycles Big newsl We are able to operationalize the PGI. Are we obtaining our goals? Our very first strategic plan identifies three priorities. HP Consultants helped us to sharpen our focus. We're past the infancy stage and more like a toddler. (CSR Moder developer. 1999) 68

PAGE 85

Birth: Entrepreneurship Considerable organizational theory has dealt with social structure and change of existing organizations, but less interest has been expressed in the creation of new organizations (Quinn & Cameron, 1981 ). The most important contributions on organizational birth do not come from organizational theory but from literature on entrepreneurship (Pennings, 1980). Using the metaphor of birth, this first stage encompasses the activities of the entrepreneur that "conceive" the idea that will become the basis for the development of the organization. The creation of the ideology (Kimberly, 1980), and the entrepreneurial activities that engage the founders to "dream up what we might do" (Adizes, 1979), are the earliest organizational development activities. Concurrently, the founder or entrepreneur is strategically evaluating the market niche that the "new venture" may thrive in. Millions of "good ideas" are generated every day. Hundreds of business books are written to help entrepreneurs match their "good idea" to the right niche, be it creating a market or taking advantage of an opportunity. It is one of the fundamental aspects of starting a new business venture 1985; Flamholtz, 1990}. 69

PAGE 86

Although having a good idea and knowing the niche to be filled is crucial to launching a new organization, marshalling the necessary resources to get off the ground is the third non-negotiable of the organizational birth process (Flamtioltz, 1990; Quinn & Cameron, 1981 ). "Seed money," "venture capital," and "organizational angels" (rapidly growing in the high-technology sector) are often the places where entrepreneurs in the private sector go to look for start-up money. Entrepreneurs in the service non-profit sector tend to build seed money from foundation grants or private donors looking for a tax write-off. Partnerships are formed with larger institutions of a similar kind (universities are one example) to the new venture in order to create a partnership that serves both. The important point is that capital is a requirement. Growth: Collectivity Launching a new venture can be exciting. tenuous, risky, and precarious. For any idea to reach and affect consumers, the organization will have to grow in order to meet the demand. This second stage of successful organizational growth is typified by expansion of the organization 1979; 1967; Flamholtz, 1990; Quinn & Cameron, 1981). The entrepreneur is successful in surpassing the 70

PAGE 87

"survival threshold" (Downs, 1967) getting the product to initial customers, and, if successful, the number of customers is multiplying. The demand created by initial success has the small group of employees moving at top speed, innovating and creating systems to support the product while improving it and continuing to deliver it (Adizes, 1979; Flamhol1z, 1990; Greiner, 1972). Along with high commitment by employees (Quinn & Cameron, 1981 ), this stage is exemplified by a high sense of organizational mission (Kimberly, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981}. Internal communication systems are informal (Adizes, 1979; Flamholtz, 1990; Greiner, 1972; Quinn & Cameron, 1981 ), and decision-making is intuitive, frequent, and decentralized (Adizes, 1979; Kimberly, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981). Flamholtz (1990) describes ten "growing painsn that organizations experience, often during this stage of development (p. 53): 1. People feel "there are not enough hours in the day." 2. People are spending too much time putting out fires. 3. Many people are not aware of what others are doing. 4. There is a lack of understanding about where the firm is headed. 5. There is not a sufficient number of good managers. 6. Everybody feels "I have to do it myself if L want to get it done correctly." 7. Most people feel "Our meetings are a waste of time." 8. When plans are made, there is very little follow-up and things just don't get done. 9. Some people have begun to feel insecure about their place in the organization. 71

PAGE 88

10. The organization has continued to grow in sales but not in profits. Another "growing pain" that can be felt by organizations which have stretched their resources too thin, creating a strain to meet the increasing demands in it's market niche. Just as children who grow six inches in a year, and have insatiable appetites, the challenges in this stage are associated with rapid growth versus survival (Fiamholtz. 1990). Moving from this stage and into the next is crucial because it signals the change from an entrepreneurial organization to a professionally managed one (Fiamholtz, 1990). "Any new organization faces two general problems," argues Kimberly (1980, p. 22). "First is a problem of getting off the ground. Second is the problem of institutionalization." Formalization and Control At some point during the chaos and growth that is experienced in stage two, the leadership of the organization realizes that it must attend to the infrastructure of the organization to meet the demands of the service or product it is delivering. At this point. the organization shifts from its "entrepreneurial" or informal approach to one that introduces the operational systems and processes needed to "professionalize .. the 72

PAGE 89

organization and begin moving towards efficiency (Adizes, 1979; Downs, 1967; Flamholtz, 1990; Greiner, 1972; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kimberly, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981). The leadership and top tier of managers also shifts, requiring people to engage in more management types of activities versus acting as a group of individual entrepreneurs. Rules, policies. and procedures are established (Downs, 1967; Flamholtz, 1990; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kimberly, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981 ), and long-term versus short-term strategic planning is often first used (Fiamholtz, 1990). Formalization of the organization occurs, the emphasis shifting away from innovation, flexibility and rapid change. Once the organization has made a transition to professional management, attending to the corporate culture becomes critical (Flamholtz, 1990). By the time an organization has reached this stage, it has hired many new people and has expanded into a much larger organizational structure. Possibly, the founding entrepreneur and original employees are no longer working for the organization. Transmitting the corporate culture in an organization the size of 10 employees requires a different strategy than in one of200 employees (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). The challenge is to transmit the values, norms, and beliefs of the 73

PAGE 90

organization and support the culture throughout the organization (Pettigrew, 1972; Schein, 1985). Elaboration of Strudure Much of the literature on organizationallifecycle models begins to taper off at this point. Downs (1967), Adizes (1979), and Kimberly (1980), complete their models at the last stage as indicated by the summary model by Quinn and Cameron (1981 ). If the organization has reached this stage, it is typically adapting to its changing market (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Quinn & Cameron, 1981) and continuing to strengthen its internal structures. This is not, however, a minor stage. In fact, this is the stage that receives the most research conduded on organizations The Change Masters (Kanter, 1983). Built to Last (Collins & Porras, 1994) and In Search of Exce/fence (Peters & Waterman, 1982) are among the classic business books written in the last 15 years. In the cases studied in these three studies. the companies were in this stage of development. All of the organizations had been in existence for over 15 years (in Built to Last, the companies were at least 50 years old}, and were being studied to identify what factors lead to their continued existence at the top of their industries. While it is true that many of the companies included in In Search of 74

PAGE 91

Excellence have now fallen from the top of the business charts, the strategies identified by these authors and others have generated a huge business for organizational health, strategic advancement, and continued improvement. Decline It is the societal norm to grow and think "new and improved" (Morgan, 1986; Whetten, 1987). Because of this, the literature on declining organizations is thin. A variety of reasons exist for this. including: (a) difficulty in gaining access to organizations in decline (typically, organizations move to an entrenched mode of operating when faced with indicators of decline), (b) support for organizational research is usually financed to study managers and their techniques who foster innovation and growth, and (c) not all organizations decline and die (Whetten, 1987). The strategies employed by organizations in decline are different than those used during growth (Cameron. 1984; Whetten, 1987). Levine's typology (1978) defining decline in organizations identified internal and external situations or crises that trigger organizational decline such as organizational atrophy, political vulnerability. and environmental entropy. Decline is the result of foss of organizational "muscle tone ... Once success 75

PAGE 92

is achieved, organizations may not be as sharp or as "hungry" for competitive advantage (Ulrich & Lake, 1990). Although this study does not focus on the decline of organizations, at least 50% of the new ventures begun every year do not sustain themselves to become a mature organization (Drucker, 1985; Kanter et al., 1992; Stinchecombe, 1965). Reviewing lifecycle models provides important clues about the dominant criteria of capacity-building strategies that are likely to be present in CSR design models. My findings on what strategies have successfully supported and moved a CSR model towards a sustaining organization may lend insight to other organizations similar to CSR models. Integration of the Models Table 3.1 on the next several pages presents a summary model {Quinn & Cameron, 1981, p. 35), combining the common organizational characteristics typical of each stage. All of the models progress through a similar set of development and growth lifecycle stages. Most of the models stop before the decline and death stages. Reading across the table, each author's set of lifecycle stages is depicted. However, reading down the similarities across the 76

PAGE 93

models are readily apparent So, although titles for the individual author's may be different. they agree on ideas within each stage. Notice that a consistent pattern of development occurs in organizations overtime. More importantly, the strategies and activities used in one stage are not the same as ones needed in another stage of development. It may be possible that identifying and evaluating capacity building strategies for various CSR design models will be different depending on the stage of development of the organization. Additionally, consensus exists across the lifecycle models on the point of advancement through stages (Cameron, 1984; Flamholtz, 1990; Kanter, 1983; Whetten, 1987). Organization's will recycle through developmental stages as a result of changes in the external or internal environment. For example, a change 77

PAGE 94

:::0 ('1) "0 a a. c: C') ('1) a. :;: .. -----------------. 3 (ij" (Jl o ::l 0 -:;: ('1) C') 0 "0 '< ::!. <0 ;:r 0 :E ::l ('1) :""' "T1 c: ::1. ::::r ('1) ..., ..., ('1) "0 ..., 0 a. c: Q. (5" ::l "0 ..., 0 ::::r 6' ;::;: ('1) a. :;: 0 c: "0 ('1) ..., 3 (ij" (Jl o ? ....... co Table 3,1: Summary of Organizational Llfecycle models Summary I. Binh: Blltrepreneurial 2. Growth : eouecdvity 3. Pormallzatlon cl Control 4. fUaboration of Structure Model Q\alnnA Manballing of rCSOUfCes Informal communication & Formalization of rules Hlaboration of stnlcture Cameron, Lois of ideM structure Stable &tnlcturc Decentralization (1981) Entrepreneurial activides Sense of collectivity Bmpbasis on efficiency & Domain expansion Llldc planning Long hours spent maintenance Adaptation &rdlnadon Sense of mission Consavatlsm Renewal formation of a "niche" Innovation continues ln&titutionalizcd procedures "Primo mover" has power High commitment Downs, SIDiiaiR fu 4utonomx RDRid Growth pegtuion (1967) Legitimize the fUnction to the Innovators and climbers have Increased size & complexity extcmal environment control causes coordination problems Obtain autonomy ftvm parent or Bmphasla on innovation and Innovation is de-empbaslztd competin& bureaus expansion Smoothness and predictability Slabllizo raources Occunmce of an "age Jump" in lllC emphasized Achieve survival threshold mcmbenhip "Conservers" have control formalized and elaborate role systems Reduced flexibility Katz& Primitive System Qmlllizlli!Ul SIII!R!Wi!Q Kahn, Cooperation endeavors based on Coordination & formallzaUon tructures (1978) common needs and expectations Authority systems arise Adaptation systems arc of member Informal structure arises formed, i e procurement Rule enforcement systems, disposal systems, Maintenance systems arise institutional relations systems

PAGE 95

:::0 C'D "'0 a a. c:: C') C'D a. ::;: "'0 --------. .-------------_________ ,__, __ C'D 3 (ii' (/) o ::l 0 -::;: C'D C') 0 "'0 '< ::l. <0 ;:?; 0 ::l C'D :""' "'0 C'D 3 (ii' (/) o ::l Table 3.1 (Cont.): Summary of OrganW.tlonalllfecycle models Summary 1. Entfeprcneurial 2. Collectivity Model Greiner, Direction Creatlvitx (197Z) Functional structure established Bmphasit on producing a AccoundPi aySlem set up product Spce!all7.atlon of tasks Long hours or work with PonMiizcd rules and policies modest rewards Informal communication structure Plamboltz( New Venture 0 Expanalon 1990) Make&acll 0 Bxpand resources & Products Defino nllfkcts & niche 0 Pentop core products 0 Developing operations Informal 0 Informal, but understood Thin resources 3. Fonnalization & Control 4. Elaboration of Structure Delelftion Dec:entrallzatlon of structure Decision malting pushed lower in the hierarchy CoonJingl!on New systems arise Product groups fonn Long term planning Profit sharing programs Collaboration Teamaetion Spontaneity In management Conftontatlon in lntCJPCfSonal problems Self-discipline Mult!..purposc systems &et up 0 emftHkmillzitloD Plveralflc!l!loo 0 Build management Encourage innovation infiastructure Define new madtets & niche 0 Ponnallz!ng OpcJJtional and Develop new products management systems 0 Bstlbll5hcd 0 lncrcasins surplus of resources 0 QonBO!IdatloQ 0 Spreld lhe corporate culture 0 Formal management systems 0 Well developed opcralions 0 Wclldefincd muket

PAGE 96

;:o ('[) "0 0 Cl.. s= () ('[) Cl.. :E ;::;: "0 ----.... . . . u; (f) cs-::l 0 ('[) () 0 "0 '< <0' 0 :E ::l ('[) :-" .,., s= ;:+ ('[) ('[) "0 0 Cl.. s= 00 $1 0 a ::l "0 0 o: ;::;: ('[) Cl.. :E ;::;: 0 s= "0 ('[) 3 u; (f) a ? Table 3 1 (Cont.): Summary of OrganlzaUonal Llfecycle models Summary Model Adizes, (1979) I, Entrepreneurial 2. Collectivity 3. Formalization & Control CourtshiR Infll!t OWnizatiM Adolescmt Or&aniptjon Founders aro dreaming up "what Bmphasls on production Plllllling & coordination are we might do" Time pressures keenly felt important Bntrcpreneurial activities No tradition Administrative activities increase at Pew meetings the expense of entrepreneurial Little plamting & production Go-Go Orpgjzation Stability & conseJVatism Rapid expansion Formalized rules & policies Personalized leadership Primp Organjzatiou Some planning Emphasis of efficiency Past, fi'equent, intuitive decision Increasing loss of touch with the making environment Thick org1111ization boundaries Aspirations remain stable, no desire ro grow or change Stability & prt4ictability Bl'e valued Mm!lrib: Paternalistic, comfortable organizational climate Low emphasis on production Formalized Little innovation 4. Blaboration of Structure

PAGE 97

:::0 CD "0 a c. c:: C') CD c. ::T "0 --------------CD 3 (jj (Jl o ::l 0 -::T CD C') 0 "0 '< ::! <0 ;:r 0 ::l CD :""' "T1 c:: ::I. ::;:,-CD ..., ..., CD "0 ..., 0 c. c:: Sl o ::l "0 ..., 0 ::;:,-S!. ro c. ::T 0 c:: "0 CD ..., 3 (jj" (Jl o ? 00 Table 3.1 Continued: Summary of Organizational Llfecycte models Summary Model Kimberly, (1979) I Entrepreneurial fUi Mmhaling of resources Creation of an idcoloSY 2. CollectivitY 3. Formalization & Control a-d fmmh Obtaining support for the Formalized structure external environment Policies and mles set up Choice of a "Prime movcrw Intanal org111izational co.tition Staffmg of the organization Stabilized extanal relations Frequent, diSCJctc decisions arc Conservative Crmd made High penonal investment questioned DWd Formation of idcndty Sense of coUcivlty of family High member involvement in the organization Pursuit of organizational mJaslon Postponing individual need fulfilling temporarily 4. Blaboration of Structure

PAGE 98

in customer interest away from large. fuel-inefficient, automobiles in the 1970s. towards smaller, gas-efficient. vehicles illustrates an industry responding to external pressure. The impact on an organization as a result of an unsuccessful merger is an example of internal pressure. Do not be fooled into thinking that, once an organization has "passed" through a stage. it will never have the need to revisit it later in its history. Problems present at one stage will not be solved as a result of moving toward the next stage (Quinn & Cameron, 1981). It is a recycling phenomenon and is dependent on the multiple pressures and environmental changes that present change to the organization (Kanter, et al.. 1993). Additionally, it is important to differentiate between growth stages, problem stages. and decline. Lifecycles and Effectiveness Consensus does not exist among scholars about whether or not lifecycfe models can measure organizational effectiveness (Cameron & Whetten, 1983 ). Their differences depend on what conceptualizations and assumptions the researcher holds about organizations. Different mindsets about what an organization is and what it has set out to achieve. create different effectiveness models; hence. the lack of consensus by 82

PAGE 99

researchers declaring one model above the rest. If one is evaluating an organization based on product output. then a model that measures outputs is a worthy model to measure effectiveness. On the other hand, an organizational model that makes a strong internal culture central to effectiveness would yield a different evaluative model. Researchers have created a palette of models to understand and explain the myriad of effectiveness theories (Cameron. 1984). The models themselves offer different perspectives from which to assess organizational effectiveness. Within the set of models is the competing values model (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). This model emphasizes four major areas in organizations: organizational, which includes the human and social areas that I discuss. financial, strategic, and technological, which is about the product or service, and matches those to lifecycle stages of organizations. Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) discovered that individuals make evaluations about the effectiveness of organizations based on three dimensions. They are: (a) an internal versus external focus (individual achievement versus organizational goal accomplishment), (b) a concern for flexibility versus a concern for control (innovation and adaptability versus predictability and stability) and. (c) a concern for ends versus the means. 83

PAGE 100

Quinn & Rohrbaugh found that clusters of effectiveness criteria and the dimensions that represent them are consistent with the four stages of organizationallifecycles. Effective organizations do not emphasize activities in only one of the quadrants, but maintain some balance or capacity among all four (Cameron & Quinn, 1988). Effectiveness criteria in different organizational areas were emphasized in different lifecycle stages. What was defined as effective performance in one stage was contradictory to effectiveness in another stage. However. a predictable pattern of change was found: criteria in one stage preceded criteria in stage two, which preceded stage three criteria, and so on. Capacity-building & Lifecycles: Bringing Them Together In the preceding chapter, a set of capacity-building issues were identified and discussed. These capacity-building strategies fall into five categories: 1. Human, the individual knowledge and skills about the service and its place in the educational marketplace and the leadership and commitment necessary to sustain the 'vision of the organization; 2. Social. the collective knowledge and the relationships necessary to build and sustain partnerships between multiple stakeholders 84

PAGE 101

in the educational system, plus aU of the communication tools useful to share information between customers and providers; 3. Organizational, which includes both individual and collective group processes, systems, structures and issues (e.g., leadership, mission, vision, and management and organizational operations and structures); 4. Product/Service, the creation of the product/service that includes marketing by the organization, the delivery of the service or product and continuous improvements made by the organization; 5. Financial. the acquisition and allocation of funding for organizational start-up, product improvement and expansion of the organization and the services it provides. This model provides a framework from to which to observe and catalogue capacity-building strategies of various CSR model organizations. When studying a variety of CSR design organizations in differing Hfecycle stages, 1 would expect to find evidence that they are applying different capacity-building strategies to support organizational growth and success. Three CSR design organizations of varying organizational sizes were identified for inclusion in this study. Organization staff were interviewed and observed during each organization's annual conference to uncover what if any, capacity-building strategies they are implementing. A complete 85

PAGE 102

discussion of the methods to achieve these goals is discussed in the next chapter. 86

PAGE 103

CHAPTER4 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study is to uncover the various capacity-building strategies that comprehensive school reform organizations employ to become sustaining organizations. In order to understand what the various strategies might be and how they serve the CSR models, in-depth case studies of the organizations and their developmental strategies is cruciaL Seventeen CSR models have been identified in federal legislation H. R. 2264 (Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act. 1998), allocating resources to the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program (CSRDP). Although using case study method as the primary research tool is a good match for organizational and management studies within a contemporary set of events (Yin. 1989). conducting in-depth case studies on all seventeen is beyond the capacity of this dissertation. Therefore. a winnowing process was used in order to identify three CSR models to compare and contrast their organizational capacity-building strategies. 87

PAGE 104

Methods Applied to Understand the Madness People have always sought the answers to complex questions and have devised ways to determine what has taken place. To do so is to ascribe method to "the madness" and create order out of disorder. To reduce the number of organizations for inclusion in this study and create a thoughtful process for studying them, four elements were included as criteria. The first section provides an overview of the process used to select a comprehensive school reform organization as the unit of study. The second section describes the preliminary data sources that were incorporated into the case studies. Third, the interview process is described, and, finally, the means for analysis of data collected are included. Preliminary Data Collection Prior to launching the study, human subjects permission was received from the University of Colorado at Denver. Following this, a letter of introduction describing the project was sent to each of the CSR model executive directors. Historical documents of the seventeen CSR models listed in the Porter-Obey legislation were evaluated and used to determine case study 88

PAGE 105

selection and provide contextual background to the study. Examples from CSR models not included as case studies are used to illustrate organizational theories underpinning this study and serve as examples in the conclusions of the study. The Art of Asking Questions Robert Stake (1995) writes, "The interview is the main road to discovering and portraying the multiple views of a case" (p. 69). The primary tool used for data gathering in this study has been the interview process. "The purpose of interviewing is to find out what is in and on someone else's mind" (Patton, 1980, p.196). Before the interview candidates were selected, it was necessary to determine who the most important comprehensive school reform design team members were. Because this study focuses on the maturity levels of CSR models and their mechanisms for capacity-building, it was important to select three designs that were in different stages of organizational development and growth. Criteria for Inclusion in the Study: CSR Models Data reviewed before selecting interviewees included marketing materials of all17 CSR models mentioned in the federal legislation, annual 89

PAGE 106

reports and strategic plans of these CSR models, and articles from educational publications and newspapers. The first and most important criteria for the selection of a CSR model for inclusion as a case study required that the model meet all of the requirements laid out in the Porter-Obey guidelines (U.S. Department of Education, 1998) that define an organization as a comprehensive school reform model. The nine defining characteristics of CSR models are: 1. Effective, research-based methods and strategies 2. Comprehensive design aligned components 3. Professional development 4 Measurable goals and benchmarks 5. Support within the school. 6. Parental and community involvement 7. External technical support and assistance 8. Evaluation strategies 9. Coordination of resources. This immediately eliminated worthy programs like the National Writing Project. which is a specific subject matter reform model and organization. For example, although the National Writing Project offers intensive professional development in writing for teachers involved and is 90

PAGE 107

based on effective research methods and strategies (Education Commission of the States, 1998), it does not include parent and community support as a component of the project. Only those CSR programs that address all nine elements were included in the study. The second criterion for inclusion in the study was based on the organizational age of the CSR model. This study focuses on the capacity building strategies utilized by CSR models in order to develop into "mature" or sustaining organizations. These "emergent" organizations have already been "born," and are past the initial stage of start-up or "birth" (Kimberly & Miles, 1980). CSR models that are older than five years and are already implementing their philosophy in over 10 schools in more than one state were considered for inclusion. Given this criterion, Bank Street College's technical assistance to schools would be excluded because their involvement in schools is limited to the state of New York. A third criterion for selection was dependent on the organizational size of the CSR model. Larger organizations have a better ability to respond to environmental changes, while smaller and younger ones must deaf with "liability of newness" factors (Stinchecombe,. 1965). CSR organizations vary according to size and structure. Most of the organizations attract new schools into the network. one at a time, using a 91

PAGE 108

"loosely coupled" (Weick, 1976) federation of schools with a national headquarters as one structure. I am labeling this the "simple" organizational structure. Many of the CSR organizations use a "franchise" structure (Bradach. 1998). usually restructuring in this fashion after the model has acquired schools in multiple states. Franchise structures use a combination of control and decentralization simultaneously. Control is exerted through the philosophy of the design and methods used to implement it, but the "parenf' or original organization is not the only organization implementing the model. In some cases, regional centers have been created, with state department staff acting as facilitators to districts and schools within their state. Still other CSR organizations are structured as a brokering firm; New American Schools is such an organization. It does not work with any schools directly; instead. it directs its resources to support the CSR models under the NAS umbrella (Stringfield, et. at., 1996). This wide array of structures presents interesting possibilities for capacity-building strategies. Do all of these models use similar strategies or do they employ different strategies depending on the organizational structure they have in place? Needless to say. the fourth criterion will be the organizational structure utilized by the CSR modeL Comparing and contrasting the strategies 92

PAGE 109

employed by three CSR models that are different in size (small, medium, and large) and structure (simple structure and franchise} will illicit how different strategies are beneficial for different structures at various fifecycle stages of development. Table 4.1 illustrates the set of criteria (age, number of schools and states served, organizational size and structure) of the initial seventeen CSR models possible for inclusion in the study. A correlation appears to exist between the size of the organization, the number of states in which it is operating, and the organizational structure of the CSR modeL All but one (ACh) of the six large CSR design organizations are operating in at least 20 states and have expanded into a franchise structure. America's Choice (ACh) is the youngest of this group (begun in 1989, while the others range from 1968-1987}, which may account for it being implemented in only 14 states. The four CSR models that are medium in size (ELOB, MRSh, Co-N, and ATLAS) are younger than the large set, and have all expanded into a franchise structure. They are close in numbers of schools and states including ATLAS, which has the added challenge of implementing in a "pathway which is a K-12 feeder pattern. 93

PAGE 110

Almost all of the seven CSR organizations that are small in organizational size are implementing their CSR design in less than 15 states. Factoring in the organizational structure of these CSR models, half of the small models have a simple structure. 94

PAGE 111

Table 4.1: Comprehensive School Reform Models: Age, Size and Organizational Structure CSR Year Number of Number of Original CSROrg. CSROrg. model began schools States served Developer Size1 Structure served (Jan. 98) (Jan. 98) ASP 1986 1000+ 40 H. Levin Large Franchise ACh 1989 300 14 NCEE Large Franchise ATLAS 1992 57(12 7 4 developers 2 Medium Franchise pathways) CES 1984 251 45 T. Sizer Large Franchise CFL 1990 53 8 M. Wang Small Simple Co-N 1992 58 8 BBN Corp. Medium Franchise 01 1968 150 30 S. Engelmann Small Simple ELOB 1992 47 13 OBUSA Medium Franchise HSlW 1987 700+ 21 SREB Large Franchise MRSh 1992 43 11 Hudson lnst. Medium Franchise NPC 1984 80+ 12 M. Adler Small Franchise P.CE 1970 16 6 A. Cohen Small Franchise SOP 1968 721 21 J. Comer Large Franchise SFA 1987 747 40 R. Slavin Large Franchise R&W TDHS 1995 7 5 CRESPAR3 Small Simple ULC 1992 19 1 LAUSD, LAEP4 Small Simple NAS 1990 0 directly 0 directly J. Anderson Small Broker Source: Northwest Reg1onaJ Education Laboratory (1998} 1 Organizational Size refers to the number of employees in the organization. Small = < 10 employees; Medium = 11 -25 employees; Large = > 25 employees. 2 Group of Essential Schools. Education Development Center, Project Zero. School Development Program 3 Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Johns Hopkins University "" Los Angeles Unified School District. Los Angeles Educational Partnership NAS, NPC, ELOB, and P-CE, stand apart from the others (ULC, TDHS, CFL and Dl). Three of these four have "franchise" structures. NAS 95

PAGE 112

stands alone as the only "broker" of other CSR design models. Interestingly, two of the four (ELOB and P-CE) are CSR design models that are under the NAS umbrella. All of the NAS designs have a franchise structure Cases This study addresses the strategies employed by three CSR designs as they transition from a small to medium sized organization. As stated in the previous chapter, it is during this period that organizations go through crucial transitions that may set the course for success or failure. Given the criteria, three CSR model organizations seem to be transitioning from the entrepreneurial, emergent stage, into the growth and collectivity stage. I will introduce these models with their false name to ensure anonymity of the organization. as I promised in my letter of intent for the study. The first is Belay On Education (OBE), because it is a medium sized NAS design. The NAS connection may uncover interesting synergies or deterrents to organizational growth as a result of the partnership between the two organizations. Second, the Southern Classical Center (SCC), because it is operating in 12 states and 80 schools within a franchise structure and a small organization size. Finally, the Priniciple Group, Inc. (PGI) which is a 96

PAGE 113

large organization with a franchise structure in place and serving well over 200 schools and has been in existence for over 1 0 years prior to the Porter Obey legislation. One final thread weaving throughout these three CSR models. They all are principle-based. As described in chapter one, some CSR models begin as a program to serve a specific need, like the teaching of reading. Others are focused on a set of principles. The common philosophical approach as non-profit educational organizations may highlight points where decision-making about organizational growth stemmed directly from the principles inherent in each modeL Candidate Selection Having selected these three CSR model organizations for inclusion in the case studies. another selection process determined who within the organization would be interviewed. The size of the CSR organization determined partially who was interviewed within the organization. AU of the executive directors and top tiers of the organizational hierarchy were interviewed. For the CSR organization that has fewer than 10 employees, r interviewed everyone in the organization. If the CSR organization had more than 10 employees, I began with the executive director and associate 97

PAGE 114

directors. Using the network selection process of identification of people (Merriam, 1988). l selected other employees in the CSR organization for an interview. The network selection method involves interviewing an individual and asking that individual to provide the names of other individuals who should be considered for an interview. When it became very difficult to schedule individual interviews with all of the personnel, I condl:lcted one group interview of staff other than the executive director and top tiers of the CSR organization. I also attended and participated in the annual conference of all three organizations included in the study. This gave me an opportunity to observe first hand many of the strategies in action. It also gave me the chance, informally. to question teachers and other people associated with the model about the organization's effectiveness and capacity to serve them. It also gave me a feel for how the staff within the organization acted out its principles, observing how the organization "walked its talk." This experience was exceUent because it gave me alternative points of view, often expanding my thinking and leading me to consider new perspectives. Still, l realize that my data collection provided me with at best a snapshot in time of how these three organizations are growing. Like marking the height of your child on the kitchen door. my collection is only one marker. 98

PAGE 115

Development of the Interview Instrument A formal letter of introduction asking for their participation was sent prior to scheduling appointments for interviews. A return tear-off sheet with a stamped envelope was provided for respondents. Interviews were scheduled in March 1999. and the annual conferences were held in Spring 1999. I conducted all of the interviews in person and transcribed the tapes myself. The interview instrument was developed and focused on identifying the capacity-building strategies utilized by each of the CSR models. Interviews took approximately an hour and a half. although many of the staff found themselves interested in the conversation and a few of the interviews fasted closer to two hours. Appendix 2 is the interview protocoL Data Analysis All of my interviews were taped, and I transcribed each one myself. I took copious handwritten notes on those interviews while taping, and these notes r transcribed as well. I analyzed my data through coding, reflections, and memos (Miles & Huberman. 1994). I analyzed each case individually in its entirety prior to 99

PAGE 116

doing my cross-case analysis, although I did keep track of common issues through writing memos. I began by coding all of my interview data. My codes emerged both from the interviews themselves and from the capacity-building chart presented in the theoretical framework. l used a data analysis computer program called Nudist for coding and sorting my data. I also analyzed the data within each of the codes that I generated and used. I had a large amount of data under each of my codes, due to the overlap of activities in which CSR organizations were engaging that fell into multiple capacity building bins. I wrote memos to myself on a whole host of topics throughout my research and data analysis. Memoing is an informal method of recording reactions, tracking ideas, and fleshing out emerging analysis. Their topics ranged from ideas that I generated on reciprocal capacity-building and franchising CSR organizations to work plans and reactions on discussions I had with dissertation committee members throughout writing. The following three chapters are the individual case studies on the three CSR organizations selected from my criteria for inclusion. A reminder: I have deliberately masked the names of the organizations and of people to protect confidentiality. Thus references to documents and the like are 100

PAGE 117

fictitious but based on real, extant materials. The cases begin with the smallest organization, the Southern Classical Center, and then progress to the medium organization, Belay On Education, and finally the largest. the Principle Group, Inc. 101

PAGE 118

CHAPTERS SOUTHERN CLASSICAL CENTER In the early 1980s, a group of educators comprised of public school principals, university professors, deans, philosophers, and leaders in education organizations met to think about and discuss educational philosophy. From this group's collective efforts, philosopher and educator Gary Sanfacon (1982), outlined the Classical approach in The Classical Proposal: An Educational Manifesto. Continued discussions by the Classical Group and Sanfacon's leadership led to the founding of the Southern Classical Group (SCC) in 1988. OriginaUy working in the Midwest, the Classical program was introduced into a handful of schools. The fundamental principle underpinning the Classical philosophy is that a truly democratic society has a responsibility both to provide a high quality education and to provide this education to all of its members. The Classical Group members concluded that public schools are accomplishing neither goal consistently and proposed the Classical Program framework, outlined in the book and two subsequent ones. Smith, in an op-ed piece for Your Education (February 26r 1997) summed it up: 102

PAGE 119

Classical principles involve the successful marriage of a fundamentally conservative idea, the beneficial rigors of a classical education and a fundamentally liberal one, progressive teaching and learning practices. (p. 39} The goal of the Classical program is to provide a rigorous liberal arts education in grades k-12 which will allow graduates to have the skills necessary to earn a living, to think and act critically as responsible citizens and to continue educating themselves as life-long learners (Interview data. 1999}. Instructional goals rest on the following values: "acquisition of knowledge." "development of intellectual skills" and "enlarged understanding of ideas and values." These are addressed through three instructional "columns": didactic instruction-teacher lecturing which provides opportunities for "acquisition of knowledge"; coaching-
PAGE 120

form a new organization. This group took some of the schools participating in the Midwest. It is still in business and focuses on training teachers in schools to use the seminar methodology only. Sanfacon left the SCC in the late 1980s due to failing health. Between Sanfacon's leadership tenure and the time that the current executive director took over the leadership of the sec, three people have held the executive director position. During this time, many of the schools participating in Classical activities lost all connection to the Southern Classical Center. The sec was running a deficit of close to $100,000 by 1993 when Tom Smith was hired as the executive director. As a student from a rural area of North Carolina, Tom Smith benefited from a rigorous classical education, and continued in education, receiving a doctorate in American literature. Prior to joining the sec. Smith was a coach and trainer working in a Principal and Leadership Effectiveness Program. Smith was drawn to the philosophy of the Classical founders and accepted the executive directorship in 1993 with only two schools active in the sec. He decided to focus his efforts on creating a whole school reform network because he believed that seminars alone used in classrooms were insufficient to bring about the change in schools necessary to espouse the democratic principles written in The Classical 104

PAGE 121

ProposaL He also believed that the SCC needed to be distinguishable from the Midwest spin-off organization which was active in the Midwest Although the Classical program was introduced in 1982, it did not make much headway in public schools. Among the original Classical Group members was Ted Sizer who believes in democracy in education and has incorporated many simHar priniciples into the Coalition of Essential Schools. Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers reportedly told a reporter that Classical education would "dominate educational reform for the coming decade (Roberts, 1997, p. 36)." However, it has taken more than a decade for the Classical approach to expand into more schools and take Smith's philosophy to scale in schools. Smith (1997) attributes this to the Southern Center's strategic move to round out the program with a comprehensive approach to schooling. "The improvements we suggest in the areas of scheduling, discipline, assessment, and community relations are all intended to insulate and support the best teaching possible in every classroom every day." He adds. "To borrow a phrase from algebra. we believe in holding learning a constant and making every other aspect of schooling a variable" (p. 39). To that end. Smith and his staff have crafted the sec mission: "To nurture whole school change based on Classical philosophy and practice. 105

PAGE 122

specifically to improve the teaching practices of all teachers and increase the intellectual engagement of all students by fostering rigor, respect, and high expectations school wide" (Southern Classical Center Strategic Plan, 1999, p.1). The Southern Classical Center Today In six years, Smith and the small sec staff of six have built the number of schools implementing the Classical program to close 100 schools in more than 10 states. The highest concentrations of schools are in Coltrane County, North Carolina and in Hammerstein County, Florida (both fictitious names). Clusters of schools in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Yonkers, New York and Everett, Washington round out the geographical locations of schools. Some of the original schools in the Midwest are reconnecting with the sec after a schism between the leadership of the SCC before Smith's tenure. A handful of schools are also scattered around the nation. For example a single charter school in southern Colorado is active with the SCC despite the fact that it is the only Classical school in the Rocky Mountains. 106

PAGE 123

Services Delivered The strategy employed by the sec to scale-up the number of schools implementing the Classical Program has evolved into a multi faceted approach. It has grown to include school and district trainings, a national faculty, and professional development schools in districts. The original model developed in Coltrane County is predominantly a training model, with sec staff conducting initial trainings on the Classical approach. These week-long trainings (often held in the summer as summer institutes) focus on whole school communities, sending sec staff members into a local community to train all the teachers and administrators as well as interested parents from a school. A support network is then created within the school community consisting of school-based committees and a peer coaching program for classroom teachers. Throughout the first three to four years of implementation. a designated sec staff member returns to the schools conducting follow-up training, model teaching. classroom coaching of teacher skills, and curriculum planning and alignment. The agreement for services between Coltrane County and the SCC was created in 1997 prior to the Porter-Obey legislation. A foundation grant supports the SCC to provide training to 90 schools in Coltrane County by the year 2000, but does not indude follow-up support and coaching. 107

PAGE 124

Instead, the funder wants the school district to provide follow-up training. A sec staff person reported. "The funderwants to provide the training, but wants the county to pick up the support training. The idea is to collaborate with the county and their system and build their support system. which will be around long after the year 2000. We will probably do some training with the school district system, in order to buUd them to provide the needed supports. The funder is trying to signal. 'we're here to help. but we won't take you from here to eternity'" (Interview data, 1999). Hammerstein County in Florida has a similar training model, but the district has also contracted with the sec for follow-up days for ongoing implementation and technical support. The sec trainer spends approximately 10 days a month in Hammerstein conducting follow-up training and coaching to the 11 schools in the Hammerstein County cluster. As the evolution of providing training and assistance unfolds, sec contracts with school districts will include follow-up days in the future negotiations. The decision to go to this process was a mix between us and the funder and Coltrane County. The grant was awarded in 1997, which means most of the negotiations took place in early 1997. even in 1996. lfwe had to do it again. ifd be different weve learned a lot since then. Next time we ask a funderfor something like that, we'll build in support days, in terms of what we'd do. This is something we've learned that is important to know-you can do training, you 108

PAGE 125

can do training, and you can do training. Almost like a rat, in the wheel. If you want to do whole school change, you have to build in that support and follow-up, ifs a long-term process. lfs worth it, but ifs expensive. (Interview data, 1999) SCC Delivers to Schools: Staffing The SCC has a small staff of six people. The hierarchical chart (Table 5.1) below shows one executive director, three assistant directors, one office manager, and one half-time graduate assistant The Board of Advisors act as "critical to the Executive Director, but have no formal board roles or responsibilities. The universitYs School of Education has fiscal oversight over the SCC. It provides office space, salaries and benefits, and has final authority over sec activities. The Dean can hire or fire the executive director of the sec. With such a small staff, it is impossible for the sec to serve all of the schools currently contracted for staff development So in addition to the center staff, the sec has created two other avenues for serving schools. They have built a cadre of educators that they call the "National Faculty" and have developed two professional development schools (PDS). Table 5.1: SCC Organizational chart 109

PAGE 126

National Faculty The sec developed the strategy of hiring teachers and principals who have taken early retirement or stopped teaching for other reasons, but who have an interest in continuing to work with teachers in schools. This cadre of20 consultants makeup the National Faculty. Some of the National Faculty are fulltime teachers, either on a special assignment from their district or working in the summer at institutes. lfs our hope that these people are senior people that have implemented Classical into their schools and have aligned their structure and training agenda with our agenda and they have empowered other leaders in their schools. (Interview data, 1999) Table 5.1: SCC Organizational Chart I University School of I Board of Advisors I Education I Executive Director I Assistant Director of Assistant Director of Assistant Director of Training and Professional Curriculum and Training and rmprementation DevelQil ment lmDiementation I Half-time Gradual& I Office Manager I Assistant Their task is to co-train with sec staff at training's in larger districts or clusters that are joining the sec network. We actively recruit people who we have observed in schools . we ask them if they will be a national ambassador, if you will, for the SCC. Many times these folks serve as an instructional leader in their 110

PAGE 127

school site and then we try to draw them out into the larger sec community. (Interview data, 1999) As an extension of the SCC staff. National Faculty serve individual schools across the nation. from rural schools and isolated schools in states, to Porter-Obey funded schools in districts where no cluster currently exists. Professional Development Schools The Southern Classical Center has collaborated with the university to create two professional development schools (PDS)an elementary and high schooL The collaboration is between sec. the university. and the Coltrane County schools. The PDSs are schools affiliated with the University of NC Greensboro and they partner with both the SCC and the university placing interns and student teachers where they can gain experience in the Classical program while student teaching. Interns spend their day at the PDS. attending their methods classes at the PDS schools on-site. An SCC staff person works with university professors at the PDS school to teach methods courses to interns as well as train and coach the cooperating teachers so the interns are able to see Classical seminar techniques in action. The intent of these schools is to work with future 111

PAGE 128

teachers who will later join the teaching force ready to use Classical principles in their classrooms. To expand on this type of strategy, future plans include creating two Centers for Classical Studies. These would be a very small department within the central office, housed in the school district, with former teachers who have implemented Classical, and who are support staff in the district and in close collaboration with the SCC staff. One of these has begun in Coltrane County, with plans to replicate in Hammerstein County. One staff person admits, The concern is to have this in places where we can't go to. But we don't know how it looks. Our concern is to have close collaborations with systems we're working in, they need extra people, as we develop those, we'll figure out geographically how we'll bring those folks closer to the hub. We talked a little about accountability and who pays who for what type of service. And we've had a little bit of experience because Coltrane has assigned a person to work with Classical. The teacher works and is paid by Coltrane, but she works for us. she does a lot of what we do. And we want to work on creating work that's different for her to do, then what we do. There's a bit of overlap just now. (Interview data, 1999) These structures serve in a dual capacity for the SCC. First, they ease the pressure on the national center staff as the sole providers of disseminating information and conducting trainings about the sec program. They also build interest in the sec program in multiple stakeholder groups. University professors, national faculty, district office 112

PAGE 129

personnel, teachers, and future teachers are all involved in various capacities in the programmatic approach. These mechanisms need to be managed and tracked in order for them to work effectively. Turning attention to how the sec staff work together and manage themselves and these entities is the next topic under consideration. Leadership Tom Smith is a man who has a pretty good sense about his leadership style. "A few years ago I would've said, and still today, that my style is visionary. I am always haunted by what I thought I should've, could've done, or didn't do. But if I'm visionary and charismatic, I'm not practical and systematic. I'm not a systems thinker, although I've gotten better at it" (Interview data, 1999 ). He has a couple of close colleagues in whom he confides in and "talks shop" with. These men are also working in school reform; one of them was involved in the sec years ago and now runs a staff development assistance center. The other is on the sec board and is the executive director of another CSR organization. These "wise old souls who know about education .. have taught Smith a lot about how small businesses run and grow. He acknowledges the lmportance of 113

PAGE 130

organizational systems, "Clear planning and organizational roles and functions help enormously." Smith struggles with democracy in the organization. He says, "The challenge is to know when to act democratically and collectively for decision-making, and when the executive director should just make the decisions-be top down." He has shifted his thinking from the business of schooling to the business of operating an organization that is in the education business. He reflects, "I've spent over 50% of my time switching over from thinking about how schools work to how the sec works." Smith is learning as he goes, both from his confidants, other people in the education business and from his employees. This style is perceived as valuable from his employees: The basic organizational structure is hierarchical. But Tom as a leader is great because he puts Classical philosophy into use in the organization. We have staff meetings and we talk about what we want to do. We talk in common, but .. Tom, in particular, his position is higher leveL He talks to higher level folks. he gets the lay of the land and he knows what the challenges are that we face. He brings them to a staff meeting and we talk about them and then we know and build consensus generally. There are times when he takes our advice and then makes decisions on his own too. Most all of our decisions that will impact our organization in the long run. we have talked about them as they have evolved. We aU know and feel that we have a piece of the decision that impacts all of us in a large way. He doesn't make decisions without our input. He's good at asking those open-ended Classical questions that engage us in 114

PAGE 131

the issue to get what each individual person is feeling. There's ownership in everything by all of us. That doesn't mean that we agree with every decision that is made. But we always feel like we've been heard. (Interview data, 1999) Tom carries the dream, it's his hand that we're playing out. I'm not a missionary, ifs not as much a calling for me. He's got that spirit He's doing the vision thing and nurturing each of us. He's taking this organization places. (Interview data, 1999) As with many fledgling organizations, the sec did not always have systems in place. The number of staff has always been small, and turnover among graduate assistants is a regular occurrence most years. Carey has been with the organization since 1995 and has been instrumental in ushering in the systems the sec has incorporated into their operations. When I came to work there were 5 offices. There was material in every office, but no order existed to manage or find something. There were only a few things to do step by step and done consistently, were university mandated travel forms, payroll. AU the materials that had to do with the core of our work were in file cabinets and folders, there was no sense of order. Just physically, figuring out, "where do texts go?" What part of our suite of offices do we need to put this in? ln other words systems for handling material things was one set of systems. Another one was communication. That needs to be systematized as welL Staff meetings. They were random. Now we have no-fly days. Once a month we have this hybrid thing called sacred days. We finally got a strategic plan written. (Interview, data 1999) Tom and Carey have worked together for close to six years. This working relationship has given them the opportunity to capitalize on each .other's strengths. Carey admits, 115

PAGE 132

We've both had a significant impact on each other. He's more attention to details than he's ever been and I'm a bit more big picture. We have, as an organization gotten much better at communication and systems. Tom's the global perspective, he cares deeply about people and thinks big. He's the visionary. I, am different, in that I wouldn't call myself logical sequential, I'm practical, and I can forget the person because I want things to meet the expectations I've set for them. I have very high expectations. l don't have any interest in playing the political games in accessing money, in higher education, in particular in accessing money for the program. l'm the one to say to Tom, "Have you called about ethemet connections?" And he's the one to get on the phone and buUshit his way through the myriad of people you need to in order to get the ethemet connections done via the university system. (Interview data, 1999) Staff Development Unbeknownst to Smith, hiring Carey was a stroke of luck because of her inherent ability to think about systems. Another system she has initiated is training new sec staff. She remembers her training experiences: "When we were trained, we got in the car and we were going to a school in Coltrane. We talked about the newspaper, the news. Fifteen minutes before we get to the school. someone asks, 'Does anyone have a question for this piece?' We had little to no preparation at all .. (Interview data, 1999). Carey is strong-willed. She fought to create a training system for new sec personnel that was not "just-in-time .. training. 116

PAGE 133

What we needed to do was solidify our thinking about training and create training notes. IN addition to those training materials that the trainers use, we've also had a few Classical faculty trainings. That was something l attended in 1994-1995, and at the time the idea was, "OK. Now you're ready to train others." And I felt, that I didn't know a thing[" So we've systematized that. And I think ifs much better. (lnter:view data, 1999) Implementing these systems has been a worthy expenditure of time. The recent SCC personnel agreed with the systems that Carey has instituted. When l first started, I was given lots of readings, got the philosophical background, given the Sanfacon book. l read a ton of stuff-old newsletters, etc. I spent the summer shadowing various trainers. I shadowed Tom and Carey, and l shadowed faculty members. l visited schools. l spent the summer doing that before l became a partner in providing any kind of training. It was really helpfuL (Interview data, 1999) Observing and shadowing a seasoned trainer assumes that the person being trained has some prior knowledge in education. Tom's list of criteria for hiring personnel affirms this assumption. His list includes the following (lnterview data, 1999): Needs to be able to work from both the "head and heart" Needs to have a handle on education theory and practice Prefers to hire formers teachers Prefers Graduate Assistants that are returning to the university for their Masters 117

PAGE 134

Needs to be articulate and have good people skills Needs to have adult learning skills versus good children skills, and Needs to have prior teaching experience: 5-10 years. "Building capacity in the SCC is about finding the right people, .. says Smith, "what governs scale-up is who the people are that you've hired to be trainers in the middle level of the organization." This is important for a small staff. A Sense of Team The skillset necessary to train teachers in schools and work with each other mandates flexibility in the individuals given all the hats one wears as a staff member. It also requires some redundancy of skills across the staff for those times when staff are over scheduled or in case of sickness or emergency. Staff members need to be able to pick up where another one left off. We're a team. We get along really well together. lfs a small organization, and we see a lot of each other and we like each other quite a bit. If something goes on that l can't make it, we pinch-hit for each other. (Interview data. 1999) Working together and partnering for training can build knowledge, skills. bolster self-confidence and create a team feeling amongst the staff. 118

PAGE 135

lfs more that we do it together, when we train we do it as a team, not alone. We're always together for training, but we do follow-up alone. Training is done in a larger group. We work as a team for the planning of the training too. We revised our materials for those recently and l was assigned to revise Phase 2. I did the initial work and passed it around. I got feedback from everyone and then returned to me and l did another revision of it. Passed it around again and so on. The strategic plan was done the same way. Tom did the first set of work on it and then we circulated it around and made comments to it and then passed it back to him at which time he did the revision. We don't do a lot of organized teambuilding, but we learn a lot from each other from working together. (Interview data, 1999} Although this flexibility and sense of team is worth striving for the staff are stretched. The staff in the sec work full-time, all the time. Bum out is an issue. Consequently Smith takes this into account when he searches for new hires. He looks for energy and commitment and new hires who can immediately help take on some of the load of the existing staff. We're trying to build capacity via graduate assistants. We have the ability to take on two at a time in the sec. They come from the university's department of education. Hopefully, they have been teachers before returning to graduate schooL These folks are trained by existing sec and they do technical support in schools. That means they facilitate and coach. They are responsible for two schools and provide training in the network of schools they're attached to (either Coltrane or Hammerstein). (Interview data, 1999} 119

PAGE 136

University Affiliation When the SCC moved from the Midwest to the Southeast, it became affiliated with a university. Positive and negative aspects of such affiliation exist and they affect the ability of the organization to build capacity. Tom Smith outlined the pros and cons of such a partnership (Interview data, 1999). On the plus side, the university provides housing for the organization. In the case of the sec, the university has provided office space in a downtown building and it pays for the rent. Smith approximates the saving at $20,000 a year (Interview data. 1999). In addition, name recognition is associated with the university. Smith thinks it helps with contracts in districts within the state. "The university affiliation provides leverage with larger school districts. Districts treat us differently when they know the university is in our comer" (Interview data, 1999). The university's department of education allocates two graduate assistantships (GA) to the SCC. Smith and his staff interview and hire these people. The department of education has also agreed to partner in the sec professional development schools. channeling student teachers and interns into schools that implement the sec program. On the downside, the university system "controls the hiring and firing of personnel"" (Interview data, 1999). Smith reports that "the slowness of the 120

PAGE 137

bureaucracy in the university makes hiring and firing personnel next to impossible ... To by-pass this issue. Smith has sharpened his hiring criteria. "I know it takes a long time to get the right people in here. so I try not to make mistakes" (Interview data1999}. However, this strategy does not account for the flexibility necessary in a fledgling organization. "If I hire someone and they aren't a good match with the SCC or they've lost interest in the work. or they haven't grown with the vision of the SCC; we're stuck with each other and thafs a problem for all of us" (Interview data. 1999}. Capital Perhaps the most critical problem of university affiliation is a financial one. Smith reports that under the university flag. he is unable to acquire any loans that could be used to bolster the organizational capacity of the sec. This is a problem that is related to the ability of the organization to "deficit spend ... Deficit spending is a capital issue for many CSR organizations. For the sec. when contracting with a district. the money goes to the university first. and then into an account to pay for the training in the school or district. A lag time is created when the process to open the account is slower than the time when the SCC begins to deliver services to the district. Staff 121

PAGE 138

members have spent time thinking this through and have approached Smith about considering a business plan to augment the strategic plan (which is the first one written during Smith's tenure). I'd like to know if we could deficit spend. There's a lag time and with a bunch of schools coming on, by the time the whole process gets done through the university the lag time is great. We can't hire someone through the university to start working with the schools. Money goes from the school to the university and then to us. But until that revenue stream is established, we can't hire someone to service those schools. They're expecting us to train and do these things, which we can't do and they get pissed that they've handed over the money without immediate support. So I'd like for us to get a business plan that helps us get some type of process going for this. To get the money to pay for the staff upfront before you get the money.lfs risky because you're risking whether or not you'll overextend yourself, but if you're fiscally prudent and responsible, this is how others do it. We can't And in the short term how are we going to service those schools? (Interview data, 1999) Deficit spending stretches capital resources and forces the organization into a deficit without much of a reserve to support such outlays of advance capitaL The university affiliation compounds this problem. Organizational growing pains. The biggest one we have is we need more analysis of what we're charging and what we're giving for it. I'm not afraid of us growing more schools, if we manage the growth. Tom is very cautious about taking on too much, he'll want to grow slower than perhaps 1 would. Having said all of that, another issue is that we're part of the university, and if we were private, I think we'd be in better shape. l'd like to explore the possibility of going private. Our association with the university is stifling. We talk about it and its not held against me. In the long run ifs probably cheaper. They take 10% of our earnings for overhead for lights, offices, furniture etc. But 122

PAGE 139

if grow I don't know if we could afford it. 1 look at the cost/benefit of the university and I'm, more skeptical about it. (Interview data, 1999) The problem is compounded by the time it takes to hire new staff and train them in order for them to effectively serve schools. If we hire a new person to work in a district, you can't throw a new person into a district-they want the team, and you can't give them the "C" team. We need to train the person and deliver services simultaneously. If you pass off a new hire to a more established district, you still have to train them. There's a six month lag time because of the funding problem and knowing that we need to start servicing those schools, you hire a new person but they're not up to speed so ifs a lag of 12 months total. 6 months for the funding and another 6 months for the district to get a higher quality person. If you could deficit spend you could cut the time it takes to deliver higher quality services to new schools. Thafs a long time in this age of "quick frxes in school reform. (Interview data, 1999) Managing resources and acquiring finances are a challenge for any organization. CSR models experience a particular tension when they face the point of needing to leave the "parenf' organization (in this case the university) which has supported them. However, at a certain point of growth, it seems it is necessary to become autonomous and it appears that sec is facing this growing pain. We're paid by the un[versity and if we lose the schools and the contract the university doesn't take the heat or responsibility for that, we do. So if we have to shoulder the responsibility and the burden we should be compensated for that. I don't have the job security, and no benefits from it Why not be a non-profit and not connected to the un[versity? We could be associated with them programmatically but not from an overhead standpoint. This is a 123

PAGE 140

growing pain, how much we charge for services is it enough, what to do about lag time and 1 see the university as a problem. Maybe we can't go out on our own. But I'd like to see a financial analysis that says so and helps us work towards it (Interview data, 1999) ChaUenges Smith mentioned three "tensions in this business" that he grapples with regularly. The first one is the tension between how the organization currently exists and where it needs to go in the future. He weighs what the short-term activities of the sec are that need to be completed and will move the sec towards short-term goals, with the short-term activities that can occur while planning and organizing for the long-term goals. To this end, the sec has completed its first strategic plan in Smith's tenure as executive director. "We've got the plan," he says, "and now we have to figure out a way to implement it and pay attention to the financial side. We've really tried to be as clear as we can be about our growth, but things occur and it doesn't go quite the way you thought it would be" (Interview data, 1999). Another staff member agrees. In terms of growth, ifs something we've thought a lot about. Growth is good but its also a dangerous time. lf you manage growth well, you can be screwed. You need to think about it like a business first. 124

PAGE 141

We are one, but we deliver an educational product, and we're a non profit. Growth represents an opportunity for us, but you can overextend yourself. You take on 20 schools or 30 or40 or 50 schools and you may not have the staff to service them right Then people can get pissed off. (Interview data. 1999) You also need to have strategy for growth. We've come up with a strategy to not take on indMdual schools in general. We'll have a national faculty handle them. We're working on our growth to take on schools in clusters. lfs a lot more economical to go to a set of schools in one area than to serve a wider variety of schools in locations all over the place. We're not going to scatter to schools in all 50 states. We're really trying to work with Coltrane. We haven't had a cluster of schools come to us and say. "take us on. we're a cluster." Tacoma came to us as a district, and they want a network in the district, so they are coming on in the fall as a group with their own network system. (Interview data, 1999) The second tension is what Smith refers to as "service and the realities of finance and scale." Smith is adamant, "This business is mission work, ifs why we're in this work in the first place, to save children in schools that no one else wants to save." Offsetting this value with "systemic strategic design" and internal growth of the organization, is forcing Smith and the sec staff to make some difficult decisions regarding schools that cannot be serviced by the sec at this time. "There's a small school in rural in our state. It wants to be a Classical school, but it can't We can't pick it up because it doesn't fit into the strategic plan of adding schools to existing sites and areas we've committed to working in" (Interview data, 1999). 125

PAGE 142

Smith explains the third tension between "present personnel and an evolving organizational mission." He considers the importance of growing a set of personnel that are able to change and adapt with the evolution of the sec. He worries about employees that are unable to evolve as the organization develops. At this juncture, university affiliation becomes a problem. All hiring and firing are tied to the laws of the university for employment Smith resolves this dilemma by being very conservative and careful when hiring to try and avoid the problem from emerging. The sec is a staffed by 6 people. "We can't afford to have staff employed who are not truly behind the mission and vision of the organization, and will do whatever it takes to work in our schools. It inhibits our ability to serve schools well" (Interview data, 1999). A fourth challenge identified by Carey and echoed by other staff members concerns staff training, quality and fidelity to the principles and philosophy of the sec. There's a tension between certifying people to work towards quality control, and hoping that they'U be honest about their use of the skill. We just don't know what to do about that. In terms of copyright and Classical faculty certification, we don't have it cleady in our minds as yet. A way of insuring quality, a way of knowing that people won't just put up a sign that says, "Classical done here. It "Oh, they say, three days? We can do it in a day." We're concerned about this. We're at this juncture and we don't know whafs next. We could 126

PAGE 143

copyright stuff, but we still can't control how it goes. (Interview data, 1999) Other staff are aware of the time and effort required to be a quality trainer of the Classical approach. Imagine if you were a school. Another growing pain is to serve the school and serve them well. There's a lot of preparation we need to do in order to serve them well. It takes time to get people trained to work in a new set of schools. It takes time and we have so many draws on our attention, we have to be careful and selective and cautious and watchful about who we take on next I'm able to handle a set of schools--6 new ones coming on at once. and I'm able to handle that now but I never would have been able to when I first started. There's lag time in my own growth to be able to serve schools at a high quality. (Interview data, 1999) Clearly an understanding exists between the challenges that everyone mentioned and the intricate connection to the growth of the organization. The term scaling-up captures the challenge. And how to intensify and increase quality-of instruction, support feedback loops, implementation. Really making it so you know what you're putting out there. that it is consistent and that people can see it, know it and get it. And to tell you the truth. the scaling-up seems to be like gravity. lfs gonna happen, it is happening. To me the immediate job is to figure out where we are now. Is what were doing working the way we think it should, which is a quality control issue. The broader issues of school reform-wtll the trend towards school reform last or drop off, are we in sync with some of those trends or not? Thafs stuff we need to be aware of. (lnterview data. 1999) 127

PAGE 144

Given these concerns and unanswered questions, everyone in the SCC is positive about the future as a result of the Porter-Obey legislation. lfs given us a lot of hope. There are schools out there that we would not be able to serve or be able to offer training to. Now, they have been educated about opportunities in addition to having funding to support those. Whereas before, it was a progressive market analysis to build-out in the school system, now, schools who were in the position of using their Sears credit card to pay for services over the next 20 years are now given a chance to receive services with support. (Interview data, 1999) Smith is hopeful about the future too. He sees that the organization must grow to be more than his efforts within the organization, in other words, if he left the sec, it would remain viable. Classical philosophy is bigger than the SCC certainly, and has been around much longer than Porter-Obey legislation. I think that increasingly in the future, schools that started on their own will slowly swim into the network if and when they find value in being a part of a larger effort. The SCC is slowly becoming larger than me. We need to build a lasting phenomenon in schools--one that will be here in a hundred years and an organization that supports it. I don't know what it looks like now, but I know ifs possible. (Interview data, 1999) I think we've made a lot of progress. You have to make it tangible and such, but we've had internal verification that that is the case. We do think we're doing very meaningful work. lfs God's work and about people. and connecting with people and treating people like valuable human beings. Period. (Interview data, 1999) 128

PAGE 145

CHAPTERS BELAY ON EDUCATION In order to understand anything about the philosophy of Belay On Education (BOE), one must first have an understanding of its parent organization Belay On (BO). Murphy Kahn, the founder of BO, was a Europeanborn educator who was concerned with the moral and physical decline of young men during World War II. The first 80 school was chartered in Wales in 1941 to train citizens who would not shy from leadership and who would make independent decisions, act thoughtfully before expediency, and put the common cause before personal ambition. The school was founded to prepare young soldiers to survive the rigors of war during World War II. Kahn combined academics with a curriculum that placed youth in difficult rescue situations. forcing them to deal with the difficulties of the environment while caring for the safety of their "charge." Its educational mission stands impelling students into formative experiences that can shape their values and to ensure the survival of these qualities: an enterprising curiosity, an undefeatable spirit, 129

PAGE 146

tenacity in pursuit, readiness for sensible self-denial and compassion. This mission has endured as a founding principle for 80 and is consciously implemented into every course delivered. Today, many 80 schools are in the United States and others exist internationally. In the Rocky Mountain school alone, founded in 1961, approximately 3,500 students a year experience an BO course. Close to a million people around the world have been influenced by 80. Belay On USA (SOUSA) is the national office and the center of the confederacy of the 80 schools in the United States. Each of the five schools, one in the Northeast, one in the Southeast, one in the Rocky Mountains, one in the Northern Midwest, and one in the Pacific Northwest are separate non-profit educational organizations with 501 c(3) status. Each school has its own Board of Trustees, governance structure, staff and geographic location in which to offer programming. Collectively. they share the same principles, values, and beliefs and collaborate together on projects and special initiatives that are variations of providing wilderness courses for individuals. SOUSA acts as an umbrella organization, providing a variety of services to the schools. The most important activity in which BOUSA 130

PAGE 147

engages is setting safety standards and evaluating all of the schools against those standards. Additionally, SOUSA creates initiatives that are offered to support activities in the individual schools and disseminates large foundation grants across the five schools. Large grants have supported the development of courses that have worked with various populations of people, like Elderhostel groups and victims of cult abuse. They have also secured funding to support sponsorships for individuals that could not afford an 80 experience without support SeedsofBOE Craig Dobkin came to BOUSA to develop urban and school-based projects. Dobkin would secure a large grant from a foundation and then make individual grants to the 80 schools and centers He would write a proposal to access the fund from larger foundations typically for urban and school-based programs. Dobkin would act similarly to a program officer, monitoring the progress of the grant and reporting to the foundation program officer. Much of this work was developmental. Dobkin saw his work as "tending a greenhouse," creating and seeding many models to watch and 131

PAGE 148

see which ones would develop (Interview data, 1999). A number of the 80 schools created smaller urban centers to provide direct service to individuals in urban areas. In these centers, located in large urban cities across the nation, Dobkin both helped them sustain their efforts on urban issues and pushed them to tie their work into public schools. Some of the projects that Dobkin oversaw and supported worked were perceived as viable and worthy of further development. One example was an 80 course on literacy. This 6-week, summer-long course combined learning about and using the skills associated with the writing process (drafting, editing, revising, etc.), while raising participants' sense of themselves using the standard experiential model as the medium for personal growth. 80 staff were paired with school teachers in order to provide all aspects of the experience. It was an expensive project ($5,000 to $6,000 dollars per participant). but at the end of the summer, participants gained an average four grade levels in reading. Projects like this one were worth continued development, so Dobkin worked to sustain these efforts while looking for ways to lower program costs. Also during this time, Dobkin was instrumental in helping to develop a project in an Ivy League college. An old mentor of Dobkin's had been the dean of the Graduate School of Education and had always believed in the 132

PAGE 149

power of 80 theory and action, so he worked to create an opportunity to bring an 80 presence to the university. This project provided principals participating in summer education institutes an BO experience and strove to show how experiential education philosophy could be implemented into the daily operations of running schools. Dobkin was instrumental in hiring the co-directors for the Harvard Project. One of these was Faith Evans, who later became the Executive Director of BOE. She had been working in a non-profit organization in the east, involved in community organizing activities with experience in public school reform issues and politics. In 1991, Dobkin secured a $3 million dollar grant from a prominent foundation for an urban education initiative. "The idea was to see what could be developed in the 80 centers and schools, and to see if the best of those ideas could get substantial development in some way so we could find models that could be reproduced" (Interview data, 1999). Another model financed in 1992 by SOUSA and implemented locally in an 08 school was a collaboration between the school and a local education foundation (LEF) in a western city. This effort brought together 50 teachers from the four participating school districts in the LEF's Leadership Institute with a five-day 80 course that coupled a three-day 133

PAGE 150

mountain experience with a two-day urban "expedition" where teachers spent a day finding evidence of "community" in local school district areas. This collaboration laid much of the groundwork for the creation of one of the first BOE schoofs in the nation and a unique school in that it is in collaboration between four cooperating school districts. Enter New American Schools Development Corporation While this work was taking place in the world of BO, the New American Schools Development Corporation was emerging with the initial request for proposals to design "New American break-the-mold schools" (Miller, 1991 ). In 1991, President Bush and Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander, released America 2000: An Educational Strategy. This document outlined the rare of federal responsibility for public educational excellence in four areas: "1. For today's students. 2. For tomorrow's students, 3. For those of us already out of school and in the work force, 4. For schools to succeedw (U.S. Department of Education, 1991, p.12). Bush and Alexander hoped schools and districts would create break-the-mold schools by sharing resources from businesses, community organizations, educational promoters, and think tanks. 134

PAGE 151

Corporate America responded to President Bush by establishing the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC) (In 1995, the organization shortened its name to New American Schools [NAS]. This name is used throughout this dissertation.) NAS is "a private, non-profit, tax exempt organization" which began with the stated mission "to support the design and establishment of new high-performance learning environments that communities across the country can use to transform their schools for the next generation of American children" (U.S. Department of Education, 1991, p.15). The specific objective of NAS wa:. raise $150 million to $200 million to support the work of "Design Teams" that focus on the task of designing and implementing new schools for the future. In July of 1992, NAS announced its first grants--one-year contracts to 11 "Design Teams ... During this period, these teams would design, plan, and refine programs to be implemented in schools beginning in 1993 1994. Following this two-year phase, nine of the programs would undergo final modification and then be offered to education systems, communities, and schools across the nation for implementation. 135

PAGE 152

The Evolution of Belay On Education Many organizations were interested in partnering with 80 and wanted to include them in their proposal to NAS. At the same time, colleagues in the university urged SOUSA to write their own proposal for a NAS grant A small writing team was organized that included academics and leaders in local education who quickly put together a proposal that married the philosophy of 80 with conventional education philosophy and schools. I didn't think we had a chance of really being selected because every known school reformer was gonna do this and we're not known that way. But l thought it would be useful to lay our cards on the table, if we had any cards. lt was K-12. l thought that was required, and we didn't have much elementary experience or much middle school experience, but we had done a lot of work in programs in schools that made me think that it could work. And the attraction was in all those programs that we felt we were always bucking the system. Have you ever seen the RFP? It has a certain lift to it. It was a kind of spiritual document, it kind of sang a bit. It wasn't a usual RFP. So we thought what if the system were going with us? What if we could create the system, what would it be like? (Interview data, 1999) Belay On Education was among the designs chosen by NAS. It faced a new challenge of taking the proposal that "sang" and turning it into a set of schools that implemented the BOE principles that are the underpinnings of the proposaL The idea in a nutshell is to "do most of the instruction or all of it through learning adventures" (lntervfew data, 1999). A 136

PAGE 153

complete explanation of the design principles is on the next page. The principles clearly reflect the values of BOE and Murphy Kahn. The first funding phase for the NAS designs was a one-year design phase with the first schools to be opened by fall of 1993. Dobkin returned to places of success from the earlier funded projects in urban and school initiatives: Maine, New York, Denver, Boston, and Iowa. These places, partnerships, and schools became the first crop of BOE schools in the nation. Parent and Child: BOUSA and BOE Like many of the CSR model organizations that began as projects in universities and then expanded, BOE is a project of BOUSA, "just as the urban education initiative is a project of the national office" (Interview data, 1999). As a project of SOUSA, BOE gains "shelter and arms" from the national office. It does not however, provide any financial support to Belay On Education. In fact, the reverse is true. 137

PAGE 154

Figure 6.1: Belay On Education Principles Learning is an adventure into the unknown. Adventures draw together personal experience and intellectual growlh to promote self-discovery and construct knowledge. We believe that adults should guide students along thfs joumey with care. compassion. and respec:t for their diverse learning styles. backgrounds. and needs. Addressing individual differences profoundly increases the potential for learning and creativity of each s1Udent. Given the fundamental levels of health. safety ancf'Jcve. all people can and want to learn. We believe adventure learning harnesses the natural passion to learn and is a powedul method for developing the curiosity. slciDs. knawtedge. and courage. needed to imagine a better world and work toward realizing it. 1. The Primacy of Slllf-dlsctNety 1..sanmg happenS best with emotion. challenge and the requisita SUIJPOrt. People ciScoYertllelr abl1111as, values. 'grand passions: and responslbllltres In si1Uations 1tlat otrer acM!nlura and Ute unexpedlld They must have tasks that require pmseverance, fttnass. cndlsmanship. self-clscipllne and sfgniiJcantadlievement. A prtmaJy jOb of Ute educator Is to llelp students overcome their fear and clisCCJverttley haVe more In them than they think. 2. The HavftlgofWOfldentd ldMs Teacn so as to bUild on ctllldran's curioSity about the worfd by c:ntaUng learning situations that provide mattarto think llboUt. 11me to uperlment. and lime to make s.nse ofwllat IS obsaMid. Foster a commWIIt'{whera students' and adults' Ideas are respec:tlld. 3. T1lft RfiiPOIUilbllltY for LMmfng Laamlng is boll a personal.inct'lldUally speclllc process of dlscoV8ry and a sac:faf activity. Each of us learns w1tt11n and for oui'HIVas and as a part of a group. Every aspect of a school must encourage children, young people,. and adults ID become inc:raesfngly responsible for dlrac:tlng 1tlelr own pensonalancs c:oledlve leamlng. 4.1ntimM;y lind Catfng LJJarnWIIJ is fOIMnld best In smaB groups wt1ent there Is 1niSt sustained c:arfng and mutual raspect among all rnernbeJS of1tle leamln!J community. Keep schools and leanmggraups small Be sura ttl are is a carfllg adUlt loOICmg after the prac:ess of 88Ch dlild. AmJnge for the alders1Uden1s ID mentor 1tleyounger ones. 5. Sua::ass lllltl Ftlllutrl All siUdenls must be 8SSUlld a fair measure of success fn leamfng In olderto nwture Ute contldenca and capacltyiD 1a11e rfSicS and rise to dftcult cMIJenges. But it Is also rmportantiD uperfenc:e failure. ID overcame negative inCifnalonS. to prevall agU1st adVersity and ID learn to tum claabllitfeS into opportunities". 138 6. Collabotatfon and COmpeft/on Taactl so as ID join individual and group development so that the value of friendship. trust and group endeavor Is made manifast. Encourage S1Udents to compete. not against each other. but with tnelr own personal best and with rtgarous standardS of ucellence. 7. DiVfJisity 8IIC/ lnclusivfty Ofvelllty and lncfusivlty In all groups drama1fc:aly incr8aslls richness of rcteas. craat1va power. protllemsoMng lbllly. and acceptance of others. Encourage Sludents to lnvestlgat&. value and draW upon Ulelr own dlffenmt hlslortes. talents and rasources 1Dglllller with those of 01her communities and cuiiUr8S. Keep Ute sdlools and learning groups llelarOgeneous. S. The Natural Wodct A direct and respec1fUI relationship with 1t1e natural wclfd refrastlas the human spirit and reveeiS Ute Important lessons of rac:urrlng cydas and cause and effect. Students leam to become stewards of the ear1t1 ana of 1tle generations ID come. 9. StJiltutt. and Reltectfon Soltude. retfedlon. and silence replenistl our energies and open our mindS. Be sunt students haVe lime alone ID explore their own tbougtta. maka their own connecllansand creata Ulairown Ideas. Then give them OllPQr1Unlty to 8ICtl8nglt Ulelr raftaclklns with aadl 01herand with adull5. 10. Service III2Cl Compassion We ara crew. net passengers. and are strangthened by acts of consequential service to others. One of a school's plfmaryfundfons is to prepara its studentS with the atlltudes and skills to learn from and be of seM:e to ottlars. The at1ova principles have been informed by Kurtis Katul's "Seven Laws of Salem ... by Paul Ylvlsalcer's "The lllfssing Dimension. "ttys.nor DuckWOrth'S "The Having ofWondllrfulldeas" and. Olt!lr fwY!t jn Tgc;biDgllllf lMJn!DSI (NY: Teacher's Collage Pnta. Columbia Univenlly. 1987}

PAGE 155

We have supported SOUSA, because when we got the grant there was an overhead fee which we paid to the national office and they provided payroll and office space and personnel which was helpful to them. So when we developed this cuckoo's egg, a project that became very big, it continued to send a rot of overhead funds to the national office. We pay more than a very generous way into the national office. They provide us with political and moral support and regional name recognition (Interview data, 1999). SOUSA has an education committee within its Board of Trustees that provides oversight for BOE. Being "nested" within the larger of SOUSA has not proved to be problematic for BOE. lf anything, some disgruntlement has arisen across the five 80 schools which perceive that they have not received the same level of support that BOE has had from the President of BOUSA who was very active and interested in helping to launch Belay On Education. In our case, there have not been any serious or significant strains or pulls from this location [within SOUSA]. There have been some of the 80 school directors that have imagined that too much of SOUSA's resources were going to support BOE. But they thought that the money that SOUSA had or got to support the development of BOE should have gone to them. But in fact, that really isn't it 80 never would have access to the money and we have always paid our way. (Interview data, 1999) From the perspective of BOE, having SOUSA as the parent organization has been a boost to their development and expansion. SOUSA provided the means for Dobkin to develop many of the initiatives 139

PAGE 156

that became the first set of SOE schools once the NAS design grant was acquired. They have also provided housing, systems, and some staff. SOUSA has provided a financial cushion by raising funds for a scale-up fund for SOE. A couple of years ago, the trustees did raise a couple of million bucks as a scale-up fund for BOE. We knew there would be a series of years where we would run a deficit until we got on our feet, and we needed a way to cover that deficit. lfs possible those trustees could've raised that money to support the SO system but they didn't. And from my perspective, ifs been ideaL l haven't had to stop and build a board. or develop personnel system; actually I've had to change the SOUSA accounting system because it hasn't been adequate to track the kind of stuff I've wanted to track. It has been a very simple system that raises fund raising and scholarships, and I need to track how much we spent on this project as compared to that project. It has put a burden on the back office. We're a $4 million operation this year, and SOUSA is a $2 million dollar operation. We account for a large part, and we pay for it. We pay for the salaries and we pay for a percentage of everybody else. (Interview data, 1999) Although this arrangement has been fruitful, SOE is contending with growing pains. Many of the CSR model organizations began as a project housed in a university or a for-or non-profit organization, and, as part of the organizational development lifecycle, it appears that many of them consider separating themselves from the .. parenf' organization. All of the NAS designs are virtually nested in some other organization. Roots & Wings was at Johns Hopkins University. If you 140

PAGE 157

had to say whafs the institution responsible for Roots & Wings you'd have to say, "Johns Hopkins," if you asked that of Modem Red, you'd say, .. the Hudson Institute," for Co-Nect, it was BBN which was a profit company. Every one of these programs was nested in a larger company culture, which it had to accommodate and live within. BBN has been bought by GE and Co-Nect has just succeeded in extracting itself. Modem Red has extracted themselves from the Hudson Institute, and Roots & Wings has done something odd, moved themselves outside of Johns Hopkins to a foundation, which gives them some level of independence, then when you are lodged in a university. This is a difficult place to be, if you want to be flexible. We are all now facing the same issues. Do we continue to be a child in the family, or should we go out and find an apartment of our own? (Interview data, 1999) BOE is not the exception to this trend. They will be contemplating this decision in the next 12 to 18 months. Second Parents and Siblings: NAS & BOE BOE is one of seven (recently, an eighth has been added to the NAS portfolio) designs that are marketed and supported by New American Schools. The first of three phases in the NAS plan was a design phase, lasting a year. The two years of phase two were devoted to development, refinement, and testing of the designs. These two phases were financially supported by NAS and its development efforts to launch the seven designs. The NAS financial support shrunk throughout the third "scale-up .. phase. The designs were to go to a fee-for-service approach, meaning that schools 141

PAGE 158

and districts would pay the designs for their services to support implementation of the design (Bod illy et al., 1998 }. We're getting better at knowing what it costs us to work with a school of a certain size over a period of time. We can arrange our prices accordingly because when we began, NAS was paying full freight for everybody, but when we went to the market so to speak, we didn't quite know how to price ourselves. We'd way underpriced. But we made agreements and are keeping those agreements, so we're losing money on all those schools. And we have to start making enough money to pay the overhead and pay back the debt, so we have a much more accurate cost. (Interview data, 1999) BOE experienced a learning curve associated with its affiliation with NAS, and a supportive camaraderie exists among the seven designs. As all of the NAS designs grow and respond to the needs of schools and districts implementing comprehensive school reform, it is important to track costs, growth, service delivery, expertise, and any other facet of providing services to schools. Fortunately, the environment fostered by NAS for the seven designs has bolstered BOE. NAS is interested in our knowing what it costs us. They are helping us to provide analysis and consultants who can help us think things through. If l'm BOE and you're Modem Red, it's very useful for me to look at what you spend on marketing and what I do, or how much you ask for the delivery of technical assistance and training and district level politics. Now, we've got seven other organizations and to some degree, I can look at some of their stuff and certain things are reported commonly. lfs not required to show your books to each other. But by and large, the group of seven that NAS has funded, feels more like friends than competitors, we feel like pilgrims on the 142

PAGE 159

same path versus racers that are trying to beat each other out. And there's a lot of sharing in a formal and informal way and NAS and RAND and other oversight evaluators give us a lot of comparative information so you can learn a lot. Thafs been a big benefit. (Interview data, 1999) NAS has been instrumental in supporting BOE during its entrepreneurial and early growth stages. As an organization that acts essentially as a venture capital vehicle (Letts, Ryan, & Grossman, 1999 ), NAS has been able to provide large grants over a long period of time and provide assistance to grow and expand designs. NAS has been uncommonly good as a grant maker and contractor. I have spent a lot of my life making and getting grants. I've worked in government which is like a big foundation and r know what its' like to deal with a giver when you're the getter. I'd say that NAS is one of the best 2 or 3 contracting organizations that I've ever worked with. They're disciplined, organized, and they know what they want to get. They are reasonably flexible and knowledgeable about what they are going after. They made contracts to us with quarterly deliverables, which kept us on task, and they were pretty sensible when things didn't work out quite as they expected or hoped and then adjusting as needed. They were unfailingly helpful, especially in the first five years. And pretty lean, too. They've been very good. (Interview data, 1999) As the designs have grown and NAS has grown, both have evolved. NAS has a three-pronged strategy to continue its efforts in supporting schools and districts to raise student achievement for large numbers of students (New American Schools. 1998b }. To accomplish this goal, NAS 143

PAGE 160

will focus on increasing the quality, supply and sustainability of the NAS designs, develop and scale up assistance strategies for school districts, and improve the national implementation of comprehensive school reform. NAS is moving towards an organization building and grantmaking organizational structure with the specific mission to build the capacity of the designs. Now, the role has changed. They're no longer financing us in a large way. We all have big cash flow problems because the more successful we get. the closer to bankruptcy we are. Because we incur the expense and ifs at least four months before we get paid, and in some cases ifs more like a year before we get paid. The more schools we have. the bigger our cash flow problem is. Now NAS is trying to start a development bank for us so we can draw down at a reasonable rate. They've already given us a 1/2 million in a cash flow loan. And they still make some smallish grants to us, you know, like $150,000 here and there. They call them product development grants. NAS didn't come to us and tell us what we need to use this money for, we'd all been talking about doing these things together. lfs a fairly tight-knitted family and we talk about these things together. lfs a specific thing we need to do to develop capacity. When going after one of these we persuade them that ifs a one-time cost, we can persuade them to invest, and ifs all around quality controL (Interview data, 1999) Dobkin is also appreciative of NAS because it acts as a buffer between other CSR organizations and assistance providers that are not in the NAS portfolio. NAS has been successful at gathering resources with economies-of-scale to benefit the seven designs. Dobkin reports (Interview 144

PAGE 161

data, 1999): "They're like protective parents watching out for their own. We're grateful for that They should. We trust them more because of that" As for the seven (now eight) NAS siblings, it seems that they have less competition and more cooperation. As mentioned earlier, the CSR organizations share information among each other, watch out for each other, and leam from each other. What I believe is that any one of these designs, if you actually implement them, will work very well. There's a coherence, a vision, every one moving together. and maybe some of them will work better because they are better designs. Where difficulty's arise is in the financing. We were lucky, because when I said I'm gonna have a 2 million deficit in the next three years, SOUSA went out and raised the money for me. Audrey Cohen doesn't have that ATLAS has three gurus, and they've got their own things to raise money for, so they have less available time and energy to raise money for this. So the financial squeeze. There's another organization that you might say is in trouble. Not because they don't have the right people, its because they need to be cautious about spending money, incurring debt, etc. They don't have the money to back them up, it's harder for them to take the risk. You need to have access to the dollars for research and design. Audrey Cohen spends less-the level of professional development is much less than we provide. But, if they can do that and still get increases in student achievement, then I'd say they are better than us. We'll have something to learn from them. We are working at least 30 on-site person days. Thafs at least 3 times [more) than they do. It may be too much. Some people tell us you can't keep going at this rate. They can make it a stronger, deeper more demanding program than we have. (Interview data, 1999) 145

PAGE 162

What is important to point out is that the siblings are not working in a vacuum, trying to figure out how best to grow and serve schools and build their own capacity. As NAS designs, they are a part of a group developing and implementing strategies individually as service providers. Other CSR organizations do not benefit from the built-in quality of this structure. They either create their own network through friends or are on their own. Safety lies in numbers. Although BOE has benefited from partnerships with NAS and its NAS siblings, in the end, BOE alone provides their approach to schools. How it does that and what structures are in place in the organization is the next subject of this case. People Make It Wort<: Staffing The staff of BOE is smalL A handful of staff are divided between the two offices (one, in the national 80 office in the northeast. and a second regional office in the university). Many of the staff are involved in clerical activities, and a few of them have joined the organization from an 80 schooL Few of the full-time staff are experienced classroom educators. 146

PAGE 163

How then do they organize themselves to provide services to the schools in the BOE network? BOE uses a four-pronged system of staffing to reach the schools in the BOE network combining 80 staff, educators in schools, educational consultants, and staff that keep the offices running smoothly. The two main offices house the staff that maintains all of the daily operations of the organization. These activities include tracking district accounts and all financial activities, the publication of the monthly newsletter, The Source, maintenance of the website, planning and logistics for conferences and meetings, and a host of other administrative duties. ln addition, a small cadre of fulland part-time educational consultants work on particular aspects of the services dellvered to schools. These people serve as directors of research and evaluation, or teaching and learning and developers of subject matter platforms, philosophical essays that provide a statement and stance that BOE has taken on a subject matter area, an example being reading and writing. "School designers" compose the largest group Of staff. They are the people who deliver services in schools working with teachers and principals. 147

PAGE 164

School designers are typically chosen from two streams of people. One supply stream for school designers are staff who have been affiliated with 80 and well understand the philosophy and its values. These people may have deficits in some areas but are strong in others. For example, they may lack specific expertise about how K-12 public schools work, but have excellent facilitation skills that will serve them when working with teachers in a small group setting. A second supply stream flows from the educators involved in the original set of BOE schools. Teachers in these schools have been immersed in the creation and earliest implementation efforts of BOE schools and have a vast set of experiences to share with teachers that are beginning their implementation journey. These "master" teachers often take a sabbatical. a leave of absence, or have negotiated a special assignment in order to work with BOE for a year. Some of them work half time for BOE and half time in their classrooms. They maintain their benefits and seniority in their home districts, yet travel and work in other schools. A few people join the school designer team from a yet different avenue. For example. a retired principal and administrator became a school designer. This man had a life-changing 80 experience. saw an advertisement in a 148

PAGE 165

local newspaper for BOE, and was excited to join an educational organization that was based on 80 for public schools. Taking master teachers from BOE schools and bringing them into BOE as school designers; that would be one of the essential points about capacity building I'd like to make. One of the fears is that when you get larger, you're gonna get spread too thin. Are you gonna bum people out? There are so many good people in these schools, from this conference I could put my finger on a dozen people that would make good school designers or field designers. They have 5 years of teaching in a BOE school or as the principle of a BOE school. Jonah Slink, applied because we'd put an add in the paper, he'd taken aBO course and it changed his life, and he couldn't believe that it might be the same thing. (Interview data, 1999) The strategy is to pull teachers from schools that are implementing BOE and then employ them as school designers which in tum work with other teachers in schools. School designers manage 4 to 5 schools in a geographic location. For example, one designer works with five schools in one school district in the Midwest, while another one works with five schools spanning two states, with schools that are close in proximity of each other. This saves BOE staff time and is economical for travel, allowing the school designerto move within his or her cluster of schools with ease. Supporting the efforts of school designers are regional managers. These people provide support and technical assistance to the school 149

PAGE 166

designers. Four to five school designers are supervised by a regional manager. BOE has five regional managers working throughout the country. This structure has evolved as a result of the expansion of BOE. Dobkin comments (Interview data, 1999): "We're testing this, we'll see what the traffic can bear. We're dividing this region and shuffling along until a school crops up here and there." One of the regional designers who joined BOE as a school designer believes that he works as the go-between for his school designers and the national office. Regional designers respond to schools that approach BOE with funds and are ready to implement the BOE design. The regional designer works with the schools to determine if it is ready to plunge into implementation. We're very careful about readiness and BOE's capacity to operate in that geographical area. We have fewer resources than we did when we started, and we know more now than we did. We administer the contracts between schools and the district and BOE. We're the bridge to national. ((nterview data, 1999) A graphic depicting the organizational map of BOE is below. 150

PAGE 167

Figure 6.2: Organizational Structure of BOE Regional School Designer There are currenUy 5 ragionaJ designers. Each one AANM MtwAfln 4-5ld1nnl rfA!i:;innRnt. Belay on education National Office (spOt betWeen SOUSA and an eastem city) President Executive Director Office Staff School designers (within the region Of the city office) Staff speciafJSts (consultants): Teaching and Leaming Assessment and Evaluation, Subiect Matter ExDertise This structure is glued together through communication occurring through email, phone, and three retreats held throughout the year to bring all of the school designers and their managers together to share information, troubleshoot around particular schools, and set direction for the schools implementing BOE. This structure is unique in that it places the people with the most understanding about schools into the schools working 151

PAGE 168

with teachers in their implementation efforts. BOE is committed as an organization to continue this structure, observing that it is beginning to pay off for the design. We're not only bigger, but we're better. All those ideas about classrooms developing teachers and the regional structure and the decentralization structure. They're paying off. (Interview data, 1999) In the early schools that implemented BOE while it was in its developmental stage, the school designers working in those schools were not predominantly educators by trade. Many of them were 80 staff who had limited experience in schools or had been active in one of the urban education initiatives. One of the reasons that these people had a difficult time working in the BOE schools was because they lacked the needed "clout" as an educator with the teachers trying to implement BOE. This problem has been lessened by the current organizational structure. That is not to say that implementation problems do not exist between school designers and teachers, but this subject is not within the scope of this study. 152

PAGE 169

Promising Projects Two special projects are in pilot stages by school designers and the organization. One increases the pool of school designers available to work in schools, and the second increases the number of teachers implementing the design. Both are designed with the intent to increase capacity in schools and in the organization. The Fellows program is designed to bring staff from 80 into the organization as school designers and field directors. If we're doing BOE in a lot of places, teachers see this and they want to teach in this way, then we can help accelerate their knowledge about BOE. We 're doing this in BO with the Fellows program. We're helping them become school designers and field directors. Although they don't have any experience in schools. We have the Fellows program. We stopped it after this year, we may start it up again. The idea was to take 3-4 people a year, who want to have a normal life, who have a bit of teaching experience. and who want to be school designers, and who are minorities. (Interview data, 1999) The alternative certification project is a promising new project that will hopefully expand the number of teachers who understand and implement the philosophy of BOE into their schools and classrooms. An BOE staff person who divides her time between teaching and as a school designer, proposed the program for new teachers to Dobkin and Evans at BOE. The program will partner with universities and school districts and will 153

PAGE 170

teach beginning teachers the philosophy of BOE while they are taking certification courses at the university. Student teaching will occur in BOE schools. This strategy lessens the time it takes for new teachers in a school to become familiar with the design's philosophy and provides structured and focused time to study the philosophy and design principles before actually teaching. Four states and their state universities have agreed to participate in this pilot program in the next year. The strength of the alternative certification program is that new inductees will have a greater understanding of BOE philosophy. strengthening and accelerating implementation in schools. Greater numbers of teachers that understand the philosophy and are ready to implement it will lessen potential resistance in borderline schools that are unsure of BOE as the CSR design of choice. It also increases the number of teachers who buy-in to the design's approach to proceed with implementation in a school and will increase the total number of teachers that are able to implement the design. This type of activity builds capacity in teachers who use the design, which in tum builds the organization and can lead to scale-up of the number of schools that successfully implement BOE 154

PAGE 171

Coming Together at Conferences BOE holds an annual conference for all practitioners using the design, leadership retreats for school principles and leaders, summer institutes for educators on subject matter issues, including multi-day BO wilderness courses, and at least two staff retreats a year. Annual conferences are a useful means for capacity building for BOE. The theme of the conference is decided by BOE staff and then workshop slots are filled by individual teacher or school-team presentations. Teachers submit a proposal explaining what they will present. and, if selected, they are included in the conference program. A few workshop spaces are filled first by BOE staff. whereas the majority of workshop presenters are teacher practitioners. This creates a learning environment conducive to sharing among peers where participants interact with one another versus with the '"experts." The 1999 annual conference included a new concept called '"crew," a term that is used in 80 schools. (In the northeast 80 school, '"crew" is used for the group of students and instructor on a small boat, in the west, the term "patrol" is used. It has the same contextual meaning.) Kahn was widely quoted as saying, "We are all crew on this boat;" hence, the 155

PAGE 172

metaphor. Crew was created to bring a smaller group of participants from across the attendee list together each day in order to build relationships and to discuss insights gained throughout the conference. lt is a small group facilitated by a BOE staff member with the intent of network building. BOE staff also used "crew time" as a platform to present documents that are works-in-progress for the organization and facilitated discussions on the document in question. During the 1999 conference. everyone participating in "crew time" read and responded to the new literacy platform. This document explains the organization's stand on literacy in schools and how it might best be approached by teachers in BOE schools. Crew time served the organization as a sounding board. This was a deliberate opportunity to use the participants to gain feedback for the organization in order to position itself better with its clients. the teachers implementing BOE philosophy. In fact. Dobkin and Evans use the conference as an arena for selecting potential school designers. As a careful observer. Dobkin says that he can watch teachers in action in these workshops and know right away which ones will make good school designers. "l can also gauge how well we're doing in the schools. You can tell how people are responding to the design. l pay attention to those things" (Interview data. 1999). 156

PAGE 173

One concern about the conference is size. 80 and BOE place a strong value on relationship building and a concern exists that the conference will grow to be too large for staff to really "know" people. At more than 200 participants, it becomes difficult to acquaint oneself and build meaningful relationships with everyone present. This is perceived as a growing pain for the organization. Five years from now, will we have a big national conference or five regional conferences instead? How a national organization stays national but at the same time develops the efficiencies that are needed. When does it get so expensive and so grating of attention that ifs not worth doing anymore, at the same time that regions grow. That will be interesting to watch. This crew thing really helps facilitate that (Interview data, 1999) The co nference meets the needs of both staff and participants and builds capacity in both the designers and practitioners. As a gathering of peers to share information and network with each other, annual conferences are a means for disseminating information and piloting new aspects of the design to the current set of interested practitioners. The conference provides a platform for BOE to gain information from those participating. like the literacy platform document that will be utilized to strengthen the design's perspective on literacy. This is a safer route than piloting brand new material to an audience that has never heard of BOE. 157

PAGE 174

The conference attendees in effect help to shape the design, which builds the knowledge about the model and, hence, the capacity of the organization. Tools for Dual Purposes The annual conference can be perceived as a tool that facilitates learning for both practitioners in schools of BOE and of the design itself. Two other tools were identified and discussed during data gathering. The Core Benchmarks for BOE and "subject matter platforms" facilitate a greater understanding of the design for schools and shape the design's philosophy. Core Benchmarks One of the tools developed is the Core Practice Benchmark for BOE. This document explains the five core practices of BOE: learning adventures, reflection and critique, school culture, school structures, and school review. These core practices "provide direction on how a school transforms itself into a center of powerful teaching and rigorous academic 158

PAGE 175

achievement and character development for all studentsw (Belay On, 1998, p.1 ). The Core Practice Benchmarks provide a map for schools to assess diagnostically where they are on each core practice. First, the core practice is described and explained. Then, attributes of the core practice are identified. For example, the first core practice is "learning adventures." Included in the benchmark are the following attributes measured under the Learning Adventure core practice (Belay On, 1998, p.3): (a) planning, teaching, and improving learning expeditions, (b) engaging and motivating students, (c) assessment, critique, and revision, (d) expecting high achievement of every student, (e) meeting or exceeding local and state standards, (f) fostering strong literacy, (g) encouraging critical thinking and problem solving, (h) developing character, and (i) tapping parent and community resources. Each aspect of the core practice is broken into three phases that increase in intensity and implementation. Also, the phases are split out for three actors: teachers, students, and school leadership. Finally, sources of evidence for each actor are identified. For example, in the core practice related to learning adventures, the benchmark reads. "planning, teaching, and improving learning adventures" (Belay On, 1998, p.10). Teachers will 159

PAGE 176

"develop criteria for exemplary adventures, using these criteria to plan, revise, and improve adventures," students will "develop skills for active learning, collaboration and carrying out complex projects", and school leadership will schedule a daily flexible block of time at least two periods long" (Belay On, 1998, p.1 0). Sources of evidence collected for each actor range from teacher reflection, to classroom observation and portfolios, to school schedules. The benchmark is cross-referenced to the design principles and to other benchmarks focusing on other core practices. It is thorough and has been used successfully in school review processes. A team of evaluators consisting of the BOE school designer, the BOE Director of Research and development. the principal, a district administrator and other district leaders spend two days in a school observing and evaluating the school against the benchmarks. The school creates a portfolio using the benchmark's sources of evidence as a guide to determine what artifacts to include for review. After the site visit, the school receives feedback from the team and uses it in their planning for the following year. The benchmarks serve the school as an BOE implementation roadmap. School leaders and teachers implementing BOE can use the benchmarks diagnostically to assess where they are. This tool also 160

PAGE 177

provides a common language throughout the network. of schools implementing the design. The benchmarks facilitated conversations of teachers from across states and districts during the annual conference. lt provided a point of commonality frOm which to discuss individual implementation issues. In addition to serving the schools, the benchmark. and school site visit process serves the district As a result of the review, the district has a clearer idea of what is occurring in the school via the lens of Belay On Education. This builds understanding about the model in the district office where administrators may have less knowledge about the model. This activity can have positive effects on the district in relation to encouraging other schools to consider and adopt the design. Hence, the activity serves as a capacity-building activity in that, if all goes well, the district may purchase the services of BOE to implement the model in more schools. Rnally, the core-practice benchmark process provides a blueprint for school designers when working in their schools. For school designers with a background in education, the benchmarks are a diagnostic guide for implementation of the design. For school designers that come to BOE from the BO pool of employment. the core-practice benchmarks serve as a guide of what to look for in schools that are implementing the design. and they 161

PAGE 178

offer a prompt to these education neophytes about what makes a good BOE school. It helps to fill in the gaps that these people may have as a result of little experience in K-12 schools. This tool builds capacity in the schools and in the staff of BOE. Subject Matter Platforms During the annual conference, a document created by an educational consultant was dispersed during crew time. Attendees were to read the document. and a facilitated discussion by BOE staff person took place. The discussion was geared to generate feedback from the attendees on the content of the document and the philosophy embedded in the document. BOE staff wanted to know if attendees were in agreement with the intent of the document. This document was the new "literacy platform" for the organization. As one interviewee stated, People come to the design fairs and people tend to think that Roots and Wings is the reading design and Belay On Education is the rappelling design. So we have to create content standards. lfs a statement of beliefs. lfs a public statement that yes, kids do need to lean to read and write, and here's how we believe it should be done in an BOE classroom. It was nice to go back and look at the learning theory research, and bring it to the surface. lfs a public declaration. A belief system. Will we have 58 platforms on economics and everything? We regard literacy as a means for learning, its not a content area, you have to have that If we're talking about acquiring 162

PAGE 179

knowledge, then these are many of the tools that are needed in order to do it. lfs not a literacy construct, it's about thinking. This is about learning. (Interview data, 1999) These types of documents are being created in response to the schools implementing BOE. Dobkin comments, This literacy thing is about making the design better. In the doing and making of the design, there are many things that you didn't think about, and so you need to stay in tune with the schools and be responsive to districts when they need something from us. We need to develop it It helps the school, and it helps the school designer to know what should be happening in a school. (Interview data, 1999) As a leader, Dobkin is tuned into the needs of the schools implementing the design features and he leverages the resources necessary to support the creation of tools that help both the schools and the organization continually define itself. This activity builds capacity simultaneously in the school and the organization's staff. Looking Back to the Future The first group was about inspiration. At first when we did this, we made it up. Fortunately, we had a lot of good makers-up. A lot of questions we didn't have the answers to, so we sat together to figure it out. And we found some things that were successfuL Now we have a much clearer sense of what to do first, what it takes, what the balance of things you need to offer, and how you tailor them to the schools particular needs. (Interview data, 1999) 163

PAGE 180

Quality All of the CSR models were once small programs or projects that pushed through the liabilities of newness (Stinchecombe, 1965) to become established organizations. As a project of BOUSA where many aspects of the organizational growth were eased, like the philosophy, staff, fundraising, and housing, BOE like all other organizations needed to build the design from the ground up. As all successful organizations go through the developmental stage of formalizing structure, BOE is facing the need and challenge of documenting and codifying information, processes, and tools in order to build quality assurance into the design. The only way to assure quality is about documenting and codifying so we have a regular sense. We write down and codify lots of information, Pike} how many days a school designer should be in a school, that kind of stuff and it gives a school designer a better idea of what needs to happen. How to implement the design-we now have a much better idea about it-we can state it. What do you do when you're there in a school? How to organize the time. At first we didn't know, now we have a much better idea. Thafs part of capacity-regularizing, creating a protocoL Now we have a better idea of what needs to take place. Yes, there's a lot of room for individual genius and expertise, but there's also a set of expectations. For example, every school's designer does implementation checks. We didn't do that before, now the school designers do that a couple of months a year, and we do a school review a year in each school, and view the core processes that they do in depth. (Interview data, 1999) 164

PAGE 181

Documenting and codifying information is a time-consuming task. As a capacity-building activity, it engages reflection which can lead to new insights and is the process by which explicit knowledge is internalized by the organization which can expedite organizational learning (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This serves two purposes. First it helps to create a structure to measure quality. The first thing I would say to build capacity and good quality and those words blend together in my mind, if quality assurance and more capacity building are not the same thing they are at least very close if you're growing more schools. (Interview data. 1999) Second, it creates "institutional memory." lfthe principles and work of the organization are to outlive its current staff, then documentation will facilitate others in carrying on the work and improving it. Future Tensions Porter-Obey has created a market for comprehensive school reform. Secondly ifs provided cash to schools. Most people would have reversed the order of those two, but more significantly they provided the idea. Getting the idea of comprehensive school reform into the minds of people. (Interview data, 1999) BOE is facing a few challenges that will move the organization into increased states of formalization. The move out from under the wing of 165

PAGE 182

SOUSA will be a change of place but not problematic from the standpoint of organizational growth or development. If anything, SOUSA will miss the financial support that SOE has provided them. The issue of cash flow, which is an issue for all non-profits (Letts et aL, 1999) will continue to be present for SOE. Some of the costs incurred by the design and off-set by district payment schedules will continue to be an issue until BOE has a contingency fund large enough that can take care of the gap in payment schedules and services delivered. The future role of NAS and how it develops in its next phase will affect SOE, but the outcome of that is still to be determined. The affiliation with NAS has been positive for BOE, and it will probably continue to be so. Two issues have been identified by SOE staff as organizational growing pains needing to be addressed. The first one focuses on organizational structures and processes. Systems of accountability and time tracking. lfs been painful getting that installed and actually working because software programs are never what they're cracked up to be. So you don't get what it is you thought you were originally gonna get, and you end up doing an enormous amount of work to organize them and get them up and running. Thafs a growing pain. (Interview data, 1999) The second is about the service provided to schools. More specifically, it is about the number of days that school designers are 166

PAGE 183

actually on site in the schools they are working in and the types of services available to schools that are farther along the implementation continuum. One school designer is concerned with the length of time between visits that a school designer makes to a schooL His feeling is that designers go to schools twice a month with longer periods of non-contact in between. When designers return to the school, little to nothing has changed; hence, the implementation process is taking longer than expected. Another school designer reports that he spends 25 days in one of his schools, but that not all of the five schools in his "portfolio" receive the same number of days of service. "The 'squeeky wheel' gets the grease," he comments (Interview data, 1999). Given these two varying experiences, it is clear that BOE has not yet found the "right" number of days to be in a school when sending school designers into a school that is implementing the design. A possible explanation for the difference lies in the varying degrees of readiness of schools to begin implementation. If this is the case, then BOE can work on creating a benchmark far "readiness for implementation" that can serve as a guide (like the core benchmarks) for schools to ready themselves and build their own capacity in order to launch on the joumey that implementation needs to be successfuL 167

PAGE 184

The other issue about services being delivered to schools focuses on schools that have been implementing the design principles for a longer period of time and have reached the second and third phases of implementation as described in the core benchmarks. As with organizational stages of growth and development. these schools will need varying types of services. A growing need exists to define and understand how and when to "wean" a school off from the services that BOE provides. When does a school complete implementing the design. and what do they need from the organization then? As most of the schools involved in BOE are in earlier stages of implementation. this issue has not been pressing. At least one BOE staff member believes that school designers need to support those schools by moving them toward self-management Another school designer believes that BOE will always need to support the schools in the "community" and thinks that. as the maturation process continues. they may need other types of support that are not specific to the design. For example. BOE has successfully been implemented in one school for over five years (one of the original pilot schools). This school is in need of moving out of its existing facility and will change locations in the next year. This is a difficult issue that is beyond the scope of the services 168

PAGE 185

currently offered by 80E. Consequently, the school is not using 80E as its primary resource for help. Fortunately, the school has a larger pool of consultants and educational entrepreneurs from which to draw for help with this particular problem. The larger issue is whether or not schools implementing the design will depend on BOE for aU of their problems. If they do, will they skew their dependency on the organization to rely on 80E for technical assistance that it is unable to provide or does not want to provide? BOE would be wise to consider and clarify what types of assistance it can and will provide for those schools which are in "higher order stages of implementation" and need advanced types of technical assistance. In the final analysis, Dobkin will fall back on 80 tradition to solve the issues facing the 80E. 80 is an organization that teaches self-awareness through working with others and through relationship-building. True to his background, he comments about how he will address the Mure: '11te last thing about capacity building is tied to readership. You get good people and you get out of the way'" {Interview data, 1999). He will find the best people he can to work collectively on finding the necessary solutions. and he will take their advice. 169

PAGE 186

CHAPTER 7 THE PRINCIPLE GROUP, INC. The Principle Group, Inc. (PGI) is a national network of schools and centers engaged in restructuring and redesigning schools to promote better student learning and achievement The schools share a common set of ideas known as the Common Principles which guide their whole-school reform efforts. PGI's power as a school reform movement derives from its focus on classroom practice, the simple authenticity of its principles, and its determination to measure the long-term impact of school reform on the lives of students. While the Group began as a secondary school reform effort, it has broadened its scope to include elementary and middle schools. (Mission statement of PGI) In 1979, a group of researchers led by R. S. Jenks launched a fiveyear national study about the shape and direction of the American high schooL A Study of High Schools represented schools at the present time and explains how they came to be what they are. From this study, Jenks extracted a core set of ideas around which to shape an active reform effort. His findings written in Compromising the American High School (Jenks, 1984) outlined common principles of school practice. In 1984, twelve schools committed to practice the Common Principles (CP), creating the first "Principle Schools." (There are now 10 CP and 8 organizing principles which are on the next pages.) 170

PAGE 187

Figure 7.1: The Organizing Principles of the PGL PGI should be a learning community. Modeling the practices it expects of schools. Inquiry should inform the practices of the organization as well as the practices of schools and of adults and young people within them. PGI, its centers and member schools, should commit themselves to documentation of change efforts, demonstration of student achievement, using 1he most effective combination of objective, subjective and performance-based data, and public sharing of an that has been learned. Just as students differ from one another, so do teachers, school and communities; therefore, PGI, its centers and member schools, should value local wisdom and have the fle:xtbility to respond to their local contexts. The whole school, including parents, should be the fundamental unit of change. Collaboration and critical friendship should be central to all levers of PGI work, whether in classrooms or among colleagues and community members to fully explore and thoughtfully utirlze the enormous potential of a wide range of technologies to advance this goal. PGI should maintain a voice in the national discourse about educational reform and should seek alr1811C8S with like-minded organizations. Decisions about the nature and extent of such alliances should be made as close as possible to the school and community. PGI, its centers and member schools, should model democratic practices and should deliberately and explicitly address challenges of equity in relation to race, class and gender. Since they have direct bearing on intellectual, interpersonal and organizational processes, PGl work at all levels should be of a size and scale to allow for personafaation. 171

PAGE 188

Figure 7.2: The Common Principles of the Principle Group, Inc. The school should focus on helping adolescents learn to use their minds well. Schools should not attempt to be comprehensive if such a claim is made at the expense of the school's central intellectual purpose. The school's goals should be simple: that each student master a limited number of essential skills and areas of knowledge. While these skills and areas will, to varying degrees. reflect the trad'llional academic disciplines, the program's design should be shaped by the Intellectu al and imaginative powers and competencies that students need, rather than necessarily by "subiects as conventionally defined. The aphorism "Less is More should dominate: curricular decisions should be guided by the aim of thorough student mastery and achievement rather than by an effort merely to cover contenL The school's goals should apply to all students, while the means to these goals will vary as those students themselves vary. School practice should be tailor-made to meet the needs of every group or class of adolescents. Teaching and learning should be personalized to the maximum feasible extenL Efforts should be directed towan:t a goal that no teacher have direct responsibility for more than eighty stu dents. To capitalize on this personalization, decisions about the details of the course of study. the use of students' and teachers' time, and the chofce of teaching materials and specific pedagogies must be unreservedly placed in the hands of the principal and staff. The governing practrcal metaphor of the school should be student-as -worker rather than the more familfar metaphor of teacher-as dellverer-of-instructional-servfces. Accordingly, a prominent pedagogy will be coaching, to provoke students to ream how to ream and thus to teach themselves. Students entering secondary school studies are those who can show competence in lan guage and elementary mathematics. Students of traditional high school age but not yet at appropriate levels of competence to enter secondary school stucles will be provided intensive remedral work to assist them quickly to meet these standards. The diploma should be award ed upon a successful final demonstration of mastery for exhibition. This Exhibition by the student of his or her grasp of the central skills and knowledge of the school's program may be jointly administered by the faculty and by higher authorities. As the diploma is awarded when eamedy the schoors program proceeds with no strict age grading and with no system of credits earned by -.!me spent in dass. The emphasis is on the students demonstration that they can do impor-tant things. The tone of the school should explfcitly and self-consciously stress values of unanxious expectation ("I won't threaten you but l expect much of you;, of trust (until abused). and of decency (the values of fairness. generosity, and tolerance). rncentives appropriate to the school's particular students and teaChers should be emphasized, and parents should be treat ed as essential COllaborators. The principal and teachers should perceive themselves as generafiSts first (teachers and scholars in general education) and specialists second (experts in but one particular-discipline). Staff should expect multiple obligations (teacher-counselor-manager) and a sense of commitment to the entire school Ultimate administrative and budget targets should include, in addition to total student loads per teacher of eighty or fewer pupils, substantial time for collective planning by teachers, competitive salaries for staff, and an ultimate per pupil cost not to exceed that at tracfltional schools by more than 10 percenL To accompfiSh this.. administrative plans may haw to show the phased reductiCin or of some services now provided students in tracfltional comprehensive secondary schools. The school should demonstrate non-OISCriminatory and Inclusive policiesy practices, and agogies. It should model democratic practices that involve all who are directly affected by the school. The school should honor cfMirsity and build on the strengths of its communities, defllb erately and uplicitly challenging all forms of Inequity. 172

PAGE 189

In short. PGI member schools (PGI Document 3, 1999): (a) help students "learn to use their minds well", (b) emphasize depth over breadth, (c) apply goals to all students, (d) personalize teaching and learning, (e) embrace the metaphor "student-as-worker", (f) require students to demonstrate mastery through exhibition. (g) stress unanxious expectation, trust, and decency, (h) consider teachers as generalists with a commitment to the entire school, (I) develop budgets that reflect PGI priorities, and (j) model democratic and equitable practices. The eight organizing principles serve as tenets of organizational practice to support the implementation of the CP. The principles stress the wisdom of practitioners at the local level of schools and centers as the fundamental places where change takes place. Early Growth The Principle Group, Inc. (PGI) was established at an east coast institution of higher education. Initially, Jenks and a small staff worked directly as mentors with member schools to help them navigate their school restrUcturing process. As interest in PGI ideas spread, more schools joined 173

PAGE 190

the effort. desiring technical assistance in their school for teachers working to implement the common principles. In 1988, the PGI formed a strategic partnership with a prominent education policy center and information clearinghouse organization. Through the joint initiative, "Learning Again," the two organizations enlisted the support of governors and chief state school officers for Principle school networks in their state. The initiative was aimed at providing an opportunity for educators in schools to influence district and state policy reform. Meetings were held, bringing practitioners and policymakers together "from the schoolhouse to the statehouse" to address issues collectively. Learning Again drew to a close in 1995, with a mixture of successes and struggles. On the plus side, the increase of schools exploring and implementing the PGI principles grew from 56 schools in 1988 to 935 nationwide in 1995. Of that number. over 500 schools were located in states participating in the Learning Again partnership. Futures Committee rn 1994, at the end of PGI's first decade, Jenks Convened a national committee of practitioners to assess the work of PGI and help chart its 174

PAGE 191

future separate from a newly formed Institute for School Reform also housed at the university. Jenks's reasoning for forming the Future Committee reflects his intent to increase the number of schools implementing PGl. We had to go to scale ... you have to be in it, day to day to do it [whole school change}. I brought school people together to figure out how to go to scale. (Interview data, 1999) The Future Committee recommended that the next decade of work should focus on sharpening the obligations of membership and model democratic practices. The next ten years would be characterized as the "Decade of Demonstration" and would pay close attention to the total context of schooling The work has proven to be highly complex; the challenges remain enormous. Nonetheless, ten years later, educators from across the country and the ocean reaffirm the mission of the Principle Group, Inc.: to create or redesign schools that help all students to use their minds welL (PGl. document 1, 1995. inside cover) Another interesting result of the work of the Future Committee was that it recognized that in order to meet these challenges and goals, the Group could no longer rely on a single leader. It became clear to them that a single charismatic leader or a single national center was not the path toward a democratic network of schools. Rather. the plan must include the 175

PAGE 192

development of a widely distributed, visionary leadership and the creation of strong collaborative centers around the country, linked by a national office and governance structure. The challenge of the coming decade is for PGI to continue to be a powerful force for authentic school reform, and both decentralize and grow while remaining a nationally cohesive organization. From -To: PGl Organizational Structure Four main bodies comprise the organizational structure of PGl, schools, centers, the Executive Board and the National office, and one governance process called Congress governs those four bodies. National staff is responsible for leading PGl in the directions decided by the Congress and Executive Board. Centers are responsible for carrying out the substantive programmatic work of the Group in schools. Schools are members of centers or affiliated with a center. They do not affiliate themselves with the national office. These main bodies comprise the structure that Jenks and the Future Committee designed and implemented in 1996. It is a bottom-up, grassroots organizational structure. In its national operations. the Principle Group. Inc. draws on its member schools and centers for leadership, direction, stability. and growth. 176

PAGE 193

while maintaining a national voice in school reform efforts. The PGI structures which provide for governance and operations promote decentralization in ways that are interactive and collaborative. that alfow for mutual support. and demonstrate the power of its principles and practices in helping students learn to use their minds welL These structures counter the trend toward depersonalization and bureaucracy often characterizing growing organizations. (PGI, document 2, no date). Figure 7.3 on the next page depicts the relationships between each group in the Group's governance structure. Looking at each body closer will enable a greater understanding of the governance structure and how it works. The Executive Board The Executive Board is comprised of twelve members and three ex officio members. Representation is an equal mix of personnel from schools, centers. and three members from either school or center, plus three allies, members who are not affiliated in any direct way to the Group. The executive board approves the annual budget that reflects the decisions made by the Congress. The board also considers the development and ongoing support of local centers when determining the national budget and 177

PAGE 194

Figure: 7.3 Govemance Structure at the Principle Group, Inc. .. Individual SChOor.: Are affiliated with or or are members of a center Centers: Are created when a group of schools decides to band together and create a center that WJ11 in tum support their school change efforts. Centers go through an affinnation process before being recognized by the national office and the rest of the PGI. Congrea is a representative group comprised of Center directors, school members affiliated with a Center, the Executive Board and the National Office staff. Congress meets twice a year for 2 days. This is the body that sets direction and policy for the National office and the PGI as a whole. Decisions made by Congress impact all of the other actors in the PGI. Execu11w Board is comprised of: 3 school-based members 3 center-based members 3 PGI "aalies'" neither directly affiliated with member schools or centers, or part of the national staff Ex-officio members Executive director PGl Chair 178 Natronal Office is comprised of the folfowing: Executive director, Program directors for: Center & School Support Research & Professional Development Public Engagement Finance & Administration Program associates that support the directors Technology coordinator Events coordinator Publications Manager PGl News Eattor Administrative assistants

PAGE 195

staffing for the national office. Board members serve a three-year term, and many of their duties are similar to those found on any board. The exception is that the board does not set the direction for the organization, has little actual power, but has some influence on decisions about direction, mission, and vision of the organization. The National Office When Jenks left the position of executive director to start and colead a charter school, an interim director stayed with the PGI during a relocation transition from the east to the west coast Jolene Miller assumed the position of executive director in 1997. Her primary duty is to provide leadership to PGI at the national level and direction to the national staff as it serves member schools and centers. The Director shall play a lead role in identifying common interests among member schools and centers. coordinating the development of projects and research to address these common interests, and building a shared vision for PGL (PGI, document 2, 1997, p.27) The National Office is comprised of a group of staff. charged with supporting the work of centers as directed by the decisions made by Congress. A number of staff serve as program directors for the following: center and school support, research and professional development, public engagement and finance and administration. Program associates support 179

PAGE 196

the directors and a technology coordinator, and events coordinator, round out the staff that maintain national logistics and communication with the centers and schools. PGI has published the newsletter, PGI News, for 8 years, which employs an editor and publications manager. Three of the staff members have worked for the Group for over 5 years; everyone else was hired new when the office moved to the west. Centers A "Center" is an organization created by a group of schools united in their commitment to the mission of the Principle Group, Inc., as understood through the common principles and the organizational principles contained in the Future Committee Report (PGI, document 2, 1997, p. 9}. Centers are responsible for carrying out the substantive programmatic work of the Group in schools. The Centers are the locus of leadership and technical assistance to the schools. They are not regional outposts of PGl but gatherings of schools that work together and support each other as they strive to embody and actualize the common principles in their schools and communities. PGl Centers locally determine their membership process, provide professional development opportunities, and work with schools to share and learn from each other. Each center has 180

PAGE 197

autonomy from the national office to create policy derived from the schools it serves for the schools it serves. Typically, the national office secures grants and disperses the opportunities to participate in them to the Centers which, in tum, offer them to their schools. Although all the work of the PGl centers focuses on whole school change in the broad sense, in practice it operates in terms of several "programs" or programmatic areas. This work can be broken down into three overlapping categories: curriculum and instruction, leadership, and wholeschool structures. Center staff focus their technical assistance on the following areas, student achievement, teacher practices, whole-school change, and networks, in order to make gains in the three programmatic areas in schools. The development and support of centers is a national priority for PGL It is here where the technical assistance to schools occurs. A center is created when a group of schools in any given geographical location band together and collectively see the need for a center that would help them work toward implementing the CP. When a center has reached a developmental stage where it has the resources to sustain its work, it goes through an .. affirmation process". This begins with a self-evaluation that 181

PAGE 198

focuses on its organization and mission as a useful resource to the schools it is intended to serve. The center affirmation process has been created to serve as an organizing tool for fledgling center5. The center affirmation rubric is a guide for a visiting team that collects and analyzes data in light of a framing (or "principle") question the Center has posed about its work. Going through the process gives the center and its schools access to the rest of the Principle Group, Inc. The affirmation team returns from collecting data and writes a final report which is sent to the Executive Board with a recommendation to Congress about approvaL Congress makes the final decision on whether or not the Center should be affirmed. All centers that have been affirmed are members of Congress, are written into the national budget. and have grant opportunities made available to them. Schools Schools that are affiliated with the Group come in all types and sizes. Although the Group began with high schools, it has expanded across the K-12 system of public schools, including charter schools. A number of private schools are also practicing the CP. Schools that join PGl do so in stages. The Group recognizes schools in the planning, networking, and 182

PAGE 199

exploring stages. These stages are early implementation stages. where schools become familiar with the CP and the organizing principles. At this point. schools are engaged in a self-audit about what it would take to commit to working toward implementation. These schools have little direct technical assistance from PGI. and they are unaffiliated with a center. Schools applying to the Group must present a plan for change consistent with the CP and must demonstrate faculty and governing board (if one exists) support for extending the plan throughout the schools. Schools become affiliated through a center at a cost $50.000 a year for up to three years This money supports release time for planning. travel. and professional development activities No direct fee is paid to PGI national to join the Group. Schools are located in rural and isolated regions where support and affiliation to a center is difficult. As the Group grows, staff and members of Congress have been discussing what to do with such schools. The philosophy of the organization is moving in the direction of only supporting schools that have center affiliation. This would exclude a number of schools. going against the principle of democracy and equity, which is a fundamental value of the entire organization. This dilemma was a main focus at the Congress I attended last Spring. 183

PAGE 200

Governing Through Congress To achieve its mission, PGI has chosen to evolve from an informal, centrally run organization to an intentionally decentralized association relying on the local wisdom and guidance of those closest to school change work. PGI promotes ownership, commitment, and leadership through its Congress and Executive Board which provide direction, establish priorities, and give a national voice to member schools and Centers. (PGl prospectus, 1999) Congress is the main governing body of the Group. Formed in 1996, it is a representative body of Group delegates and members from schools, the centers, the national staff, the PGI chair or designee and the executive board. The idea behind creating a congress "was to develop a deliberative body. made up almost exclusively of folks from PGl member schools and centers, to play a critical role in PGI" (PGI document 3, Spring 1999, p. 4). The transition committee met with several organizational management people and other reform organizations about ways to democratize PGI and yet have a relatively simple design while allowing the day-to-day operations of PGI to run smoothly (PGI document 3, Spring 1999). The term "Congress" was borrowed from the League of Professional Schools (LPS). a school-reform organization headed by Carl Glickman. LPS uses a similar mechanism to help their leadership think through issues facing their organization. 184

PAGE 201

Some of the goals of the Transition committee were to create a way of operating that was democratic but did not rely on voting to reach important decisions. This value places a premium on allowing time for reflection and discussion about important matters, and reflected the belief that Congress should be a source of professional development for its members as well as a policymaking body for PGI (PGI document 3, Spring, 1999). The congress has the primary responsibility for making policy decisions for the organization, for setting long-term direction, and for developing or approving key strategies for PGI nationally. Decisions made by the congress are binding on the PGI national staff, the PGI executive board, and the congress itself. Congress is also a place for delegates to work on issues of concern for PGI. The board chair typically facilitates the three-day meeting, which is held in the fall and spring. Proposals are put forward to congress before it begins and an agenda is built Three sessions take place during Congress, starting with the opening, which includes reports from all the working committees and the state of the organization is reported by the Executive Director with the perspective of the PGI Chair. The second and largest session of congress is comprised of working groups, detailed study groups on specific issues. Most recently. the following working groups attended the congress: documentation and demonstration. democracy and equity. and coUaboration and inquiry. Delegates self-select into these working groups during the congress. They 185

PAGE 202

also meet via email after the congress to continue the work set by themselves during congress. Finally, congress closes, which is another round of reporting on the work achieved during the congress, and other issues that were not addressed that need to be in the future. Primary responsibility for determining matters of policy, long-term directions, and key national strategies for PGI is vested in the Congress, which is also responsible for reviewing the appropriateness of the PGI organizational structure and making changes (as needed} in it own structure and operations. (PGI prospectus, 1999) Orientation for new delegates opens congress the first morning. These people are members of schools that are interested in affiliating themselves with PGI or are readers in schools who already participate in the Group through a center. The history of the evolution of congress is discussed, as well as the process and protocols used in congress, and, responsibilities of delegates during and after congress. Facilitated by members of the executive board, the PGI national staff were also present at the session, but only had clerical duties. Members take their role seriously. This executive board member and a center director said the following about the new delegates, the power of congress. and their duty as delegates: The first thing you need to understand is that we are the PGL PGI is not some office, not some group somewhere else. lt is schools and 186

PAGE 203

centers-the people who work there and the children we serve. It is our responsibility to wear a national hat while looking through the local lens. We are activists for all children, not just our children at home. We need to do schooling differently. We need to serve all children across the country. We need to speak using the local lens, where we see the issues, struggles, and provocations. However, it is our ultimate responsibility to care of each other's kids. What we do here impacts kids. Delegates are national leaders while they are here, and they will be regional leaders when they return home. Decisions will be made about PGI operations and issues. We help establish the long-term direction of this organization, set policy, and identify key strategies. Congress is the only body that can change the way things are currently done. It is the purview of the Congress to review the work of the Executive Board and Executive Director. We need delegates to carry work back to the region so that people at home are part of a national movement This will also be very rich professional development It validates our work, and stresses that we are all in this together. (Interview data, 1999) The message that the delegates are the congress was repeated over and over throughout the meeting. While national staff members were reporting to the congress, more than one of the directors spoke to the congress about needing their input and direction. Congress helps us think about what we're doing. We're not out in the field, so we need to hear from you, and we do and it informs our work. (National staff member during congress, Spring 1999) Sense of Congress The opening of Congress is mostly a review of work completed, approving the agenda for the work to be done during Congress and reports 187

PAGE 204

from both the PGl executive director and the chairperson. The group reviews the norms and discusses reaching a "sense of Congressn which is the term used asking for consensus around the room. lf a sense of Congress is apparent, then the discussion is closed and the next agenda is addressed. Striving for a sense of Congress is directly tied to the value of democracy and equity. Allowing for individual voices to be heard and counted during the work of Congress is the goaL This process is currently evolving. Discussions during Congress with delegates did not seem to provide enough time for them to voice their opinions thoroughly. Others reported that many delegates were not willing to address the whole Congress but were more apt to discuss an issue at their small tables. Another concern was raised that the voices most heard in the large group were those of executive board members or center directors. A "sense of table'" which provided time in small groups to discuss issues was called for and. after reports from around the tables by delegates to the farger audience. a sense of Congress was established. 188

PAGE 205

1999): Delegates reported on the change (PGI Congress notes, Spring Table consensus to group consensus made processing easier. Love the sense of table concept It seems to really clarify the "sense of Congress" Liked the table discussions. I wonder what would happen if (with the decision making process) there were more I was happy that there was not total agreement l am pleased that I saw a more democratic rather than republican method of decision-making. Very happy about "sense of Congress" table conversation. Lefs work on democracy and equity and hear every voice both in the small groups and the larger session. CP: Democracy and Equity Congress breaks up into working groups for the majority of the three days. Facilitated by Executive Board members, working groups control the largest blocks of time. Delegates self-select into a working group and stay with that group for the remainder of Congress, moving an issue forward. During the Congress of 1996, the tenth Common Principle was ratified. It is commonly called Democracy and Equity, and it is stated as: The school should demonstrate non-discriminatory and inclusive policies. practices, and pedagogies. It should model democratic practices that involve aU who are directly affected by the schooL The school should honor diversity and build on the strengths of its 189

PAGE 206

communities, deliberately and explicitly challenging all forms of inequity. (PGl prospectus, 1 999) It was through Congress that the 1 Qth CP was created, edited, philosophically debated, and then finally accepted and embraced by the Group as a whole in 1997. This fundamental value of the Group was a central issue in the Spring Congress that I observed. A tension exists between the principle embraced and the actions Congress has taken since the 10m CP was instituted. Tensions The executive board chair and facilitator of Congress outlined the issue for Congress in the Spring 1 999 session. In prior sessions, Congress debated, decided, and marked the year 2000 as the year in which all schools not affiliated with a center would cease to be a part of the PGl network of schools. Given that PGl was strategically making centers the central focus for providing technical assistance and support to schools, moving in the direction of supporting centers made sense to Congress. Currently, some PGl schools are not affiliated with a center or with centers that have not yet completed successfully the affirmation process. These 190

PAGE 207

schools and centers will be excluded from the Group beginning in January 2000 unless a change in policy is made. Will the Congress result in equitable action as a result of a democratic decision making process? Is the Congress modeling democracy where all voices are heard and then equitable action is taking place? These were questions posed in the Spring 1999 Congress. A lengthy discussion took place on this issue. A delegate explained an analogous scenario to schools and students. She argued : I see schools in which we have groups of children. I see that we're doing the same thing here. We say. lefs deal with it tomorrow, let's put it aside, we'll deal with it tomorrow and every time we do that we push that child one step away from achieving where we want them to go. We say, "you stay here, the rest of us are moving forward." The child is stationary and everyone else is moving forward. They leave school and they're still a step back and all the other kids are further along, and we're saying how are we gonna tie those schools together to us, by the year 2000? We're gonna get to a point where its too late for those individual schools to catch up with the rest of us, and they'll be left behind. They're not gonna be a part of the affirmation process. We continue to move forward without solving that issue, and bringing them at least two steps closer to where we are. We are allowing them to stay behind, just like the individual children that we're not serving to stay behind. So I think that as a group we should be struggling with how to bring those schools. (Observation data. 1999) The Congress facilitator summed it this way: This is a democratic process leading to an undemocratic action. lfs the parallel process. If we don't model this for ourselves, we won't be able to model it for those kids who may get left behind the 191

PAGE 208

mainstream. It's more about the process we use that makes sure that every person in the Group, when we make our decision, are some way included and not left behind. I think the process we are using will leave some people standing still and other people moving forward. (Observation data, 1999) What makes this interchange interesting is that the people participating in Congress were discussing and debating issues fundamental to the future of PGL The voices heard in the room carried equal weight in the discussion. Using the protocols for a sense of Congress, a difficult discussion spanning a third of the total Congress' time was facilitated with over 50 stakeholders engaged in the process. From a governance and leadership standpoint, this discussion reflects what Jenks and the Future Committee set out to accomplish through the Congress as the governance mechanism of the PGI.It is a democratic process in which the participants have full power to make decisions affecting their immediate future. Leadership in PGl Although a strong desire is shared to empower all of the delegates to speak their opinions during Congress, and delegates are provided with ample opportunities to do so, concern has been expressed that the "true" leadership of the organization lies wHh the center directors and executive board members. ln part, this is the case. Center directors are the people 192

PAGE 209

who facilitate the delivery of technical support services to the schools that the centers serve. lt is clear that PGI is using centers as the hub of activity and many of the center directors are on the executive board. Center directors help choose delegates from their region to attend Congress. Another factor that may fuel this belief occurs through Congress. The PGl "primer" was in the packet of materials given to all delegates at the beginning of Congress. The Primer was discussed in the session for new delegates. In the Spring 1999 Congress, almost a quarter of the delegates were new; they were attending their first PGI Congress. The up side means that fresh ideas are being brought into Congress, but only if the delegates speak up in the large group. For many, this may be intimidating. Possibly, new delegates will feel more at ease in the smaller groups and be more likely to share their new ideas in the working sessions than in any of the large group sessions. This also rests on the assumption that those participating for the first time will feel comfortable enough to join in the discourse of the Congress at alL Delegates who have participated in more than one Congress. and almost half of the participants have participated in at least three (seven Congress sessions have been held}. are more likely to feel comfortable addressing Congress during large group discussions. Leadership may be 193

PAGE 210

narrowed to the voices of those feeling most comfortable and familiar with the process. Loose Coupling. Accountability. and Fidelity PGI Centers are the focus for leadership in PGI schools and the larger organization. They are also where accountability to PGI takes place. Accountability is two-pronged. First, centers are accountable to their schools, their primary clients, and this includes accountability for deUvering services to the schools and maintaining the center as an organization (financially, structurally. etc.) Centers are also accountable to the 10 CP. All centers must have a plan that explains how they will support schools implementing the CP in order for them to complete successfully the affirmation process. A long time center director said, "Centers are the place of accountability. They have a rubric and strategic plan, all separate from the national office. There are no mandates from national to centers, each one is autonomous." (Interview data. 1999) This structure creates a loosely coupled (Weick, 197 4) set of centers that do not have any structural similarities across the centers. For example, a small school in Oklahoma is not affiliated with a center because it is located in a fairly rural location where no center exists nearby. A PGl 194

PAGE 211

unaffiliated network exists but the cost is $150.00 per person per school, which this school cannot afford. Another center costs 79 cents a student in a school to participate. This center uses a fee-for-service formula for schools to participate in grants and other technical assistance services. This center gives PGl schools a first chance at participating in opportunities that emerge for schools. The Oklahoma school has none of these opportunities or access to the economies-of-scale that this center can offer its schools. Consequently, the Oklahoma school will be dropping out of PGI. It cannot afford to join the only network available to it and by year 2000, only schools affiliated with centers will be allowed to participate in Congress. This example may well be a growing pain that is beginning to push PGl toward aligning its centers to serve better schools that are interested in the philosophy of the Group. However, philosophically, the centers differ among themselves, too. With regard to philosophical affinity. centers differ in their beliefs on implementing the CPs. Each center must commit to supporting the implementation of the CP in each of its schools. Implementation may be unique for each school within a center as well as across centers. This raises questions about fidelity to the principles. In many CSR models, 195

PAGE 212

model providers are quick to say that fidelity of implementation to the model is imperative if a school is to be successful (Interview data, 1999). In PGI schools, no clear picture exists of what constitutes fidelity to the CP. A national staff member remarked during a small group discussion in Congress that the organization has not defined what the indicators of success are within a PGl school as identified by the 10 CP. "It's too loose." she said. She advocated for PGI to make explicit what the indicators of success for PGI schools should be (Observation data. 1999). A Center director replied, We're trying to move forward cohesively without jeopardizing local autonomy. These conversations will shape the national level. but I hope they also will shape the school and hopefully classroom level. (Observation data, 1999) Later, I asked another center director for her views on this topic. She responded, "National shouldn't mandate to centers, nor should there be a set of common denominators across centers." This creates another set of issues for PGI. As an organization, PGI values the CP. If few to no structures are in place to help benchmark schools and centers against the CP, then every school and center will be unique and different. That may be a goal, but it means that little fidelity to the of PGI will be 196

PAGE 213

observable. This may become a problem for marketing to schools that get CSRD funds and want to implement the PGl "model." A final example: during the same discussion as above. another Congress attendee told the group about a school that was thrilled to be a part of the Group. This school was working hard with "all of the staffs buy in" to implement and live by the CP. However, upon closer inspection this school also has a strong tracking program. When the principal was confronted about it, he told the PGI facilitator that tracking was indeed in existence in the school and would not be changing anytime in the future. (Audible gasps were heard from PGI attendees at this point in the story.) The point is that tracking is contrary to the CP. especially, numberthree"The school's goals should apply to all students" ,-and ten"The schools should demonstrate non-discriminatory and inclusive policies, practices and pedagogies." PGI is developing a set of benchmarks for schools implementing the 10 CP. A draft set had been piloted by a number of PGI schools by the Spring 1999 Congress, and a working group was continuing to address this issue. Early feedback from the pilot schools revealed that the benchmarks were useful for schools. They perceived the benchmarks as a valuable tool that helped deepen their conversations about PGl work in their schools and 197

PAGE 214

helped educators identify their priorities with regard to the CP (PGI document4, 1999). As the "Decade of Demonstration" continues, it will continue to be necessary for PGI to define itself. In a report to PGI on the programmatic work of the PGI centers, the evaluator supports the work of "developing a description of what a well-evolved PGI school looks like". This thinking is in line with other CSR model providers. As a tool, benchmarks can serve both the schools implementing the principles and guide the centers in their work supporting implementation in schools. The benchmarks may evolve into the guide that closes the accountability loop. They may force the question, 'When is a school not a Group school?" Should the school that has a tracking program with no intention of changing it be a member school of the PGI? Very possibly; this school pays dues to the Center, entitling it to services and PGI status. Is paying dues the only criterion for membership in PGl? This would also fly against the principles of the CP. However, as an organization, there is no policy or guide to say that a school that actively supports tracking should not call itself a PGI school, nor does a supportive rationale exist. 198

PAGE 215

Intersections with CSR These issues are certain to affect the scale-up of PGI. The national staff director of public engagement, who is co-directing the benchmark development process, is taking his cues from the Congress. "Your job is to guide national about what they should do about benchmarks. Porter-Obey legislation is a driver of what schools should look like for documentation (Observation data, 1999). The executive director of PGl reinforced the need to document the success of PGI schools and create tools that will strengthen the organization to schools that become funded through CSRD: We need to muster the research base of our success. PGI was panned in the AIR (American Institute of Research) report. Since then, a response has been written that was published in Ed Week. It underscores the focus on our priorities to go more deeply into our work. We have an exposed flank and we need to document the work we've done. Deepening our work through documentation and demonstration and the inquiry project. We need to create data that keeps us viable, standing against AIR types of reports. We need to get clear about the theories that guide our work and will re-evaluate and revisit these in the context to the three priorities to determine ourtarget (Observation data, 1999) In a yearly letter written to the Friends of PGI, Jenks commented on the creation of the Porter-Obey legislation and its potential impact on PGI. He ponders: Is this development bad or good? This new set of reform rules could force PG to be more aggressive. specific. advertising-sensitive and competitive as only the programs that "work" toward some "higher 199

PAGE 216

standard" and which successfully hawk those wares in terms of "buyers" find persuasive and politic survive. We have to decide how to position ourselves in this emerging marketplace-and how to keep our principles intact and persuasive. I cannot overestimate the need to do this over the next few months. The Decade of Demonstration must begin with a whirlwind now. Our "record" must be persuasive and public. and it must be on the competitive table soon or we could grievously suffer. (Letter, January 1998) The Decade of Demonstration has been a positive catalyst for the PGL Schools are becoming smarter about school reform and are less willing to adopt a model based on its marketing strategies or primarily on how the philosophy aligns with that of the teachers. Whether or not the record of PGI is persuasive for consumers is still unanswered. Still, those already involved in the organization are fully invested. As with many other organizations that were "born" before Porter-Obey, PGI will more than likely outlive the current buzz around this wave of reform efforts. How it will evolve in the future is anyone's guess. 200

PAGE 217

CHAPTERS TAKING THE LONG VIEW Obtaining permission from the University of Colorado's Human Subjects Committee to conduct the research for this study required that I assure all of the interviewees anonymity. In addition, references that are specifically associated with a CSR model and that would point the reader to a specific organization have been masked or omitted in the effort to maintain anonymity. To recap, the three comprehensive school reform model organizations in this study, are: CSR 1 = Southern Classical Center, SCC CSR 2 = Belay On Education, BOE CSR 3 = Principled Group, Inc., PGI The intent of this research was to uncover the capacity-building strategies of CSR models. Five capacity "bins" were identified: human, social. organizational. service/product, and capitaL The three CSR organizations employ similar capacity-building activities to strengthen the model and organization. yet each has faced a unique set of challenges resulting in differences across the three organizations. While these three cases can in no way be called a representative sample, they do sufficiently 201

PAGE 218

differ on a number of dimensions permitting an initial elaboration of the issues of growth and capacity-building for organizations such as these. In this chapter, I review the activities employed and identified by the model providers as ones that build the organization's capacity. l have categorized the activities and issues I am about to discuss by the predominant capacity bin that l think they best fit into. For each topic I discuss, a table will demarcate which capacity-bin the topic falls into. I also identify which CSR organization utilized this strategy; they are listed in the column to the right of the capacity-building strategy. In this manner, I will build a chart that illustrates the activities represented in this study and the areas of capacity they enhance. Many commonalities exist across all three organizations that l did not analyze in any depth in the individual case studies. The case studies are highlights of the uniqueness of each organization examined. They share. however, particular similarities, including this short but unexhaustive list: Are all non-profit organizations All began as a program and then grew into the organization known today AJI have web-sites 202

PAGE 219

All use a form of fee for service to contract with schools and districts All provide technical assistance to schools implementing the model I raise this because some important points distinguish the organizations that were not highlighted in their individual cases. Alone, the above set of attributes has less importance, but when analyzing across the cases, many of these items gain importance and have implications for capacity building. Human Caoital Bin l am borrowing the definition of human capital from the economists who have studied it in-depth. They have agreed that human capital consists of ability (which includes knowledge and skills), experiences, commitment, and effort (Davenport, 1999). In CSR organizations, commitment to the work required by the design, knowledge and skill about how to work in schools with educators, and leadership ability within the organization and for the larger organization are but the tip of the human capital iceberg. Not only do the leaders of CSR organizations need to have a grasp of these facets of operating a successful CSR organizations, but they need to have strategies in place to foster these skills and abilities across the organizational ranks of staff (Kouzes & Posner. 1993; Smylie, 1996). 203

PAGE 220

Two points emerged that have meaning for the cases in this study. One is leadership and ways in which it is fostered throughout the organization. A second is the transmission of the culture of the organizations. This occurs through two mediums; the principles that the models were designed from and the use of language specific to the model. Table 8.1: Human Bin Human Leadership SCC. BOE. PGI Principle-based SCC. BOE. PGl Transmission of Culture SCC. BOE. PGI Leadership Leadership within organizations is pivotal for capacity building and for moving an organization out of the entreprenuerial stages of growth and development and into a growth and collectivity stage (Kouzes & Posner. 1993; Quinn & Cameron, 1981 ). In all three CSR organizations, leadership began with an inspired entrepreneur. Organizational growing pains often occur when an organization moves from its early entrepreneurial stage into a professional stage. and, likewise. different leadership styles are more effective in different organizationallifecycle stages (Flamholtz. 1990 ). If leadership capacity is deep enough in the organization (meaning shared by more than one or a few) the transition more likely will be smoother. 204

PAGE 221

All three organizations trace the values and principles of the organization back to the founding leader. In the SCC and PGl, that leader was the person who was the founder of the organization. In BOE, that person was the founder of the larger and more established parent organization, of which BOE is an offspring. BOE splits the leadership of the organization between two people who divide their time, duties, and roles to deliver services to schools and districts. This has not been a problem for the staff or for the schools and districts working with the organization. However, the organization has only one philosophical leader. He was the original founder of the parent organization, where the philosophy for BOE evolved. The two people currently in charge of BOE were among the main authors of their original organizational proposal and remain at the helm of the organization. A leadership change has not yet occurred in this organization. BOE has been proactive in expanding leadership throughout the organization. As noted in the case study, BOE has hired school designers who bring educational expertise that has enriched the organization. They are actively building capacity within the organization. As two of the three organizations have grown. leadership has changed, yet in various ways. ln sec. the leadership of the organization 205

PAGE 222

would be characterized as having a single entrepreneurial leader. though one who is empowering, often asking for feedback and input from his staff regularly. SCC has had four leaders since its founding. Smith the current leader. is establishing the organization in the world of whole-school reform. He has done a lot of work to strengthen the organization after taking over the helm from two prior leaders who were not strong organizationally. Although Smith is perceived as visionary by this staff, he sometimes feels that he is in the shadow of the founder. He admits to perpetuating this by quoting the founder in speeches and in writing about the organization and its philosophy. His personal vision includes making the organization larger than the founding leader. The SCC is still in entrepreneurial stages of organizational growth, securing its niche in the CSR market If Smith is successful at "making the organization larger than the founding leader, .. part of that work will include building the capacity of his staff to take on more decision-making responsibility PGI has access to its original founder. He is still a member of the executive board and has positional power in the organization that no one else quite commands. PGl has made. perhaps, the most radical leadership changes The current executive director is in charge of national activities for 206

PAGE 223

the organization, yet takes direction from the democratic congress that meets biannually. This is a service role akin to servant leadership philosophy (Greenleaf, 1977), which is fundamentally different than other philosophies espousing individual or collaborative leadership traits, skills, and strategies. The founder and executive director provide an interesting mix because leadership is shared somewhat. The founder is given his time and spotlight in front of the organization, which is honored and expected from the member schools and the national staff and executive board. He is heard with keen interest, and his words and ideas are received with greater importance than any one else's. The executive director deftly handles all of the daily operations of the organization. The two confer, but it is clear that the executive director is the person who is the "keeper" of the bottom line. The founder no longer has such responsibilities in the organization. PGI has another layer of leadership to further its complexity. This organization has a very decentralized structure in place (which I will compare in the organizational bin section). The national office and the founder specifically said that it would need to '"diversify the leadership of the organization" if the organization was "going to achieve scale." Hence, PGI has created a governance system in which the leadership lies in the center 207

PAGE 224

directors located across the nation. This decentralized approach can muddy the leadership roles of the actors. The structure of the governance model of the organization has solved this problem, as the overlap of people in their formal leadership roles simplifies the leadership question of who is in charge of what leadership capacity has been built throughout the system, providing many places for leadership to occur and for the ideas and innovations to flow throughout the organization. Principle-based Each of the three models is principle-based. That is. their program was built from of a set of principles instead of a specific instructional need. like improving reading. The principles from two of the three organizations include a specific focus on democracy. sec states that it should prepare all students to. "participate actively in democratic self-governance. n PGI states that. "schools should model democratic practices that involve all who are directly affected by the schooLn Democracy is clearly the theme. However. in sec democracy is a by-product of the quality of schooling provided. while in PGl democracy is the participatory structure used in schools with students. 208

PAGE 225

It comes as no surprise that these two CSR organizations share this and a number of common principles because the founding leaders of both of the organizations worked together for a time in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The philosophical underpinning is that all students should be given the essentials of basic schooling, the same objectives and goals with an equal opportunity to the best education available. BOE does not state democracy as a main focal point of their principles. The organization does join the other two with a focus on student learning that will work toward both imaging and realizing a better world. The importance of being principle-based is that these organizations define themselves first by these principles. They are the value statements that tell everyone who they are, what they stand for, and what they are striving for. For example, during the annual conference of BOE, a platform for literacy was introduced to the participants. It was not a document that stated how reading and writing was to be achieved in these schools. Instead, it had laid out the thinking behind how literacy should be thought about It had the feel of .. this is how we think about literacy as BOE. tt The document did not, however, specify how to teach the subject. Compare that to other CSR organizations. like Success for All, that began first with a program targeting a specific need in education. This 209

PAGE 226

program was designed with the specific intent to raise the reading skills and comprehension levels of students. It was later broadened to address other aspects of whole-school reform and the nine components included in the Porter-Obey legislation. Success for All is a very prescriptive program. Only a few ways can be followed to implement Success for AIL Fidelity to the program and all of its detail is paramount to its success. The materials provided for teachers are very specific and follow a scope and sequence that has been examined and fine-tuned over time. This approach may be easier to measure and track implementation efforts and student achievement. while it is more difficult to measure the implementation efforts of a principle and the direct effects of that principle on raising student achievement (Olsen, 1999). Please remember that my research did not try to determine whether or not a prescriptive or principle-based CSR organization is better or worse than some other. I also did not actively pursue studying whether or not the principles of these three CSR organizations were the motivating or driving factors for many of the decisions each one made as they grappled with issues of growth. What is important is the points at which the principles played a part in the decision-making process by the way the decision unfolded. 210

PAGE 227

The clearest example of this was the discussion that ensued during the PGI spring congress. The group debated about whether or not the affiliation process for centers and schools would be exclusionary, which was contrary to the common principle of democracy and equity. The discussion was directly related to the principle, and the decision was reached by a consensus of the congress. From the perspective of capacity building, this example illustrates how a guiding set of values can act as a fundamental underpinning that, when entered into a decision-making process. was instrumental in moving the collective organization forward. Transmission of Culture In all three conferences that I attended, references were made to "what the [philosophical leader or founder} would say" about a certain issue. This exemplifies how the principles of the three organizations are diffused which is a strategy to communicate cultural aspects of the organization (Morgan, 1986; Schein 1985). Interestingly, in the stages of organizational lifecycles, Flamholtz (1990) identifies "spreading the corporate culturew in the consolidation stage (which is a part of the formalization stage in Quinn & Cameron's (1981) summary model). This is important because the use of 211

PAGE 228

language and the spread of the organization values were exhibited in all three organizations in their earlier stages of organizational development In BOE. many ideas and philosophical strategies are well known in the parent organization. The morning "crew" meeting was one such example. As an activity. crew time is very similar if not exactly like an "advisory" time held in schools across the nation where small groups of students come together with a teacher to discuss emotional or other issues on the minds of students that are not necessarily academic in nature. The main difference is the semantics and language used by BOE. The terminology used provides an extra connection to the philosophy of the organization and acts to perpetuate the culture and values of the organization in the schools it is working with. The idea to incorporate crew time is an activity that re-invokes the founding leader and his ideas on education. Likewise, in the annual meetings of both sec and PGI, the language used by the staff and heard in the speeches made by the organizational leaders was a direct reflection of the values of the organization. I'm glad to be a speaker because I believe my life is a testimony to the power of an education system that emphasizes classical learning. One thing that a classical education did for me was to see the common virtues that all people are achievers. I don't care where you live, or how old you are, the whole notion of honor and service. 212

PAGE 229

and all those things that are at pfay in the great works, they make sense for everybody. (Annual speaker at SCC Conference, 1999) Will the Congress result in equitable action as a result of a democratic decision making process? Is the Congress modeling democracy where all voices are heard and then equitable action is taking place? (Representative at PGI Conference, 1999) Many organizations do not engage in culture definition until they are in the stage of development that stresses formalization and control (Fiamholtz, 1990, Quinn & Cameron, 1981).ln the instance ofCSR organizations, it is a strategy that builds capacity concurrently in the organization and in the schools precisely because it gives a common language for everyone to understand and work from. This is an example of reciprocal capacity building; a strategy that builds capacity simultaneously in the organization and in the clients. For these principle-based organizations, this common language stems directly from the principles of each organization reconfirming the values and principles in all of the people working in and with the CSR organization. The growth of all three of these organizations demanded that the leader delegate and expand the pool of people working in leadership functions to broaden the reach of each organization to serve schools. Enabling a common understanding of the principles occurs across an organization that is more of a network than a cohesive organization through 213

PAGE 230

the use of a common language that stems from the organization's principles. This provides teachers implementing the model and school designers working in various locations the ability to communicate with greater understanding about the model. Building organizational culture is a leadership issue (Schein, 1985). It can be enhanced or thwarted, depending on the strategies used to enhance the flow of communication, networking opportunities, and structures that support disseminating knowledge that builds the model. Turning to the social "bin, I will bridge human capital to the community that these CSR organizations strive to create and sustain. Social Capital Bin Social capital development refers to the social networks, resources, and relationships that contribute to learning (Smylie, 1996).The method most used by CSR organizations to build social capital is through creating and sustaining professional networks for educators engaged in the organization (Firestone & Pennell, 1997; Lieberman & Grolnick 1996). These networks facilitate knowledge-capital creation and dissemination, building educators' and model developers' human capital. The cultural aspects of communication via the principles and common language are 214

PAGE 231

often disseminated through these networking strategies. Employed by all three organizations that support networking, strategies that build and sustain the network are annual conferences and internet web-sites. Table 8.2: Social Bin Social Annual Conferences SCC, BOE. PGI VV'WW SCC, BOE. PGI Annual Conferences Most of the CSR organizations (including the three in this study) mentioned in the Porter-Obey legislation hold annual conferences. All three organizations held conferences that combined sessions facilitated by school developers and teachers implementing the model. These meetings are a Clear example of capacity building for individuals as the conferences are professional development opportunities where individual learning occurs for both attendees and CSR organizational staff (another reciprocal capacity-building activity). Most schools send teams of teachers working together on implementation issues, providing them with a shared experience where they can think deeply and collectively about the work going on in their schooL 215

PAGE 232

Likewise, developers are learning about the schools participating in the organizational network. National staff engages with and observes the teams and can gauge implementation efforts. School developers also have an opportunity to bring new information before the attendees as was illustrated when BOE brought a literacy platform to the conference to gauge feedback from the attendees. Additionally, CSR developers can and do search for potential teachers in schools that could become "ambassadors" of the model, or for school designers working in schools as technical assistance providers to newly implementing teachers in schools. Approximately 250 to 300 people attended sec and BOE's annual conference in 1999. One executive director wondered when a conference would be too large to be effective for networking and community building. Another staff member chimed in, responding that they were already disadvantaged. "It comes with the territory of growth," the staff member said. "After the first meeting when we were only 50 people in the conference, then I knew everyone. After that, I was lost." At some point, too many people attending these conferences will stretch the ability to facilitate community building around the organization and sharing a common set of principles. language. and educational cause. Future conference designs 216

PAGE 233

will need to evolve into a structure that continues to facilitate networking and community building for the members of a larger organization. PGI holds one annual conference a year and a spring and fall Congress. As discussed in the case study on PGI, the Congress is a twoday participatory meeting, to set direction for the whole organization. Attendees reported that they perceived their participation as a professional development opportunity. especially considering that their input directly affected the course of the organization. Many of them felt as if they were demonstrating leadership through their participation for the greater good of the organization. As was noted in Chapter 7, national staff reported learning from the participants; in fact, the whole purpose and design of Congress is to facilitate the communication of information from the representatives to national staff. This aspect of how organizational communication flows and is facilitated has changed over time for all of the models in this study. Web-site Networking Technology The World Wide Web rNWW) has emerged as the technical communication vehicle that supports the networking of organizations like the national CSR models (and for PGI that spills across national borders). 217

PAGE 234

sec was the only model that did not have its web-site up and working spring 1999. They have a web-site, but it was undergoing a major revision and was not available from January 1999 through my data collection activities. Both sec and BOE used their web-sites primarily as marketing tools for their models. Information about the philosophy, news clippings about schools that have made gains, information about how to become a school that implements the model, listings of teacher professional development opportunities, and information about how to contact the organization for more information are readily available. Links to other reform models and organizations also in the CSR business are included. All of the information mostly electronic marketing is about the CSR model. In addition to all of the marketing material included on other web sites, PGI has taken another step with its web-site. PGI uses its web-site to link centers and schools. PGI is also developing an online toolkit that anyone can access and use. This toolkit includes protocols, best practice activities and resources that have been developed and implemented in schools. One such tool is used in "critical friends groups" (these are partnered schools providing feedback on challenges, or brainstorming 218

PAGE 235

ideas). The web-site serves as another vehicle to spread new ideas throughout the schools affiliated with the modeL The web-site has all the notes from previous meetings posted on the web, making the Congress deliberations public to everyone. It also includes electronic versions of its newsletter and links to all of the centers and many of the schools affiliated with the organization. This use of a web-site for a national organization spreads and disseminates information, and gives a virtual place for teachers using the model to come together to share information and learn new things. When these people then meet each other at the conferences or meetings, they have more to connect with each other about. Web-sites that go beyond marketing can become a powerful capacitybuilding vehicle if developed with that purpose in mind (Dede, 1998). Updating and changing information regularly are rarely cared for by a fulltime webmaster in CSR organizations; the resources needed stretch the organization with higher-order technical assistance needs. However, as a strategy to reach out to schools that are in isolated and rural areas, or to schools that did not receive CSRD funds and are interested in learning about and adopting the model to their school culture, web-sites are potentially an influential medium. 219

PAGE 236

Increasingly, web-site development will change for CSR model providers as they develop and broaden their use of resources. One idea that is taking hold across other organizations is the use of the WWW to provide online professional development opportunities (Dede, 1998). Perhaps CSR model providers will consider the use of their web-site as a vehicle to work with teachers during the interim times when technical assistance providers are not physically in the school. The web provides great potential for capacity building for more than marketing purposes. Organizational Bin CSR organizations build capacity through how well they navigate their internal organizational processes for growth (Flamholtz et al., 1992). All organizations go through a series of transitions during their early stages of development (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Kimberly & Miles, 1980; Quinn & Cameron, 1981 ). CSR and other organizations must overcome the liabilities of newness and smallness (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Stinchecombe, 1965) if they are to sustain themselves over time. This section reviews how the CSR organizations have structured themselves in order to serve their dients. Each evolved in its organization structure, all of them beginning as "nested" in another "parent'" organization, 220

PAGE 237

and each of them are currently in a different stage contemplating becoming an autonomous organization. Table 8.3: Organizational Bin Organizational Organizational Structure J SCC, BOE, PGl Nested in Parent Organization l SCC, BOE, PGl Organizational Structure In the beginning, a "national" office, a small staff, and a handful of schools constituted each organization (see Figure 8.1 ). As time elapsed these organizations grew, all three developing differently. sec remains housed in a Figure 8.1: Organizational Structure One university. It has a small national office of 6 full-time staff and one graduate / t assistant. Everyone but the business -t manager works direcUy in schools in "l Figure 8.1 some fashion. The organization serves schools in multiple states, mostly crustered in the south, with some schools in the Midwest and on both coasts. 221

PAGE 238

How does the sec staff serve schools across the geographical distribution? The answer is, the organization has created two professional development schools, both in partnership with a university to supply the model with teachers who are trained or have exposure to the model while in pre-service education courses (Figure 8. 2). Figure 8.2: Organizational Structure Two sec also has established a "national faculty." The executive director CSIITaliat \\ \ called these handpicked educators r-J\\ ]\ -l j 1 1 ambassadors" of the model. This cadre I 1 \ of 20 master educators work in schools '\ l $ / and districts nationwide and are L" connected to the National center through email, summer institutes, and the annual conference. Partnering with the university has increased the capacity of the organization to deliver services to more teachers in schools. and creates an avenue for professional development of staff in the sec. BOE follows a similar plan. ln the annual conference, the executive diredor keeps an eye out for excellent teachers whom he believes are 222

PAGE 239

implementing the model in schools in extraordinary ways. These master teachers then work in newly implementing schools providing technical assistance. This model (Figure 8.3) of using "teachers in the know" to partner with new schools has worked well, and BOE has added an additional layer of management to work with all of the school designers. Figure 8.3: Organizational Structure Three School Designer The Regional designers depicted in Figure 8.3 work with the school designers who work directly with A..,;onal \ I /I -... _&, Y schools. Remember that this -tstrategy also frees up the national / l "" Schools =.. * staff (who, by and large, are not educators) for other organizational Schoof Designer activities. Maybe it is because they are older, maybe they have been around the reform block a few more times, probably it is because of the recommendations of the Future committee, but PGl has gone to an approach that is distinct from the other two organizations in this study. 223

PAGE 240

Figure 8.4: Organizational Structure Four As described in their case study and shown in Figure 8.4, PGI has decentralized its operations making centers the primary service providers to schools. Representation at Congress, which serves as the governing body of the organization, includes schools, centers, and the executive board. The national office staff acts in service of the organization. This model is similar to that of BOE. Very few of the national staff members in BOE and none of the national staff of PGI directly provide technical assistance to teachers in schools. Both model providers have structured their organizations to foster a decentralized approach to providing technical assistance. They both value placing teachers with teachers to work on implementation. sec is smaller than both of the other two organizations and it has taken on a similar set of activities. sec may be at the cusp of a growth spurt that both of the other organizations have already passed through. 224

PAGE 241

As "network" organizations (Nohria, 1992). both BOE and PGl have been innovative in creating a structure that reaches a large number of teachers and schools with a small number of staff. Partnerships with universities, national faculties, and master teachers build the capacity of the organization to reach more educators, while building the knowledge capacity of the individuals within the organization. These partnerships also add value to the service provided to teachers in schools implementing the CSRmodeL "Nested" in the Parent Organization Another commonality across the CSR model providers is that they all began under the wing of another organization and have, or are considering, moving out on their own and becoming autonomous. sec and PGI both began as programs in a university. sec remains housed in a school of education, enjoying office space, two graduate assistantships. and the name recognition that the unl'lersity lends to the modeL PGl was initially housed at a prominent university on the East coast. The executive director ran the program and was a professor in the school of education. As the program grew. the executive director found himself spending more time fundraising and giving speeches at various educational 225

PAGE 242

conferences around the nation. When a very large grant was secured, some disagreement arose about how much of it would support the program, and more importantly, whether the national center for school reform that was to be established with the funds would subsume the program. It became clear to the executive director that a change of location was needed. PGI pulled up all stakes at the university and moved to the West coast where it is now an autonomous non-profit organization. BOE is a model with a different family history. BOE began as a program in an already existing non-profit organization. Over time. it has grown to be larger than the "parent" organization and is currently considering becoming an autonomous organization. It is unique in that it, in part, financially supports its "parent" organization. The oldest organization has struck out on its own. The younger and larger "sibling" is about leave, and the older, yet smaller "sibling" is contemplating independence. As the executive director of BOE said, "We are all now facing the same issues. Do we continue to be a child in the family, or should we go out and find an apartment of our own?" As earlier noted. all of these and many other CSR organizations began housed as a program in university. At some point, the program becomes too large (like BOE), forms a separate identity (Kimberly, 1979), 226

PAGE 243

and moves toward gaining autonomy from the "parent organization." The growing pain and leadership challenge is gauging when the right time is to move out on one's own. Recently, the Accelerated School Project (ASP) faced a setback when the plan fell apart for it to move from its current location at Stanford to another university (Viadero, 1999 ). In addition, ASP is facing new demands to serve schools and is transitioning from its founding father, Hank Levin, who has left his post as executive director because of age, illness, and different interests. Even an organization of 13 years with the national reputation of ASP can face significant setbacks during a transition of this type. In terms of capacity building, when is the right time to move out from the "parent" is a leadership issue and strategic decision. The recent trend in CSR organizations is toward moving to an autonomous organizational structure. This will be a point to examine in the future story of CSR organizations. Whether or not the CSR organizations are housed in a school of education or paying rent for facilities, another commonality shared by all is delivering services to schools. 227

PAGE 244

Product/Service Bin The products and services delivered to educators and schools comprise this bin. As discussed earlier, the quality of professional development and technical assistance days is a study in itself, so I have limited the scope of this study to the various activities that CSR organizations provide to educators. All of the CSR organizations provide onsite technical assistance to educators during the school year although the number of days differs across models. Most of them also offer summer institutes or other in-depth summer educational opportunities. Almost all of the CSR model providers in the Northwest Regional Laboratory catalogue (1998) hold annual conferences, and send newsletters to support the network of educators involved in the model. Two important aspects of service delivery that surfaced in this study are the use of master teachers and benchmarks. Table 8.4: Service/Product Bin Service/Product Master Teachers SCC, BOE Benchmarks SCC, BOE. PGl 228

PAGE 245

Importance of Master Teachers As already discussed, master teachers, who take a leave of absence or are on "special assignment or loan" to the CSR organization from school districts, are an asset to the teachers with whom they work and to the modeL These teachers generate new learning and information on implementation techniques that can be disseminated and then applied throughout the CSR model provider. They are carriers of new ideas and techniques that can quickly spread among the model's adherents. These teachers are especially important to model providers who are not as well founded in education. That is why this is a particularly useful capacity-building strategy to the staff of BOE. The executive diredor knows the importance of making excellent choices when picking future "master teachers, to become school designers. The other two CSR models do not rely as heavily on teachers to learn about education. In PGl, the centers are the primary providers of technical assistance, and the staff of sec is comprised of educators. These people are also educators by training and trade and are as equally concerned about the quality of the teacher "ambassadors ... Instead, their concerns are about teachers and their ability to implement the model with the fidelity that they are striving to achieve. 229

PAGE 246

In the sec, master teachers join forces with the existing staff to reach a greater number of teachers. For the BOE, master teachers enable the organization to reach more schools and add to the educational knowledge and skill-set of the organization. BOE strategically fostered the use of master teachers to build organizational capacity. Benchmarks lt makes sense that the model providers have spent much of their development time creating the technical service component for their model. This is fundamentally about providing staff development to a group of teachers across the nation to affect their teaching and their students' learning. Without doubt, each model provider has tinkered with the formula for delivering technical assistance to schools to find out how best to deliver it consistently and over a broad spectrum of schools. One of the tools that a number of the models are creating, including the three in this study, is a set of benchmarks. AU three CSR model providers in this study have already developed or are in the process of developing benchmarks for the model and participating schools. Two of the three organizations in this study created benchmarks based on the principles of the organization. (SCC is working on 230

PAGE 247

its first draft The benchmarks were not available at the time of data collection.) Below are two examples. BOEs benchmark document begins with five core practices (as described in Chapter 5). They are reaming adventures, reflection and critique, school culture, school structures, and school review. Each core practice is broken into categories. Core practices included in the learning adventure core practice are: planning, teaching and improving learning adventures, engaging and motivating students, assessment, critique, and revision, expecting high achievement. PGI is piloting two versions of benchmarks. One is called the "principle format" and the other is the "category" format The principle format has the principles at the head of each page. Underneath are five categories that are applied to every principle. The categories are student achievement, classroom practice, organizational practice, community connections. and leadership. The category format places student achievement, classroom practice, and so on at the top of the page with indicators of the common principles found in each category. Both sets of benchmarks have multiple foci, including the student the classroom, and the school. Under each category are indicators for students, teachers, and school leadership (principals and administrators). 231

PAGE 248

Both of these documents are aimed at providing clarity for the schools to "know what to look for" when they assess their progress on model implementation. Over the course of this spring while attending three different national conferences on comprehensive school reform, I heard that the most important factor in determining success of a model in a school is "implementation, implementation, implementation." Longtime school-reform researcher Sam Stringfield (Olsen. 1999) agrees. "Across every single one of those studies, implementation matters a lot. Implementation matters regardless of the program" (p. 29) Benchmarks raise two important points about capacity building. One is about fidelity to the design. Another is how they guide and teach staff working in schools about what to observe in the schools implementing the model. The tool is used in multiple ways for different audiences. Although PGI prides itself on "standards without standardization" many questions about fidelity to the principles were raised during the meetings that I attended. "Does anyone know what a PGl school looks like?" a national staff member queried the group. "Should they all look alike?" was the response from another. The benchmarks help everyone have a clearer understanding of what the model (and in the case of PGl, the 232

PAGE 249

principles) looks like in schools. PGI has also developed a rubric used in the process of assessing how a center joins the organization. BOE conducts implementation school site checks using the benchmarks conducted by a team from the school and district and at least one national staff member. A report is generated and is used in the school improvement planning process for the following year. The benchmarks are used in determining implementation progress in individual schools, plus serving as a tool that monitors fidelity across all of the schools implementing the model. In addition, the benchmarks also serve as a teaching tool for staff members of BOE. Remembering again that many of the national staff has varying degrees ofK-12 education training. the benchmarking tool is a vehicle for the staff to understand and learn about what a model school should look like. The benchmarks provide a blueprint that guide staff to view diagnostically the school in which they are working. This tool builds individual knowledge capacity in the CSR model staff and in the teachers implementing the model. In addition. it builds organizational capacity through clarity about model components and fidelity to the model. 233

PAGE 250

Recent Benchmark Developments This past spring, NAS unveiled a draft set of standards and performance indicators for designs for the purpose of ensuring the quality of models, which work with schools. From the introduction (New American Schools, 1999, p.1 ): CSRDP significantly increased demand for DBA [design based assistance} models. A the DBA models try to sustain their current level of services while simultaneously increasing their capacity to meet demand, maintaining quality becomes a major challenge. Standards for DBA bring order to this fast growing market by providing schools with a means to measure performance and separate quality designs from sub-standards models. John Anderson, the current president of NAS. spoke at length about the need for these standards and what they are intended to measure in model providers. The four main categories addressed in the standards are: 1. Foundational underpinnings of the design 2. Delivery system of professional services 3. Strategy for implementation of the design 4. Business operations and management of the design Anderson's vision is that these standards will be used by all model providers. especially those affiliated with NAS. l include this because of the growing importance of measuring the quality of CSR models and the tools currently under development to measure quality. These tools have multiple 234

PAGE 251

uses. They can be used to measure progress gained by a model in each of the categories, and they can facilitate charting the course for continuous improvement which is tied to organizational capacity building. Capital Bin In early March 1999, the Department of Education hosted a one-day meeting, inviting CSR model developers, a few federal laboratory directors, and other leaders in comprehensive school reform to discuss strategies to support model providers in the efforts to scale-up their work. The first issue put on the table was capital. Few doubt that CSR models need funds to grow their business as evidenced here from model developers in attendance (OERI, 1999) We're trying to operate in the not-for-profit world and we desperately rack capitaL We lack access to loans, to lines of credit for things that any business would have ready access to. If we had capital, we could deal with our own cash flow problems. We could hire our own consultants if we felt as though we needed them, we could deaf with the scale up issues which really involve hiring more trainers, training trainers, instituting quality control mechanisms, all the things we know very well we have to do. But they cost money. (Model developer) were getting better in knowing what it costs us to work with a school of a certain size over a period of time. and we can arrange our prices accordingly. When we began, NAS was paying full freight for everybody, but when we went to the market so to speak, we didn't 235

PAGE 252

quite know how to price ourselves. We'd way underpriced. (Model developer) What's going to kill the design teams, and I mean kill in the real sense of dead. is going to be a lack of capital, not a lack of advice. (Model developer) All of the models in this study use a "fee for service" approach to contracting with schools for technical assistance. However, none of the models began that way. In fact. all three of the CSR organizations in this study began with capital primarily from grants and foundations to launch their model in schools. As non-profit organizations they can access grant money from foundations that are looking for avenues to invest. often in the social sector. Table 8.5: Capital Bin Capital Foundation Grants SCC, BOE, PGl Venture Capital BOE Foundation grants As noted in Chapter two, foundations often change their preferences for funding. The winds of change in foundation funding priorities and short funding cycles creates the ongoing need for the CSR model to spend a fair 236

PAGE 253

amount of time fundraising. This job usually falls on the shoulders of the executive director, stealing time away from managing the organization, thinking about school reform, and strengthening the model. At issue here is that foundation grants help the programming side of the business, but they cannot be used to build the organization's own capacity. Grants to organizations like the CSR organizations provide incentives for the organization to devise innovative programs, but they do little to encourage CSR models to spend time assessing the strengths, goals and needs of their own organization. As a result, the CSR model providers lack the organizational resources to scale-up the model they have designed. This is not to advocate that CSR models should never raise funds from foundations. I mention it because it is another example of timing connected to the lifecyde stage of the CSR organization. In the early stages of entrepreneurship and early growth, .. soft funds" that seed the project in its research and development phase are important for the organization to get off the ground. Recently, the U.S. Department of Education awarded this type of money to support the creation of new CSR models that focus on middle schools (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). 237

PAGE 254

Sole reliance on "soft funds," however, will ultimately be detrimental to these organizations because of potential fluctuations in foundation funding. As a note, all of the CSR organizations in this study use a fee for service structure. None of them did. when they began, and all of the organizations experienced growing pains over the lack of knowledge about what services cost (hidden and actual), overhead, and other aspects of operating a third-party-provider organization for schools. Deficit Spending When CSR organizations diversified their revenue sources, a new set of challenges emerged. As is mentioned in the case study of sec (and this is true for BOE as well), a lag-time occurs between the time that school accounts are opened, made operational, and become available for the organization to draw against. and when the organization begins providing technical assistance to the schools or district. Typically, the organization begins to provide services to the schools well before the funds are in the bank. As a result. they are stretched financially, often drawing money from an account earmarked for internal organizational work, like developing the web-site, to cover the costs of technical assistance until the money is secured in the bank. This cycle of borrowing from one account to cover 238

PAGE 255

services (the priority), creates difficulty for the organization in getting ahead on internal organizational development. As one provider said, Our design has three gurus, and they've got their own things to raise money for, so they have less available time and energy to raise money for this. So the financial squeeze. We need to be cautious about spending money, incurring debt, etc. We don't have the money to back ourselves up so we're very careful about taking risks. PGI has similar problems. only these occur at the level of the centers. Each one fundraises for itself to augment fees for services provided. However. national is also fundraising. creating problems because both a center and national were courting the same funder, creating confusion for the funder and embarrassment for the organization. While national pursues grants that it offers to all of the centers. these typically support work on one of the larger organizational goals. Centers, in tum, offer schools in the network the opportunity to apply for these grants which labels national a granting agency within the organization. Leaders in all of the organizations reported that having surplus funds would take care of this problem, yet none of the organizations were able to save the amount on their own. This is a lifecycle issue (Flamholtz, 1990; Kimberly, 1979; Quinn & Cameron, 1981) and one attributed in particular to non-profit organizations (Letts, Ryan & Grossman, 1999). Borrowing from 239

PAGE 256

the success of Silicon Valley "VC angels," infusions of venture capital in CSR organizations is a strategy that can build capacity in the organization. Venture Capital A unique wrinkle in the CSR organization finance issue is the story of BOE. Two factors are worth noting. First. the president of the organization was a fundraiser in his prior job and was so successful that as a result of his work BOE was supporting the "parent" organization (an example of leadership and successful use of business skills}. Second, when the president foresaw the deficit caused by the cycle of funding from the districts to BOE, he approached the board of the "parent organization" and asked them to raise money especially for the organization. The "parent" organization had the capacity and the reach to attract $2 million dollars to support BOE when needed. BOE also grew as a direct result of the financial and organizational support that NAS provided. NAS is essentially a venture-capital organization established to provide the seven CSR models in its portfolio with large grants over a longer period of time than most foundations will to develop and grow the model (Letts et aL. 1999}. Additionally, NAS consults with the models and contracts with business consultants who can advise the designs 240

PAGE 257

on business issues related to growing their organizations. NAS has clear accountability measures for the models and financial support is specifically targeted at building the organizational capacity of each NAS design. NAS has played a significant role in the development of BOE, who is the youngest but by no means the smallest or weakest of the three CSR organizations in my research. Supporting the capacity building of CSR organizations to enhance their services, update materials, fund web-site development or develop new technology to serve new constituents (e.g., rural areas) is an area of need for CSR organizations. NAS is currently the only broker of such services. However, during the March 1999 capacity building meeting held by the USDOE. NAS' model of brokering funds to CSR models and the role it plays was widely discussed. As a result, in early October, the Department of Education awarded $8.7 million dollars "to assist providers of technical assistance in comprehensive school reform to increase capacity" (p. 2). Conclusions In this chapter. I reviewed the activities employed and identified by the model providers as ones that build the organization's capacity. I have categorized the activities and issues by the predominant capacity bin that l 241

PAGE 258

think they best fit into. However, as most of the activities identified overlap into more than one bin, the table below identifies the secondary bins in which they overlap. To illustrate, look at how issues of leadership are tied to organizational structure. The discussion is fargerthan the human, social, or the organizational bin. It does, instead, encompass all three. The data overlaps bins, which I perceive as strength in capacity building because as the individual parts grow and overlap, the total is stronger as a result (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996). The overlapping of capacity-building activities is one of the most important points gleaned from this study. The staff members of these organizations were not aware of all the ways in which some of the activities were building the capacity of the organization. Table 8.6 is the culmination of each of the activities discussed and the capacity building bins they overlap. Scanning the table shows more strategies falling into the human and social bins. The organizational bin is the most full while the capital bin is the emptiest My explanation for this is because of the nature of the business of CSR organizations. They are in the business of working with people. The product and service they sell relies on people for success. However. it is equally important to be aware of how full the capital bin is or is not From this table, one can assume that more strategies are needed to 242

PAGE 259

:::0 CD "0 a a. c (') CD a. :if: ;:::;: :::T "0 CD 3 u; CJl a :::J 0 ....., :::T CD 8 "0 '< ...,
PAGE 260

support the business and financial side of CSR organizations. One could also make the assumption that the capital bin is empty because CSR organizations are focused first on delivering services to schools and second on building a sustainable organization. Although this can be attributed to age and organizationallifecycle development it is clear that attention to both are needed. In the next chapter, I tum to the lessons learned and implications that can be applied to other CSR organizations 244

PAGE 261

CHAPTER9 GROWING PAINS AND CAPACITY BUILDING Comprehensive school reform organizations are like other organizations as they develop and mature. The three organizations that I examined all went through stages of development that compared favorably with the stages discussed in chapter three. As with all models, the theory is reported with clear lines of demarcation from one stage to the next. I cannot report that my findings are as clear as the stages outlined by the organizationallifecycle theorists. While the organizations that I studied did not fit squarely into any single category, I would characterize sec as predominantly in stage two, "Growth and Collectivity" (Quinn & Cameron, 1981) and PGI in stage three. "Formalization and Control." Finally, I would place BOE in transition between the two stages. In the summary model developed by Quinn and Cameron (1981). the growth and collectivity stage is described with the following organizational attributes: (a) an informal communication structure; (b) sense of collectivity; {c) long hours spent; (d) innovative; and (e) high commitment It is a stage of characterized by rapid growth (Downs. 1967). 245

PAGE 262

expansion (Fiamholtz, 1990), and by whatAdizes (1979) called the "go-go" organization. The emphasis is on developing the product, developing operations, and expanding resources (Flamholtz, 1990). Both the BOE and sec were engaged in developing their service and expanding it into new schools and districts across the nation. Examples specific to the sec were discussed by a staff member who pushed for the first strategic planning process in the organization. She also advocated for a regularly scheduled monthly staff meeting and facilitated the first training guide for new staff in the organization. The third stage called "Formalization and Control," is characterized by the creation of a management structure with operations, clarity of roles and policies. PGI has a stabile organizational structure and Congress is an example of a procedure that is becoming institutionalized. While this sounds less sexy than stage two, understand that a lot of commitment, energy, and enthusiasm was exhibited at the Congress that I attended. It was by no means mundane. l also think that, while PGl is in stage three, all three organizations dabble in this stage of consolidation. The culture building work of all three organizations (which is typified in this stage) through language and activities, such as "crew," that build specific cultural norms. is an example that points to this stage. 246

PAGE 263

While BOE is expanding their services and adding new sites to the BOE organization network, it is also engaged in formalizing structures and operations. The development of benchmarks is an example of what I would characterize BOE as transitioning into the formalization and control stage. In addition, both the sec and BOE exhibited many examples of leadership by the executive directors associated with stage one, "Entrepreneurship." The leaders of these organizations were often generating new ideas and ways to expand the reach of the organization as reported by other staff. As this discussion illustrates, these organizations do not neatly fall into one stage or another. The process is not linear in nature, instead, growth is more organic, driven by a complex set of factors. All three had survived their liabilities of newness (Stinchecombe, 1965), were experiencing common organizational growing pains (Fiamholtz, 1990), and were facing other issues that were unique to each organization. For example, considering organizational beginnings and partnerships. while all three had begun "nested" in another organization (SCC and PGl in a university}, and BOE in another non-profit organization. only PGI had left the university to become an autonomous entity. The other two CSR models reported considering this idea and will, most likely. become independent from their original sponsoring organizations. 247

PAGE 264

This example also highlights how each organization, when faced with a similar issue (remain with the "parent" organization or become independent), may make different choices according to contextual factors affecting each. The specific journey that each organization takes may be similar when taking the long view of development, but each situation will have its own circumstances that affect the steps along the way. As with students, everyone is unique, and they will each follow their own path to success. Finally. each of the organizations did engage in capacity-building activities, although for the most part. I expect that none of them considered the activities from that perspective. I do think that this signals a lesson to which I now tum. Given what has been learned from the specific cases of SCC, BOE, and PGI and the more general problems facing CSR model providers of growing an organization while providing services, four lessons can be drawn for consumers, CSR model providers, and potential funders when approaching comprehensive school reform. Lessons in Capacity-Building The four lessons that can be drawn from this study are: (a) scalingup is more than increasing the numbers of schools implementing a CSR 248

PAGE 265

model; (b) success as a third party provider requires strong business skills and knowledge about education reform and its complexities; (c) all organizations face growing pains; and, (d) all organizations began small. Each lesson is discussed in the following sections. Lesson One Scaling-up is not just about increasing the numbers of schools using a model. Scaling-up is dependent upon increasing the capacity of everyone involved in the effort associated with comprehensive school reform. It is clear that all of the organizations must be able to sustain their own growth while serving schools. Those organizations that are proactive about the need to build capacity will no doubt be more strategic and stable as organizations than those that are more reactive in their growth strategies. Thinking about capacity building through building value and capability will further development more than considering gaining assets and increasing numbers. For CSRDP to be an effective federal program, increasing the capacity of all model providers to deliver quality services successfulry to schools is important Activities and tools that create opportunities for reciprocal capacity building is a plus for schools and model providers. Tools such as model 249

PAGE 266

benchmarks both help the CSR organization build the knowledge and skill base among their staff to provide higher quality technical assistance and provide a useful framework for schools and educators implementing the model. As standards for model providers emerge in the next year or two, the quality of assistance and overall CSR organizational viability will likely increase, assuming that the standards are adopted and enforce by the CSR community. Likewise, annual conferences enhance individual educator's knowledge and understanding about their model while building a network of support with their peers. Even better, annual conferences deepen the knowledge and understanding of the model providers about their work in schools. Conference activities that facilitate learning for everyone involved (conference hosts and attendees) increases everyone's knowledge and experience base. Finally, using websites as a tool for disseminating information as well as a forum for educators to network and discuss and share their challenges and successes in their implementation work can increase the knowledge and understanding of both implementers and model providers. Capacity building cannot occur in a vacuum. Model providers need support too. Districts and schools should inquire about what partnerships or 250

PAGE 267

other supports model providers have at their disposaL The majority of these organizations are not mature enough to stand completely on their own and be the sole source of school-reform knowledge and tools. CSR models are educational non-profits in need of venture capital organizations or .. to support start-up efforts. Foundations need to consider altering their funding strategies towards supporting high performing non-profits or create venture capital organizations modeled after New American Schools. Another option is for states to allocate venture capital seed money from state coffers to support start-up in individual states. The capital streams for start-up educational non-profits need to be broadened. Lesson Two It is not enough to be an educator with a good idea or a business person with a good idea. Success in the arena of third-party providing for schools requires both: an entreprenuerial mindset about business and a deep understanding of the complexities of education and reform. Only one of the models in my study had a strong balance between the two distinct skiUsets needed. The leader of this model has a strong business sense and has been very successful at hiring experienced educators as staff in order 251

PAGE 268

to serve schools. This person knew the knowledge and skill gaps in the organization and purposefully filled them to strengthen both. The chart culminating the capacity-building strategies in chapter eight showed less attention paid to the financial side of operating a successful organization. It is equally important to invest in building a business as educational ideas. Lesson Three All organizations face growing pains whether they are new and just starting out or have been around for 30 years. It is important for the consumers who will purchase the services of these organizations to understand the viability of the organization with which they are considering contracting. Prior information on CSR written for schools and districts discussed the need to be "savvy consumers" (Education Commission of the States, 1998; Hassel, 1998). It is not enough to ask about the educational content of the organization. It is equally important to know and understand how the organization fares from a business point of view. Annual reports, business plans. and strategic plans should be as important to the decision making process as content and philosophy. 252

PAGE 269

Lesson Four The Catch-22 of risk-taking: many district personnel and administrators are not willing to purchase a CSR design unless it has been replicated. Schools are warned not to take risks on the newest and youngest models. However, it is important to remember that all models at one time were entrepreneurial, young, small, and figuring it out as they were growing. These early pioneers in this new medium of third-party providers for schools and districts will be joined with another crop of school reform modefs in the not so distant future. (The US DOE recently announced a $8.7 million fund specifically earmarked to seed the design and birth of a new set of CSR designs.) Some of them will be successful, others will be less so. but the majority of them will try themselves out on the schools that will experiment with schools. For this reason alone, it maybe helpful to have a better understanding of the issues of organizational growth and ways to build on the capacities of an organization. Remember, almost all of the CSR designs began as an idea in the mind of someone in a small university office. 253

PAGE 270

What Might We Want to Know Next? What goes around, comes around. Organizational life existed and schools were served before the Porter-Obey legislation, and organizational life for many of these CSR models will continue long after CSR is history in the educational journals chronicaling other reforms of the century. Is the life-cycle theory helpful in understanding the issues present in these organizations? Are we better or less equipped to answer questions about what builds capacity? Where does this take us? What might someone want to know as a result of this work? This study has been rewarding on many fronts for myself. As a lifelong learner, I am pleased to report that I am completing this work with more questions than I have answers or lessons. Here are a few of them. Question One Will a scope and sequence for reform using CSR models be developed? Kentucky spent years putting systems in place for reform and are currently interested in contracting with a number of models to support schools (R. Pafaich. June 1999, personal communication). Other states have districts that bought CSR models and are realizing the need to change systemic pieces (e.g., resource reallocation or state funding for 254

PAGE 271

professional development) in order to have a more holistic strategy. Does one take precedence over the other? Will doing the systemic work make it easier for CSR models to be effective in schools, or does implementing models accelerate the impact of larger systemic issues? Both are necessary: the foundational environment that fosters choice for districts and a menu of models that can be chosen by individual schools and districts. Neither buying a design nor putting standards in place is the end of the road, it is only the beginning. Question Two What limits what CSR model providers can and should do? Starting with what they can do, many of them can and do deliver technical assistance to schools. This typically begins with discussion about the model and its philosophical underpinnings and then spreads to specific instructional techniques that are aligned with the modeL CSR organizations typically are first concerned with changing teaching and affecting learning (especially when student achievement and test scores are at stake). Is it appropriate to expect CSR model providers to provide quality assistance with other components of a systemic reform plan like reallocating resources? Most of the CSR organizations understand the need for 255

PAGE 272

resource reallocation to take place in schools and districts, but should they be expected to provide the type of assistance necessary to support districts and schools with their efforts? Question Three What is the actual carrying capacity of CSR models? lf one projects that every public school in the nation will at some point adopt a CSR model, the total number of available schools for adoption is 11,500. The survival of the fittest will weed out a number of CSR organization, while changes in the environment will likely rule some models obsolete and others as the "one to adopt" as a result of the changing needs of schools. Will the culling process of expanding markets and filling educational niches lead to an optimum number of models? Question Four What will CSR models look like in 30 years? Will they have evolved into full-service providers of curriculum and instruction certifying pre-service teachers in model philosophies as I projected in the first chapter? Will they be institutions so bureaucratized that they are the targets of '"reform"? What 256

PAGE 273

will the organizations that I studied look like after another 30 years in existence? How will they measure up on the lifecycle theory? Question Five Considering other organizations similar in structure and mission to CSR models. what can we learn from them so that CSR models can accelerate their growth or effectiveness? Have NGOs survived challenges that are similar to those that CSR models will face? Do successful NGOs have something to teach CSR model providers? Do non-profit CSR organizations develop and mature similarly to or distinctly differently from for-profit CSR organizations? What growing pains do they each experience? Question Six l have learned through this study that replication of a model cannot and does not occur in one particular fashion. When thinking about replication and especially for principle-based organizations that are less prescriptive-what is the balance of prescription and looseness when it comes to fidelity of the design? lt appears that the farther away from the national office. the harder it is to manage fidelity. Does fidelity matter if 257

PAGE 274

student achievement is rising and teachers are feeling good about their craft, their work with their students, and their colleagues? In Closing Building capacity in education is beginning to be discussed in increasingly wider circles in education. It is difficult to maintain the level of support that CSR model providers are projecting over multiple years. As a topic for study, it clearly needs more attention. Additionally, given the rise of charter schools and both non-and for-profit education organizations, studying the organizational lifecycles of entities such as these will provide new insights into these models as they continue to market their services to schools and districts. l hope that this work and the questions that I pose ignite further interest in the topic and spur continued study in this area. As Polanyi (1966) reminds us that "we can know more than we can tell" (p. 136) so it is with the completion of this dissertation. 258

PAGE 275

Spring, 1999 Name Address City, State, Zip APPENDIX A LETTER OF CONSENT Dear ________________ __ You have been selected to take part in a dissertation study conducted by Debra Banks, a doctoral student at the University of Colorado at Denver. The research study is entitled Capacity-building Strategies of Comprehensive School Reform Models. Elements of the study include reviewing comprehensive school reform model artifacts, annual reports, strategic plans, and marketing materials. It also includes interviewing the execUtive director and personnel about how their organization is growing and the activities they are engaged in to sustain their organizational growth. During the interview, you will be asked to respond to a number of questions about comprehensive school reform and more specifically, your experience in your organization. Participation in the study is voluntary. If you choose to participate, your insights and thoughts will be incorporated into the data that is a part of the dissertation. It is important that you understand that in some cases, direct quotes will be used. At other times, answers will be incorporated into categorical responses. The possible social, economic, or psychological, risks associated with participating in this study will be minimized by using pseudonyms versus actual names of participants. The name of the organization will be changed to further confidentiality. Information gathered will not be shared with other personnel from the organization. It is also 259

PAGE 276

important to know that you are able to withdraw at any time from participating. If you agree to participate in the study, please sign and detach the consent form and return it to me in the enclosed envelope, or fax it to me. A copy of the form will be made available at the interview. The form should be returned to me no later than May 10, 1999. Interviews will take place in May. You will be contacted, and a date, time, and location for the interview will be established. The interview will take between an hour and an hour and a half. It will be recorded to ensure accuracy. The interview responses will remain confidential and will be safeguarded at the researcher's home. No one except the researcher will have access to taped or written responses. A list of participanfs names will not be made available. If you would like more information before returning the consent form you may contact Debra Banks at (303) xxx-xxxx or by email: dbanks@csd.net. I can be reached at this number and email address at any time during, and following, the study. This dissertation is being conducted under the supervision of Professor Rod Muth University of Colorado at Denver, School of Education Campus Box 106 PO Box 173364 Denver, CO 80217-3364 If you have specific questions regarding your rights as a subject, concerns regarding this project, or dissatisfaction with any aspect of the study, you may report them to the Office of Academic Affairs CU Denver Building Suite 700 Denver, CO 80217-3364 Thank you for your willingness to participate in this research project. Sincerely, Debra Banks 260

PAGE 277

Consent to Participate I agree to participate in the research study, Capacity-building Strategies of Comprehensive School Reform Models. I am willing to meet with the investigator, Debra Banks. I have provided my name, telephone number, email address (if I have one) and information on the best time to contact me. I understand that every effort will be made to keep my responses to the interview questions completely confidential and that my name and the name of my organization will not be used in the study. I know that I can withdraw from this study at any time. Name ---------------------------------------------Please Print Telephone:-----Email:---------Best days and times to call-------------------------------------Signature -----------------------------------Date _____ 1999 261

PAGE 278

APPENDIXB INTERVIEW PROTOCOL General Information Name? Position? How long in this position? How long have you been working for this organization? What type of work did you do previously? What drew you to work at this organization? Who does your organization serve? Who are your competitors? Do you know what the Porter-Obey legislation is? Does it effect your job? In what ways? Has your job changed over time as a result of the Porter-Obey legislation? To the executive director. Describe the early beginnings of the organization. At what point did you begin to formalize internal operations of the organization-roles, policies, and procedures-and what were the deciding factors to create these systems? Human/Social To what extent does everyone in the organization have a shared sense of about what the organization does and what its purpose is? 262

PAGE 279

How does the vision of your organization relate to services that your organization offers and that customers perceive as unique and valuable? How does the strategic plan prepare the organization to deal with the number of schools you are currently working in and the number you are targeting to serve? What types of staff development do personnel engage in? How do personnel learn how to deliver the model more effectively? How do these activities build the intellectual capital (knowledge of education and the CSR model's philosophy) of the organization? What are the organizational benefits of holding annual conferences? What is the benefit of your web-site? What do you gain from it. and how does it effect how the organization works? Organizational Structure To leader: How would you describe your leadership style? How would you describe your working relationship with your staff? How will they answer that question? To personnel: What type of leader is x:? How would you describe the leadership qualities and traits of your executive director? How would you describe working for x? How would you describe the structure of your organization? What are the benefits of this structure? The problems? Has the structure of the organization evolved over time? How so? How would you describe the management systems in place in your organization? 263

PAGE 280

How do people in this organization work together? Explain how things get done. Has it changed over the last five years? How? How do people in this organization work with schools and districts? Does everyone follow a similar "protocol" for working in schools? Who acts as the liaison between districts and the organization? Does your organization have specific management and operational systems in place? Examples? Do you "partner' with other organizations for any services? If so, what do you gain and give up as a result of the partnership? Daily operations How are decisions made in your organization? What kids of decisions can you make yourself and what kinds are passed upward to the executive director or immediate supervisor. to a colleague. or made collectively? How are they communicated throughout the organization? How do you spend your time? What percentage of your time is spent working in schools? With staff on organizational issues? On professional development? How many schools do you work with? How often do you spend time in the classrooms of the teachers/schools assigned to you? Do you communicate with them when you're not in the building? How do you do that and how often? How does daily operational planning occur in the organization? What is the process? What is the process for hiring? What types of people do you look for? How do you hire new personnel? 264

PAGE 281

Service/Product What value does your organization add to schools that cannot be easily copied by other CSR design organizations? What makes your organization unique? How does this organization use technology to serve schools and districts? What indicators tell you that it is an effective strategy? How much time is spent in R & D to improve your service and product? How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your service to schools and districts? What are your indicators of success? What strategies do you implement to learn from your teachers, schools or districts in order to improve your service and delivery? If a schooVdistrict raises a problem, how quickly do you give them the answer or technical assistance they need? Strategic Planning Does this organization work with other CSR organizations? How so? Does your organization "networklf with other CSR's? What is gained from these networking practices? In what ways have you expanded the organization to serve more schools in more states? Which is tougher, to expand in states where you already are working or add new states? What strategies do you use to expand into new geographical areas? Does your organization engage in a strategic planning process? How has it helped your organization focus on the tasks of the next 3-5 years? Do you have mentors, critical friends. colleagues whom you trust and talk to about this business? What was the last good piece of advice they gave you? 265

PAGE 282

Financial resource allocation How much does it cost your organization to run? Can you identify all the sources from which you receive financial support? Fee for service from districts In-kind from partnerships Grant moneys Seed or venture capital Parent company start-up capital Other How is that money allocated within the organization? Would you be willing to provide me with a budget for the year? Closing How does your organization grow? What are the growing pains your organization is experiencing? What are the greatest accomplishments of the last year? Two years? What are the greatest chalrenges facing your organization in the next year? Two years? Three to five years? Is there anything else that you think I should know about this organization, or about your participation in its success? Thank you for your time. information and energy. 266

PAGE 283

REFERENCES Adler, M. J. (1982) Paideia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York: Macmillan. Adizes, L (1979). Organizational passages: Diagnosing and treating life cycle problems in organizations. Organizational dynamics, 9, 3-25. Aldrich, H., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in organizational behavior, 8, 165-198. Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HaiL American Institute of Research. (1999). An educator's guide to schoolwide reform (Report ). Arlington, VA: Author. Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bodilly, S., Keltner, Purnell, S., Reichardt, R . & Schuyler, G. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools' scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools (MR-942.0-NAS}. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Bal. L, Nunnery, J. A., Lowthier, D. L., Dietrich, A. P., Pace, J. B., Anderson, R. S., Bassoppo-Moyo, T. C . & Phillipsen, L C. (1998}. Inside-in and outside-in support for restructuring: The effects of internal and external support on change in the New American Schools. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 358-384. 267

PAGE 284

Solman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Bradach, J. (1998). Franchise organizations. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Cameron, K. S. (1984). The effectiveness of ineffectiveness. In B. M. Straw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. pp. 235-285. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation (pp. 1-8). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (Eds.). (1983). Organizational effectiveness:one model or several? New York: Academic Press. Child, J., & Kieser, A. (1981 ). Development of organizations over time. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design ,Vol. 1 (pp. 28-64). New York: Oxford Press. Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. L (1994). Built to last New York: HarperCollins. Cooper, R., Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1998). Success for all: Improving the quality of implementation of whole-school change through the use of a national reform network. Education and Urban society, 30(3), 385-408. Consortium of Policy Research in Education (1998). Comprehensive school reform. Policy Brief. Philadelphia:author. Corcoran, T., & M. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performing schools. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 27-31. Davenport, T. 0. (1999). Human capital: What it is and why people invest in it. San Fransisco: Jessey-Bass. 268

PAGE 285

Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures:The rites and rituals of corporate life. New York: Addison Wesley. Dede, C. (1998). The scaling-up process for technology-based educational innovation. In Learning with Technology (1998 ASCD Yearbook). C. Dede (Ed.), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. [http://www .virtual.gmu.edu/ascdpdf.htm). Downs, A. (1967).1nside bureaucracy. Los Angeles: RAND. Drucker, P. F. (1985).1nnovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper Collins. Education Commission of the States. (1996). Bending without breaking Denver, CO: Author. Education Commission of the States. (1997a). From schoolhouse to statehouse: Re:Leaming 1988-1995. Denver, CO: Author. Education Commission of the States. (1997b). A policymakers' guide to education reform networks. Denver, CO: Author. Education Commission of the States. (1998). Selecting school reform models: A reference guide for states. Denver, CO: Author. Firestone, W. A . & Pennell, J. R. (1997). Designing state-sponsored teachers networks: A comparison of two cases. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 237-266. Ffamholtz. E., Coff, R., & Randle, Y. (1992). Corporate life cycles and organizational development in a global economy. In R. M. Schwartz (Ed.), Managing organizational transitions in a global economy. Los Angeles: Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Los Angeles. pp.57-81. Flamholtz. E. G. (1990). Growing pains: How to make the transition from an entrepreneurship to a professionally managed organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 269

PAGE 286

Freeman, J., & Hannan, M. T. (1975). Growth and decline processes in organizations. American Sociological Review, 40, 215-228. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press. Fuller, 8., Elmore, R., & G. Orfield. (1997). Who chooses, who loses? Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice. New York: Teachers College Press. Gerstner, LV., Semerad, R. D., Doyle, D.P., & Johnston, W. B. (1994). Reinventing Education: Entrepreneurship in America's public schools. New York: Dutton. Glennan, J., T. K. (1997). Design-based assistance as a cornerstone of a school improvement strategy. Arlington, VA: New American Schools. Goertz, M., Floden, R & O'Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform, Vol.1: Rndings and conclusions Philadelphia: Consortium of Policy & Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist Press. Greiner. L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 49(July-August), 37-46. Hannan, M. T . & Freeman, J. H. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. Administrative Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964. Hassel, B. (1998). Making Good Choices: A guide for schools and districts. Oak Brook, Ill: North Central Regional Laboratory. Healey. F. H., & DeStephano, J. (1997). Education reform support: A framework for scaling up school reform. (Staff working paper). Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon Schuster. 270

PAGE 287

Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. J. (1992}. The challenge of organizational change. New York: Free Press. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons. Keltner, B. R. (1998). Funding comprehensive school reform. Issue Paper. 1-8. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Kimberly, J. R. (1980). Initiation, innovation, and institutionalization in the creation process. In J. R. Kimberly & R. Miles (Eds.), The organizational life cycle. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. pp.20-32. Kimberly, J. R., & Miles, R. (Eds.). (1980). The organizational life cycle. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Kolderie, T. (1992). The charter schools idea. Public service redesign project St Paul, MN: Center for Policy Studies. Kouses, J. M . & Posner, B. Z. (1993), Credibility: How readers gain and lose it, why people cdemand it. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Letts, C. W., Ryan, W. P., & Grossman, A. (1999). High performance nonprofit organizations, managing upstream for greater impact. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lewis, A. (1998}. The importance of evidence. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, pp. 643. Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers College Record. 98(1), 7-45. Loveless, T. (1998). Uneasy allies: The evolving relationship of school and state. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 20(1), 1-8. Loveless, T . & Jasin, C. (1998). Starting from scratch: Political and organizational challenges facing charter schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 9-30. 271

PAGE 288

Lusi, S. (1997). The role of state departments of education in complex school reform. New York: Teachers College Press. Massell, D. (1998a). Capacity-building strategies in schools and states. (Policy Brief). Philadephia: Consortium of Policy & Research in Education. Massell, D. (1998). State strategies for building capacity in education: Progress and continuing challenges (Research Report RR-41 ). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Miles, M. (1978). On networking. (Unpublished manuscript). Washington, DC: Center for Policy Research, National Institute of Education. Miller, J. (1991, April 24). Bush strategy launches "crusade" for education. Education Week. pp. 22-25. Morgan. G. (1986).1mages of organization. London: Sage. Murphy, J. (1996). The privatization of schooling: Problems and possibilities. Thousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press. Nathan, J. (1997). Charter schools. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. National Commission in Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. a report to the Secretary of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. DepartmentofEducation. National Education Association. (1998). National education statistics at a glance. National Education Association. Available: www.ed.gov/stats.1998.htm New American Schools. (1998a). Blueprints for school success: A guide to the New American Schools Washington: Educational Research Service. 272

PAGE 289

New American Schools. (1998b). New American Schools: A strategy for the future. Arlington, VA: Author. New American Schools. (1999). New American Schools' Standards for Design-based Assistance. Arlington, VA: Author. Nonaka, 1., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1998). Catalog of school reform models. Portland, OR: Author. Nohria, N., (1992). Introduction. InN. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations, structure, form and action (pp. 1-22). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). Face-to-face: Making network organizations work. InN. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations, structure, form and action. (pp. 288-308). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Nunnery, J. A. (1998). Reform ideology and the locus of development problem in educational restructuring, enduring lessons from studies of educational innovation. Education and Urban Society, 30{3), 277295. Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21 (4) 12-21. O'Day, J., Goertz, M. E., & Floden, R. E. (1995). Building capacity for education reform (Policy Brief). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Odden, A. (1997). How to rethink school budgets to support school transformation. (How-to series Report3). Arlington, VA: New American Schools. 273

PAGE 290

Olsen, L. (1999, April14, 1999). Following the plan. Education Week. pp. 28-32 . Patton, M. (1980). Qualitative research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pennings, J. M. (1980). Environmental influences on the creation process. In M. A. Kimberly (Ed.), The organizational life cycle San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, J. R. H. (1982).1n search of excellence. New York: Warner Books. Polanyi, M. (1966).The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1981 ). Organizationallifecycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29(1 ), 33-51. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management science, 29(3), 363-377. Roberts, T. (1997, February 26). The Paideia movement: An idea whose time has come? Education Week, pp. 36, 39. Rogers. E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Ross, S., Smith, L., McNelis. M., Squires, M., Wasson, R., Maxwell, S., Weddle, K., Nath, L., Grehan, A., & Bugget T. (1998). Early results from the Memphis school initiative. Education and Urban Society. 30 (3 }, 296-325. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Schorr, L. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuird America. New York: Doubleday. 274

PAGE 291

Shafritz, J. M., & Ott, J. S. (Eds.). (1992). Classics of organization theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's School. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Smith, L., Ross, S., McNelis, M Squires, M., Wasson, R., Maxwell, S., Weddle, K . Nath, L., Grehan, A., & Bugget T. (1998). The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that affect implementation and success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 296-325. Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. InS. Furhman & B. Malen (Eds.), The Politics of curriculum and testing Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Smylie, M. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher 25(9), 9-11. Spillane, J.P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stinchecombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations Chicago: Rand McNally. Stringfield, S . & Datnow, A. (1998). Introduction: Scaling up school restructuring designs in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 269-276. Stringfield. S . Ross. S . & Smith, L. (Eds.). (1996). Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American School designs. Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers. 275

PAGE 292

Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ulrich, D., & Lake, D. (1990). Organizational capability: Competing from the inside out. New York: John Wiley & Sons. United States Department of Education (1998). Guidance on the comprehensive school reform demonstration program Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. United States Department of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act, H. R. 2264. (1 998). Washington, DC: Author. United States Department of Education (1 999, October 1 999). Department awards $8.7 Million to assist providers of comprehensive school reform. Newsletter. Author. Uvin, P., & Miller, D. (1996). Paths to scaling-up: Alternative strategies for local nongovernmental organizations. Human Organization, 55(3), 344-354. Van de Ven, A. H. (1980). Early planning, implementation and performance of new organizations. In J. R. Kimberly & Miles. R. (Eds.), The organizational fifecycle. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Viadero. D. (1999, October 13, 1999). As Levin steps back, accelerated takes stock. Education Week, pp 5. Weick, K E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 21, 1-19. Weiss. C. (1996) Forward. In Fuller, Bmore, & Orfield, Who chooses, who loses? New York: Teachers Colege Press. Wells, A. S. (1993). Time to choose: America at the crossroads of school choice policy. New York: Hill and Wang. 276

PAGE 293

Wheatley, M. J., & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). A simpler way. San Francisco: Berrett-Kahler. Whetten, D. A. (1980). Sources, responses and effects of organizational decline. In M.A. Kimberty (Ed.), The organizational lifecycle. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Whetten, D. A. (1987). Organizational growth and decline processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 13 ,525-544. Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. (1997). Creating and sustaining learning communities: Earty lessons from charter schools Philadelphia: Consortium of Policy Research in Education. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ziebarth, T. (1999). Policy brief: Vouchers. Denver. Education Commission of the States. 277