University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Does autonomy matter? Investigating research -based practices in charter and other public schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Does autonomy matter? Investigating research -based practices in charter and other public schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content DOES AUTONOMY MATTER? INVESTIGATING RESEARCH-BASED
PRACTICES IN CHARTER AND OTHER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
by
Derrick Chau
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
December 2002
Copyright 2002 Derrick Chau
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3093744
Copyright 2002 by
Chau, Derrick Christiaan
All rights reserved.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3093744
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695
This dissertation, written by
Derrick Chau
under the direction o f h I S dissertation committee, and
approved by all its members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Director o f Graduate and Professional
Programs, in partial fulfillment o f the requirements fo r the
degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Date 1 2 - 1 8 - 2 0 0 2
Dissertation Committee
Chair
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation was made possible with the assistance of many people.
First and foremost, I thank Dr. Priscilla Wohlstetter, my committee chair, for her
guidance and support throughout the dissertation process and during my time at the
University of Southern California. I also thank my committee members, Dr. David
Marsh and Dr. Elizabeth Graddy. This research would also not have been possible
without the assistance of many personnel, past and present, in the Center on
Educational Governance including: Dr. Noelle Griffin, Dr. Andrew Smith,
Cassandra Davis, Jennifer Polhemus, Courtney Malloy, Steven Thomas, Lan Hao,
Sidnie Myrick, and Leslie Bharadwaja. Finally, I would like to thank my family
and especially Erika for their support, patience, and encouragement during the
doctoral program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements .......... ii
List of Tables ...... ..v
List of Figures ........... vi
Abstract............. viii
Chapter One: Statement of Problem. ........... .1
S chool A u to n o m y a s a P otential So l u t io n ...................... 4
Origins of Rec e n t S chool A u t o n o m y P o l ic ies................... 7
P ur po se of S t u d y ............... 13
Chapter Two: Literature Review ..... 18
D efining S chool A u t o n o m y .................................................................................... 18
D im en sio ns of S chool A u t o n o m y ................... 23
A utonom y over B udget D e c isio n s............................ ...23
A utonom y over Personnel D e cisio n s............................................... 25
A utonom y over Educational D ecisio n s................... .....29
E ffects of S chool A u t o n o m y o n C la ssr o o m P ractice a n d S t u d en t
A c h ie v e m e n t..................................................................................................................................32
Chapter Three: Theoretical Framework..... ..... .........38
In d ic a t o r s of School A u t o n o m y .......................................................................................39
Resea r c h-B a se d L iteracy Pr a c t ic e s.................... 42
Print-Rich C la ssro o m s.................................................................. 43
U se o f T ech n o lo g y ...................................................................... 43
Instruction Tailored to Students’ Reading L ev els..............................................43
Sm all Group Instruction............................................................................... 44
A ssessm ent D esigned for Student Instruction.................................................... 45
Strong School-H om e C on n ection s...........................................................................46
Fr a m ew o r k: School A u t o n o m y a n d R e sea r c h-B a se d Pr a c t ic e s................. 47
Instructional M aterials (Print-Rich C la ssro o m s) .................. 48
Instructional Practices (Instruction Tailored to Student R eading L evels,
Sm all Group Instruction, U se o f T ech n o lo g y )........................... 49
A ssessm en t (A ssessm en t for Instruction) and Parent Involvem ent (Strong
School-H om e C o n n ectio n s).............................................................. 50
Chapter Four: Study Methods ........ 52
D escription of S a m pling Pr o c ed u re a n d Sa m ple S c h o o l s................................53
D a ta C ollection M eth o d s .................... 60
In terview s...................................... 61
Archival D ocum ents.............................. 67
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher S u rv ey s......................................................... 69
Chapter Five: Results ........ 73
Ov er v iew of Cla ssr o o m Practices in Sa m ple S c h o o l s.......................................73
R a ting s of School A u t o n o m y ........................................... 77
A utonom y over B udget D e c isio n s................................................ 77
A utonom y over Personnel D e cisio n s.............................................. 80
A utonom y over Educational D ecisio n s..................... 83
Rela tio n sh ip B etw een S chool A u to n o m y a n d Cla ssr o o m Pr a c t ic es 87
Instructional Materials (Print-Rich C la ssro o m s) ........................88
Instructional Practices (Instruction Tailored to Student R eading L evels,
Sm all Group Instruction, U se o f T ech n o lo g y ) ............................................. 93
Student A ssessm en t (A ssessm ent for Instruction).................. 103
Parent Involvem ent (Strong School-H om e C on n ection s)............................106
Chapter Six: Discussion ....... .109
Resea r c h Q u estio n #1: D o schools u n d e r d iffer en t a u t o n o m y policies
v a r y in their pow er o v er sch o o l-b a s e d d e c isio n s? ................................ 109
Resea r c h Q u estio n #2: T o w h a t ex ten t a r e r esea r c h-b a s e d literacy
practices u se d in a u to n o m o u s sc h o o ls? ....................................................................114
R esea r c h Q u estio n #3: A re sch ools w ith m o re a u t o n o m y m o re likely to
u se r esea r c h-b a s e d literacy pr ac tices?....................................................................118
R esearch Q u estio n #4: H o w d o sch ools u se their a u t o n o m y to influence
CLASSROOM PRACTICES?................................. 120
Im plic atio n s for P olicy a n d Pr a c t ic e ......................................................... 124
Bibliography ............ 128
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Ta bl e 1. Su m m a r y of the eight indicators of school a u t o n o m y..................40
Ta bl e 2. Su m m a r y of research-b a se d literacy practices a n d the teacher
SURVEY ITEMS USED TO ASSESS THE USE OF THESE PRACTICES IN SAMPLE
SCHOOLS..................................... 47
Ta ble 3. Characteristics of a u to n o m y policies in sam ple elem entary
s c h o o l s............................................................................................. 55
T a b le 4. D em o g ra p h ic in fo r m a tio n f o r sa m p le e le m e n t a r y s c h o o ls d u r in g
THE 1999-2000 ACADEMIC YEAR ............ 58
T a b le 5. U r b a n c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f sa m p le e le m e n t a r y s c h o o ls f o r t h e
1999-2000 ACADEMIC YEAR ............ ...59
Ta ble 6. Total n u m be r o f interview s c o n d uc ted a c ro ss the nine sam ple
s c h o o l s ............. ...62
Ta ble 7. List of codes u se d to a sse ss the degree of school a u to n o m y from
INTERVIEWDATA.......................... 65
Ta ble 8. Su m m a r y list of codes u se d to investigate the u se of research-
b a se d LITERACY PRACTICES IN SAMPLE SCHOOLS.......................... 67
Ta ble 9. Su r v e y response rates from sam ple s c h o o l s...................................... ...69
Ta ble 10. A n a l y sis of v a ria n c e for su r v ey item s a c ro ss the three groups
OF SAMPLE SCHOOLS AND ACROSS THE NINE INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE SCHOOLS 71
Table 11. Ratings of a u to n o m y ov er bu d g et decisions in sam ple schools 78
Table 12. R atings of a u to n o m y ov er per so n nel decisions in sam ple
schools ............................. 80
Table 13. Ratin g s of a u to n o m y o v er ed u c a t io n a l decisions in sam ple
s c h o o l s.................. 83
Ta ble 14. A verage y ea r s of teach er experience in sam ple s c h o o l s 96
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. M odels of public school au to n o m y organized a lo n g a
CONTINUUM..................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. General m o del of the relationship betw een school a u to n o m y
POLICIES AND INCREASED STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.......................................... 38
Figure 3. Rela tio n sh ips betw een school control o v er instructional
EXPENDITURES, EXTERNAL RESOURCES, AND CURRICULUM AND THE PRESENCE
OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS ............. 48
F igure 4. Indirect a n d direct relationships linking school control over
TEACHER SOCIALIZATION, PERSONNEL STRUCTURE, AND INSTRUCTION TO
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES. ....... ....49
Figure 5. Relatio nsh ip betw een school control over stu d e n t a ssessm en t
AND THE USE OF ASSESSMENTS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL
CONTROL OVER PARENT INVOLVEMENT POLICIES AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT. 50
Figure 6. Percentage of teachers w ho agreed th at they h a d print-rich
CLASSROOMS IN THE THREE SAMPLE GROUPS. ........ ....74
Figure 7. Percentage of teachers w ho agreed th at four r esearch-b a se d
PRACTICES WERE PRESENT IN THE THREE SAMPLE GROUPS.............................. 75
Figure 8. Percentage of teachers w ho agreed th at a sse ssm e n t w as
DESIGNED FOR INSTRUCTION in THE THREE SAMPLE GROUPS........................... 76
Figure 9. Relationship betw een the percentage of teachers w ho provided
PRINT-RICH CLASSROOMS AND RATINGS OF SCHOOL CONTROL OVER
EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES. ....... ...89
Figure 10. Relatio nsh ip betw een the percentage of teachers w ho provided
PRINT-RICH CLASSROOMS AND RATINGS OF SCHOOL CONTROL OVER EXTERNAL
RESOURCES..................... ....89
Figure 11. Relationship betw een the percentage of teachers w ho pro vided
PRINT-RICH CLASSROOMS AND RATINGS OF SCHOOL CONTROL OVER LITERACY
CURRICULUM ......... 91
v i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
F ig u r e 12. R e l a t io n s h ip b e t w e e n t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f t e a c h e r s w h o u se d
SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTION AND RATINGS OF SCHOOL CONTROL OVER
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES.... ......... 94
F ig u r e 13. R e la tio n s h ip b e t w e e n t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f t e a c h e r s w h o u se d
INSTRUCTION TAILORED TO STUDENTS’ READING LEVELS AND RATINGS OF
SCHOOL CONTROL OVER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES. .................... 94
F igure 14. Relationship betw een the percentage of teachers w ho u se d
TECHNOLOGY FOR INSTRUCTION AND RATINGS OF SCHOOL CONTROL OVER
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES.................. 99
Figure 15. Relationship betw een the percentage of teachers w ho u se d
TECHNOLOGY AND RATINGS OF SCHOOL CONTROL OVER EXTERNAL RESOURCES.
100
F ig u r e 16. R e la tio n s h ip b e t w e e n t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f t e a c h e r s w h o u se d
ASSESSMENTS DESIGNED FOR STUDENT INSTRUCTION AND RATINGS OF SCHOOL
CONTROL OVER STUDENT ASSESSMENT MEASURES. ..................... 104
F ig u r e 16. R e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f t e a c h er s w h o cited
STRONG SCHOOL-HOME CONNECTIONS AND RATINGS OF SCHOOL CONTROL OVER
PARENT INVOLVEMENT POLICIES................................ 106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
This study explored the relationship between school autonomy and
classroom practices in a sample of nine elementary schools. Education reformers,
particularly in urban areas, have experimented with providing schools with greater
degrees of decision-making autonomy as a means of improving student
achievement. This study builds on previous research which suggests that education
policies, such as charter school laws and school-based management plans, offer
different levels of school-site autonomy that may cause variations in school
performance. Greater autonomy in schools was expected to allow local educators
(who are closest to and have the most knowledge about students) to make decisions
that resulted in the use of research-based classroom practices. This study advances
existing research by developing nine specific indicators of school autonomy that
were expected to influence classroom practice. Six research-based literacy
practices were identified from the literature and were assessed in sample schools.
The sample for the study included nine schools located in Southern California that
varied in their levels of autonomy. The nine schools consisted of three independent
charter schools, three dependent charter schools, and three site-based managed
schools. Participant interviews, archival documents, and teacher surveys were used
to analyze the relationship between school autonomy and classroom practices in
these schools.
Overall, results indicated that the presence of research-based practices
tended to be higher in schools with more autonomy. Some indicators of autonomy
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
had stronger relationships w ith the use o f research-based practices than others.
Specifically, indicators o f autonom y had strong relationships w ith the presence o f
print-rich classroom s and strong school-hom e connections. Various factors besides
school autonomy were found to influence the use o f research-based practices in
schools. These factors included the levels o f teacher experience, the adoption o f
published curriculum programs, and the involvem ent o f an education managem ent
organization. Implications o f this study for policy-m akers and personnel in schools
are also discussed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
One of the criticisms of the current public education system is that it has
failed to improve the performance of schools in urban areas. Students in urban
public schools continue to be less likely to graduate from high school on time and
less likely to complete a postsecondary degree than their suburban and rural
counterparts (Lippman, Bums, & McArthur, 1996). A comprehensive examination
of student achievement found that more urban students at all grade levels scored
below the basic level than the national average on the Stanford Achievement Test
(Council of Great City Schools & Harcourt Educational Measurement, 2001).
Students in the majority of school districts in the nation’s largest fifty cities
performed below average on their state assessment tests (Loveless, 2001). The
characteristics of students in urban schools challenge the ability of educators to
deliver instruction at appropriate student ability levels.
Students in urban schools are more likely to be a racial or ethnic minority
and are more likely to leam English as a second language. During the 1997-98
school year, urban schools had higher percentages of black and Latino students
than suburban and rural schools (Lippman et al., 1996). The percentages of
minority students in public schools are expected to continue to increase nationally
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2002), and these increases can be
expected to impact urban areas to a greater degree. In addition, the proportion of
students who leam English as a second language is almost twice as high in urban
areas as in the rest of the country (Lippman et al., 1996). The greater degree of
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student diversity in urban schools than the rest of the nation increases the difficulty
facing educators in providing instruction that is matched to student needs.
Urban schools are also characterized as having large populations of students
living in poverty. Students in urban areas are more likely than other students to
attend high poverty schools, defined as schools with 40 percent or more of students
receiving free and reduced price lunch (Lippman et al., 1996). The rate of student
poverty in urban areas is almost twice as high as in other areas (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2002). High poverty schools had higher rates of student
absenteeism and less parental involvement than schools with less poverty (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2002). As a result, high levels of poverty in urban
schools have been linked to low student performance (Council of Great City
Schools & Harcourt Educational Measurement, 2001). The challenge for urban
schools has been to provide education for these students living in poverty who may
lack parental support and resources to support educational achievement.
Another challenge to urban schools is that they are typically served by
disproportionately large school districts. Over the past fifty years, the number of
schools per district has gradually increased nationwide (Meyer, Scott, Strang, &
Creighton, 1994). Of the 100 largest school districts in the nation, most are located
in urban areas (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). These 100 districts
represent less than 1 percent of all school districts in the nation, but are responsible
for educating 23.0 percent of all public school students (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2001). The size of these school districts may contribute to the
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
inability of urban schools to deliver high quality instruction, since central offices in
these districts must coordinate such a large number of schools.
The central offices of urban school districts have been viewed as remote and
removed from the core task of teaching and learning in schools (Hannaway, 1993;
Murphy & Beck, 1995). These district central offices centralize support for schools
such as the administration of state and federal programs and the operation of
services peripheral to the education of students such as cafeteria and transportation
services. The literature has criticized these offices for being overly bureaucratic
and for not being concerned with instruction (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Meyer, Scott,
Cole, & Intili, 1978; Murphy & Beck, 1995). Several studies have concluded that
districts with more extensive bureaucracies hinder the educational achievement of
students (Anderson, Shughart II, & Tollison, 1991; Bohte, 2001). These studies
concluded that excessive bureaucracy draws resources away from schools,
increases the time required to develop new practices, and induces schools to
measure success through compliance to regulations rather than through
improvements to instruction. The challenge for central offices in urban school
districts has been to centralize support for schools while providing appropriate
instruction for their diverse student populations.
To date, standardized policies by school districts, as well as state and
federal education agencies, have been largely ineffective at changing classroom
practices in urban schools. In their review of public school reform, Tyack and
Cuban (1995) bemoan, “Change where it counts the most-in the daily interactions
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of teachers and students— is the hardest to achieve and the most important” (p. 10).
Their review found that the practices of classroom instruction have remained
constant over the past century (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). To illustrate, an analysis of
teacher instructional practices during the past century concluded that teacher-
centered instruction continues to dominate classrooms, with few exceptions
(Cuban, 1993).
The lack of commitment of school personnel to education reforms has
contributed to the persistence of traditional classroom practices. Personnel in
schools continue to maintain considerable control over the implementation of
policies from districts and other education agencies (Cuban, 1993; Little, 1990;
Tyack & Cuban, 1995). School districts, particularly in urban areas, suffer from an
asymmetric distribution of information, since personnel in schools have much
greater knowledge of student needs than personnel in district central offices. This
disconnect between schools and district central offices results in a “loose coupling”
where instructional work tends to persist beyond the purview of central offices
(Meyer et al., 1978). As a result, policies exist at the district level without
implementation in schools, reducing the influence of policies on classroom
instruction.
School Autonomy as a Potential Solution
Reformers, particularly in urban school districts, have experimented with
providing schools with more autonomy over decision-making. School autonomy as
defined here refers to the ability of all stakeholders in a school to determine the
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school’s goals and how the school will achieve those goals (Chubb & Moe, 1990;
Wohlstetter, Wenning, & Briggs, 1995).1 At present, various models of school
autonomy, from magnet and site-based managed schools to dependent and
independent charter schools, have been implemented across the country. These
policies vary in the extent to which control over decision-making has been vested
in stakeholders in schools (Fuhrman & Elmore, 1995; Louis, 1998; Malen, Ogawa,
& Kranz, 1990).
Drawing on research by Johnson and Landman (2000), various models of
autonomous public schools can be organized along a continuum according to their
degree of control over local decision-making (see Figure 1).
Traditional public Site-based Dependent Independent
school managed school charter school charter school
- ►
Less autonomous More autonomous
Figure 1. Models of public school autonomy organized along a continuum.
Falling at one end of the range are traditional public schools and site-based
managed (SBM) schools. In traditional schools, districts control most of the
schools’ budget, staffing, and educational decisions. Although SBM schools are
empowered to make certain operational decisions, they continue, like traditional
schools, to operate under the authority of the district, the union contract, and the
state. At the other end of the continuum are charter schools, authorized by state
1 This definition of autonomy is developed from the literature in Chapter Two. By requiring all
stakeholders to be involved in the decision-making process, this definition o f school autonomy
excludes policies that grant decision-making control only to individuals such as principals in
schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
law, that are typically freed from most state and district rules and regulations and,
thus, are authorized to allocate their budgets, hire principals, teachers, and staff,
and adopt their own choice of curricula and instructional practices. Across the
United States, charter school laws vary in the extent of autonomy they offer, with
some requiring schools (called dependent or in-district charters) to maintain strong
district ties, while others permit schools (called independent charters) to operate
fiscally independent of districts. Regardless, charter schools typically have far
more extensive freedom than the modest amount given to SBM schools.
School autonomy is intended to resolve the problems associated with
centralized decision-making by district central offices and other education agencies.
By increasing the decision-making power of stakeholders in schools, school
autonomy policies are hypothesized to lead to better decision-making in schools,
since decisions can be made by stakeholders who are the most knowledgeable
about students’ needs. Better decision-making in schools can be defined as
increasing the effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency of decisions (Murphy
& Beck, 1995). The literature has found that schools with greater autonomy can
realize increased flexibility and responsiveness to make decisions (Brown, 1990;
Chapman & Boyd, 1986; Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Murphy & Beck, 1995).
Having fewer constraints on decisions, autonomous schools are better able to
develop appropriate instruction for students. School autonomy can also increase
the speed of decisions, since decisions can be made at the school level rather than at
the level of education agencies (Brown, 1990). Given these benefits, autonomous
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools, particularly in urban areas, have the potential to be more effective at
influencing classroom practices.
School autonomy policies can also increase the commitment of school
personnel to reforms by increasing their involvement in school decision-making.
As discussed earlier, schools continue to maintain considerable control over
instructional practices. Classroom instruction involves complex, dynamic, and
nonroutine tasks due to variations in student characteristics (Hannaway, 1993;
Rowan, Raudenbush, & Cheong, 1993). Existing centralized decision-making by
school districts and other education agencies is more suitable for routine practices
such as administrative tasks that can be standardized. Studies have suggested that
routine tasks are more effectively governed by mechanistic forms of management
that are characterized by high degrees of centralization, while nonroutine work
requires management by more organic forms, characterized by participative
decision-making (Perrow, 1967; Rowan et al., 1993). School autonomy recognizes
the nonroutine nature of teaching by including all stakeholders in decision-making
processes. In this way, autonomous schools can foster greater personnel
commitment to implement changes in classroom practices.
Origins of Recent School Autonomy Policies
Attempts at shared decision-making in education date back to the teacher
council movement (1909-1929) and the democratic administration movement
(1930-1950) (Murphy & Beck, 1995). A review of over 100 school districts has
noted that forms of school-based management have been around for decades (Clune
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
& White, 1988). Some recent school autonomy policies implemented by education
agencies include decentralization, deregulation, and charter school policies. These
policies originated from several different reform movements that sought to address
perceived deficiencies in the public education system. This section examines the
origins of school autonomy policies2 over the past several decades.
The changing characteristics of neighborhoods and the perceived
ineffectiveness of education agencies during the 1960s and 1970s resulted in efforts
to increase school responsiveness to public needs (Taylor & Levine, 1991; Tyack,
1993). A main thrust of these efforts by education agencies was to implement
policies that fostered parent involvement in decisions. These policies attempted to
increase the political power of parents, increase administrative efficiency, and
offset state authority (David, 1989; Levin, 1970; Wissler & Ortiz, 1986).
Unfortunately, many of these parent involvement policies had limited effects on
schools, since they often increased the autonomy of organizational units smaller
than a district but larger than the school (Wohlstetter & Odden, 1992).
Since 1971, nearly every federal education program affecting elementary
and secondary public schools has included a mandate for citizen participation,
usually in the form of parent advisory councils at the school and district levels
(Davies, 1981). However, the authority of these councils has been largely
2 It is important to note that no single type of education policy alone affects the levels of autonomy
in schools. Public schools are subject to many sources of restrictions on their actions. This
discussion concentrates on policies that directly provide schools with increased autonomy. Policies
such as school accountability policies and curriculum standards that restrict school autonomy will
not be included in this discussion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ambiguous, with most councils having only advisory rather than actual decision
making roles (Davies, 1981; Tyack, 1993). It would not be until the late 1980s that
parent involvement in school self-governance would be more prominent due to
other school autonomy policies.
School autonomy policies in the 1980s that fostered teacher professionalism
were developed in reaction to significant policy publications such as A Nation at
Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Publications such
as A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) were
criticized for not including school level personnel in the policy-making process
(Conley, Schmidle, & Shedd, 1988). Often, state-level educators, policymakers,
and private citizens formulated these reforms without the involvement of teachers
(Conley et al., 1988). As a result, teacher unions and professional associations
encouraged policies that included greater teacher involvement in school decision
making as a means of recognizing teacher experience and expertise in unique
school environments (Louis, 1998). This teacher professionalism movement
resulted in school autonomy policies such as participatory decision-making and
shared governance.
Another category of school autonomy policies was also developed during
the 1980s as a part of the more systemic approaches by states to improve schools.
Policies at this time such as school accountability, curriculum standards, and
teacher certification began to impact teacher and administrator behavior and school
organizational structures (Mitchell, Marshall, & Wirt, 1985; Odden, 1991). As
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
states began to develop expected levels of school quality, a new category of school
autonomy policies was developed as a means of freeing schools to attain high
levels of school quality. School autonomy policies that were developed in response
to these systemic reform efforts included decentralization and deregulation policies.
Decentralization policies involved the development of new governance
structures at the school level in order to include stakeholders in school decision
making processes. Decentralization policies included many types of policies, often
termed school-based or site-based management. These policies created councils
within schools that were composed of stakeholders such as teachers, administrators,
and parents. These decentralization policies empowered teachers, as well as
parents (Goodlad, 1984; Seeley, 1985), to improve schools.
Studies of decentralization policies have found that, in practice, many of
these policies failed to adequately release schools from the rules and regulations of
education agencies. In addition to providing some capacity to develop governance
structures, some decentralization policies were designed to provide schools with
greater authority over areas such as discretionary funds, operating budgets,
personnel, and educational programs (Malen et al., 1990). However, schools under
these policies were often forced to continue to operate under the existing rules and
regulations of local, state, and federal education agencies (Murphy & Beck, 1995).
Also, education agencies were often ambiguous in their delegation of decision
making authority to schools (David, 1989; Malen et al., 1990; Wohlstetter &
Odden, 1992). The decision-making control of schools under these policies
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
remained limited due to the maintenance of existing regulatory structures that
limited school actions.
Deregulation policies such as waivers were specifically aimed at reducing
the amount of bureaucratic regulations that limit school decision-making. These
policies allowed schools to be exempt from certain rules and regulations that were
required by local and state education agencies (Fuhrman & Elmore, 1995).
Deregulation policies were targeted at schools that sought such freedom voluntarily
through competitive applications or received rewards for high student achievement.
However, the effects of these policies on a large number of schools were limited
due to restricted school eligibility requirements and limited numbers of rules that
could be exempted (Fuhrman & Elmore, 1995). School systems continued to
broaden waiver policies during the 1990s. By 1993, over 30 states claimed that
waiver policies were implemented and available to schools, noncompetitively and
regardless of performance (Fuhrman & Elmore, 1995).
The prerequisite for schools to volunteer to implement deregulation
policies, a characteristic of almost all of these policies, suggests that education
agencies remained skeptical about the capacity of schools under increased
autonomy. A study of deregulation policies in three states supports this skepticism
by finding that schools in these programs needed more assistance in planning,
technical assistance, incentives, and assessment (General Accounting Office,
1994a). Education agencies have found the expansion of deregulation policies to a
greater number of schools difficult to achieve due to requirements for voluntary
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school participation and the need for more mechanisms to monitor the work of
schools.
As states continued to experiment with school autonomy policies, charter
school policies were developed as the most recent and most comprehensive attempt
to increase the autonomy of schools. In general, charter school policies incorporate
elements of decentralization and deregulation policies. First implemented by
Minnesota in 1991, various forms of charter school policies have since been
implemented in 37 states (Bierlein, 1997; Center for Education Reform, 2002; RPP
International, 2000). Since charter school policies are developed at the state level,
some variation exists in the amount of autonomy granted to schools between states
(Center for Education Reform, 2002).
Overall, charter schools are self-governing schools that can be created by
almost anyone with the approval of a charter authorizer, usually a local or state
education agency (Finn Jr., Manno, & Vanourek, 2000). Many charter school
policies specifically require some form of participative governance structure that
often includes parent, teacher, and administrator representatives. Charter schools
are usually exempt from most state and local bureaucratic regulations, but are
highly accountable to their authorizers for producing results that are described in
their charter documents. These results may include improvements in student
assessment scores, attendance rates, or graduation rates.
Though charter school policies provide schools with extensive amounts of
autonomy, their autonomy remains limited since they continue to receive public
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
funds to operate. Prime examples of these limitations include categorical programs
that charter schools maintain with education agencies (Fuller, 2000). To illustrate,
charter schools that receive federal funds for disadvantaged students must continue
to comply with the federal rules and regulations associated with those funds. In
this way, charter schools remain less autonomous than private schools.
Purpose of Study
This study examines the relationship between school autonomy and
classroom practices. The nine sample schools included in this exploratory study
were selected for their operation under various school autonomy policies. There
are two aims of this study:
1. This study will determine whether schools under different autonomy
policies really differ in their control over school-based decisions. Given
that education agencies are experimenting with school autonomy policies,
this study explores the extent to which schools are actually provided greater
decision-making authority.
2. This study analyzes whether schools with more autonomy use more
research-based classroom practices. If autonomous schools are to improve
student achievement, improvements in classroom practices must be
realized. This study identifies literacy practices that the research literature
has proven to be effective methods of increasing student achievement. The
use of these research-based literacy practices is assessed in the sample
schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Given these data, this study will provide information on how schools use their
autonomy to implement research-based practices.
Changes in the governance of schools have been a popular strategy to
improve the performance of schools. From an historical perspective, it has been
noted that “when Americans grow dissatisfied with public schools, they tend to
blame the way they are governed” (p. 1) (Tyack, 1993). The governance of schools
has shifted from organization to organization within the education system, from
schools to local education agencies and, more recently, to state and federal
education agencies. Reformers have begun to recognize that policies that are
successful at improving schools require cooperative relationships between schools
and policy makers (Odden, 1991). As school autonomy policies continue to
proliferate, this study examines some important aspects of these policies that
require further examination.
Many studies on school autonomy policies focus on investigating individual
policies rather than comparing different autonomy policies. Existing studies have
had some success in determining the effects of autonomy on school decision
making and classroom practices (to be discussed in Chapter Two). Unfortunately,
comparisons of different policies across these studies are difficult due to their lack
of a common framework for school autonomy. This study develops a common
framework for studying schools under various autonomy policies.
Existing studies, which aggregate many types of school autonomy policies
according to broad characteristics, remain inadequate for determining the different
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
effects of these policies on schools. An extensive review of the school-based
management literature noted that school-based management policies exist in many
forms, so an analysis of these policies as a whole may overlook some fundamental
differences between individual policies (Malen et al., 1990). Other studies that
attempt to compare school autonomy policies are often limited to analyzing the
design of these policies rather than their effects on schools. For example,
numerous studies of charter school policies have compared the characteristics of
individual state policies (e.g., Bierlein, 1997; Wohlstetter et al., 1995); however,
few studies have examined whether these charter school policies affect schools
differently. In this study, sample schools operating under policies that provide
various degrees of autonomy are examined in order to compare the differences in
school decision-making control and classroom practices.
The literature on school autonomy has struggled to identify characteristics
of these policies that allow autonomous schools to implement changes to classroom
practices. Studies have identified broad areas such as budget and personnel issues
over which autonomous schools should be able to make decisions (Caldwell &
Spinks, 1998; Davies & Hentschke, 1994; Wohlstetter, Van Kirk, Robertson, &
Mohrman, 1997). However, while schools may benefit from decision-making
control over these areas, few studies have discerned which areas of control are
important for implementing effective classroom practices. If school autonomy
policies are to remain viable policy options, the characteristics of these policies that
most directly affect classroom practices must be determined in order to support the
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
claim that these policies can improve student achievement. The framework
developed in this study identifies characteristics of school autonomy policies that
have been strongly linked to improvements in classroom practices.
Few studies of school autonomy policies have concentrated on analyzing
the classroom practices in these schools. A number of studies have recognized the
lack of data on the instructional practices of teachers in autonomous schools (Finn
Jr. et al., 2000; Malen et al., 1990). Instead of investigating classroom practices,
many studies of school autonomy policies choose to examine other issues such as
school accountability and the characteristics of students attending these schools
(Finn Jr. et al., 2000; Malen et al., 1990). While factors outside of schools are
strong predictors of student achievement (Coleman et al., 1966; Hanushek, 1986),
classroom practices remain the most direct means by which schools can influence
student learning. This study contributes to the literature by investigating classroom
practices in schools operating under various degrees of autonomy.
To summarize, this study explores the relationship between school
autonomy and the use of research-based literacy practices in a sample of nine
elementary schools. Chapter Two analyzes the existing literature on definitions of
school autonomy and discusses the evidence that school autonomy can influence
instruction. Chapter Three develops a framework for studying the relationship
between school autonomy and classroom practices. In Chapter Four, the study
sample and the research methods are described. Chapter Five discusses the results
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
from this study. Finally, Chapter Six presents the discussion and implications of
the study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
As the previous chapter demonstrated, school autonomy exists under many
different types of education policies.3 Given this myriad of policies, this chapter
first develops a definition of school autonomy from the existing literature. An
examination of the different dimensions of school autonomy is then conducted to
explore the areas of decision-making that have been found to be significant for
influencing classroom practice. Next, the evidence that school autonomy can lead
to effects on classroom practice is explored.
Defining School Autonomy
Definitions of school autonomy are elusive in the education policy
literature. A common consensus in the literature is that no single definition of
school autonomy exists (Nevo, 1997). School autonomy has been defined in terms
of school planning, restructuring, self-governing, and decision-making (Chubb &
Moe, 1990; Nevo, 1997). This section reviews relevant education and public
policy literature to develop a definition of school autonomy that will be the basis
for this study.
From a broad perspective, autonomy incorporates a variety of meanings
when applied to organizations such as schools. The term “autonomy” first
3 Policies fostering school autonomy have not been exclusive to the United States education system.
Similar school autonomy strategies have been implemented in other countries as well. A cursory
review of the literature has identified school autonomy policies in Australia, Canada, France, New
Zealand, and the United Kingdom (See Caldwell (1990)) as well as in Germany (Fischer & Rolff,
1997; Lange, 1995); Hungary (Halasz, 1990,1993); Israel (Shapira & Cookson, 1997); the
Netherlands (Lodewijks, 1997; Sleegers & Wesselingh, 1995); and Portugal (Lima & Afonso,
1995). Though the state-controlled education system in the United States is politically and
organizationally different than the nationally-controlled systems in other countries, concepts and
lessons learned from the international context will be used whenever applicable.
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
appeared in the middle of the fifth century B.C. as autonomia when it was
understood as the self-determination and independence of a community in its
internal and external relations (Lakoff, 1990). The Oxford English Dictionary
(Simpson & Weiner, 1989) defines autonomy of an organization, specifically a
state or institution, as “the right of self-government, of making its own laws and
administering its own affairs” (p. 807-8). In their analysis of charter schools in the
United States, Wohlstetter, Wenning, and Briggs (1995) categorized school
autonomy according to three elements: autonomy from higher levels of
government; local or organizational autonomy; and consumer sovereignty. The
definition of school autonomy in this discussion will concentrate on two of these
elements: autonomy from higher levels of government and local autonomy.
The concept of consumer sovereignty will not be incorporated in the
definition of school autonomy developed in this study for a number of reasons.
Consumer sovereignty can be defined as the ability of parents— consumers within
the education system— to choose to reject inferior schools in order to send their
children to better schools (West, 1992). Consumer sovereignty is primarily
concerned with the individual behavior of parents, rather than the collective
behavior of school personnel. In addition, this concept is more closely related to
school accountability to parents than to school autonomy. From another
perspective, parents who send their students to a school can be viewed as becoming
a part of that school, since parents can play an integral part in supporting
instruction at home. Indeed, parents have increasingly become involved with
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
decision-making in schools, as discussed in Chapter One. Because the present
study focused on schools, this literature review and subsequent chapters do not
address consumer sovereignty as a part of school autonomy.
From an internal perspective, an autonomous organization can be
characterized as self-governing. An autonomous organization is able to determine
its own preferences, derived from its internal characteristics and distinctive features
(Nordlinger, 1981). If a group of people is to determine its preferences, then some
form of organization is necessary to assess the preferences of individuals within the
group. Some discussions of autonomy even suggest that an autonomous group of
people must be coherently and democratically organized (West, 1992). The
internal perspective implies that autonomy is total when the actions of an
organization perfectly correspond with its preferences (Nordlinger, 1981). If this is
to occur, an autonomous organization will require the capacity to assess the
preferences of its individual members and come to a consensus on the preferences
of the organization as a whole.
Self-government in a school requires some form of organization to assess
the preferences of students, parents, and staff and to make decisions for collective
action. These decision-making bodies in autonomous schools often take the form
of a council composed of members representing the stakeholders in the school
(Leithwood & Menzies, 1998). According to this internal perspective of autonomy,
the ability of a school to determine its internal preferences is a requirement, and
thus precludes policies that may shift power to only certain personnel within the
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school, such as administrators. For instance, a policy that only provides principals
with more decision-making control, without requiring some form of collective
decision-making process in the school, would not be considered a school autonomy
policy under this definition.
Autonomy also involves external relationships between autonomous
organizations and their policy environments. From this perspective, an
autonomous organization is able to determine at least some of its own affairs
without outside interference (Bernhardt, 1981). If autonomy is complete, the
preferences of the environment will no longer determine the actions of the
autonomous organization. This external perspective of autonomy has also been
termed immunity, meaning the ability of an organization to act without fear of the
oversight authority of other organizations (Clark, 1984). The concept of
subsidiarity, though not required, is suggested in this relationship, implying that the
actions of an autonomous organization, or a lower level of government, are no
longer limited by an external organization, or a higher level of government (West,
1992).
External restrictions on the actions of schools are an integral part of school
autonomy as well. Regardless of the capacity of a school to determine its
preferences, its inability to act on those preferences limits its autonomy. The
external restrictions on the actions of schools are primarily the result of local, state,
and federal education agencies that hold bureaucratic authority over school actions.
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Since schools are embedded within the public education system and funded
by tax dollars, it is unlikely that any school can be completely immune from
external restrictions. Even nonpublic schools are recognized as being subject to
building, safety, health, and compulsory attendance regulations in addition to local,
state, and federal requirements for adequate curriculum and teaching staffs
(Campbell, Cunningham, Nystrand, & Usdan, 1985; Scott & Meyer, 1994). As a
result, the external perspective of school autonomy is comparable to the term
“relative autonomy” utilized in political science, since schools can be granted a
greater degree of autonomy from other organizations in the education system,
relative to the old regime (Clarke, 1989; Fuller, 2000).
Integrating the internal and external perspectives, school autonomy can he
defined as the extent to which a school is self-governing and immune from external
restrictions on its actions. This definition of school autonomy is consistent with
prior discussions of school autonomy in the policy literature. A discussion of
autonomy produced a similar definition to the one developed in this discussion by
interpreting autonomy as having self-government and functioning independently
without control by others (Lakoff, 1990). However, autonomy in public schools
cannot result in complete independence because education agencies must continue
to require some regulations in order to maintain oversight of public dollars. The
following section examines the dimensions of school autonomy identified by the
literature to have the most significant effect on classroom practice.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dimensions of School Autonomy
While studies have found some direct effects of school autonomy on
instruction, research on autonomous schools has recognized that local control over
certain types of decisions may have a greater impact on instruction.4 Studies of
participatory decision-making have identified different types of decisions that are
integral for the overall operation of schools (Bacharach, Bamberger, Conley, &
Bauer, 1990; Davies & Hentschke, 1994; Mohrman, Cooke, & Mohrman, 1978).
From these types of decisions, studies have identified three broad dimensions of
autonomy— school control over budget, personnel, and educational programs— that
are necessary for improving instruction (Odden & Busch, 1998; Wohlstetter &
Odden, 1992; Wohlstetter et al., 1995).
Autonomy over Budget Decisions
Budget autonomy provides schools with the flexibility to focus resources on
student learning in order to support instruction (Knight, 1993; Odden & Busch,
1998). School autonomy can result in more efficient budget decisions because
school personnel are more knowledgeable about the needs of the school than
personnel in education agencies (Murphy & Beck, 1995). Studies have found that
some schools realized reductions in costs, usually related to facilities and
maintenance, as a result of school autonomy over budget decisions (Bullock &
4 Studies have advanced school autonomy as a solution for a myriad o f problems in the education
system including vandalism, low parent satisfaction, school inefficiency, and poor school
productivity (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Gittel, 1972; Hanushek, 1981,1986; Malen et al., 1990; Murphy
& Beck, 1995). Though all of these problems remain significant challenges to the education system,
this chapter focuses on the relationship between school autonomy and classroom practice.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Thomas, 1997; Levacic, 1995). Early studies ofbudget decisions in autonomous
schools were unable to discern any relationship between school autonomy and
increased budget efficiency (Murphy & Beck, 1995). But as autonomous schools
began to focus on improving instruction, their budget decisions have increasingly
had greater effects on instruction (Byrne & McKeown, 2000).
Schools with control over educational expenditures can directly affect
instruction by purchasing needed instructional materials such as texts and
computers (Caldwell & Spinks, 1992; Odden & Picus, 2000). This control can be
viewed as distinct from the limited control that many schools have over only the
discretionary portions of their budgets, which may or may not be applicable to
curriculum and instruction. Schools with control over curriculum and instruction-
related expenditures exhibit increased flexibility to reallocate resources in support
of instruction (Bullock & Thomas, 1997; Knight, 1993; Leithwood & Menzies,
1998; Odden & Busch, 1998). For instance, schools with control over these
decisions were able to purchase new computers and fund new teaching positions
when necessary (General Accounting Office, 1994b).
Additional research on decentralized schools concludes that schools with
control over external resources (e.g., grants, partnerships) have better access to
supplementary resources and can better target those resources toward instructional
goals (Odden & Picus, 2000). A review of international decentralization efforts
found that autonomous schools often supplemented their budgets with funding
from organizations outside the education system such as community organizations
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and local businesses (Bullock & Thomas, 1997). Perhaps the most extreme
examples of autonomous schools seeking external funding are new-start charter
schools in some American states that must often seek partnerships with for-profit
and nonprofit organizations for such basic resources as facilities and instructional
services (Hill et al., 2001; Seder, 1999).
No schools under autonomy policies have complete control over decisions
related to educational expenditures and external resources. Factors that continue to
impede the ability of autonomous schools to control these types of budget decisions
include the dependence of school funding on education agencies, especially state
and federal agencies, and the difficulty of linking budget planning to the
educational purposes of schools (Byrne & McKeown, 2000; Levacic, 1995). In
addition, while school autonomy can lead to cost cuts in budgets, these policies
may harbor hidden costs, especially in the form of increased workloads for
personnel (Brown, 1990).
Autonomy over Personnel Decisions
School autonomy over personnel has a greater effect on instructional
improvements when it encompasses teacher socialization, personnel structure, and
parent involvement. Overall, studies examining schools with control over teacher
socialization, especially teacher hiring and professional development, are fairly
equivocal that such autonomy fosters schools’ support of instructional
improvements (Louis, Kruse, & associates, 1995; Odden & Busch, 1998).
Research on autonomous schools suggests that control over the socialization of
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers directly facilitates the development of strong teacher professionalism in
support of instructional improvements (Louis et al., 1995). Teacher hiring,
performance evaluations, rewards, and professional development all contribute to
the consistency of implementing effective instruction in schools (Louis et al., 1995;
Odden & Busch, 1998).
School control over teacher socialization allows schools to select
appropriate personnel who can complement the existing professional culture. In a
study of school-based management in the Chicago public schools, almost 70
percent of principals reported that increased autonomy led to more control over the
selection of teachers and the ability to select for teachers who were more attuned to
the missions of their schools (Bryk, Sebring, Kerbow, Rollow, & Easton, 1998).
An international study of school decentralization found other benefits to school
control over personnel decisions including decreased pupil-teacher ratios, evidence
of higher numbers of teachers, and increases in the number of teaching assistants
(Bullock & Thomas, 1997). School autonomy policies in America, such as
deregulation and charter schools, can also allow schools to hire uncertified
personnel for teaching positions, thus allowing schools to access a greater pool of
labor (Finn Jr. et al., 2000; General Accounting Office, 1994a).
School autonomy over teacher socialization also provides schools with
control over teacher professional development. To illustrate the importance of
professional development, a review of seven effective school-wide programs for
literacy found that all of the programs had a prominent professional development
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
component that included ongoing support (American Federation of Teachers,
1998). Another review of over 300 studies found that significantly higher student
achievement resulted from professional development for teachers working in
classrooms (National Reading Panel, 2000).
School control over professional development can improve the
responsiveness and effectiveness of learning activities for school personnel in order
to support instruction. School-based determination of professional development
can assist and empower schools to assess areas of improvement, select appropriate
professional development activities, provide time to implement new practices, and
assess the effectiveness of professional development activities (Allington &
Cunningham, 1996; Vacca & Genzen, 1995). This school control can also lead to
increased opportunities for professional development by allowing schools to
establish funding and scheduling policies to encourage personnel to acquire more
knowledge and skills (Bush, Coleman, & Glover, 1993; Hatry, Morley, Ashford, &
Wyatt, 1994). In these ways, school control over professional development can
enhance the knowledge and skills of teachers by providing opportunities for
learning about effective instructional practices.
The personnel structure of schools can be defined as the distribution of
personnel, such as teachers, aides, volunteers, and instructional specialists, across
the school. Schools with control over personnel structure are able to determine the
most effective distribution of personnel to support instruction. Instruction at
student ability levels is significant to improving student performance (Hoffman,
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1991). While instruction at student ability levels may not necessarily require one-
on-one instruction, the availability of trained personnel to assist teachers may
reduce class size and increase the opportunity to instruct students at their ability
levels.
Decisions about the use of personnel can directly affect instruction in
schools (Snow, Bums, & Griffin, 1998). There is limited evidence that the use of
paraprofessionals (e.g., teacher aides, teaching assistants) or volunteer tutors can
lead to improved student achievement (Gerber, Finn, Achilles, & Boyd-Zaharias,
2001; Snow et al., 1998). However, one-on-one individual tutoring of students by
trained instructors has demonstrated effectiveness in improving student
performance (Baker, Gersten, & Keating, 2000; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher,
Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Slavin, Karweit, & Madden, 1989).
Schools that are able to determine their own parent involvement policies
can select and design policies that are tailored to parents in order to support student
instruction. In these terms, parent involvement policies include policies that
encourage parent support for instruction rather than parent involvement in school
governance (Seeley, 1985). Parent involvement policies that can directly support
instruction include parent contracts, requirements for parent involvement at home
(e.g., reading nightly with students), and informational meetings about school
literacy programs and assessments (Kapinus, 1995; Snow et al., 1998). School
control over parent involvement policies can improve the effectiveness of policies
by allowing schools to develop school-wide, long-term efforts to increase parent
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
involvement, rather than by submitting schools to convenient “add-on” programs
required by districts (Fredericks, 1995). Though instruction remains an activity
that is primarily conducted in school classrooms, school control over parent
involvement policies can increase the ability of schools encourage parent support of
instruction at home.
Autonomy over Educational Decisions
School control over educational programs consists of control over
curriculum, instructional practices, and assessments. Studies investigating the
effects of local control over the educational program suggest that autonomous
schools are able to select curricula and materials more appropriate to the specific
needs of students (White, 1992). Selection of curricula by schools can lead to
increased teacher commitment and satisfaction (Smylie, 1994). These positive
teacher attitudes improve the quality of implementation and increase the
effectiveness of the adopted programs (Dimmock, 1993; Snow et al., 1998).
An important aspect of school curricula is the determination of school
goals. Instructional goals can focus the work of school personnel on instruction
rather than on peripheral issues such as campus beautification, sports, and events
p lanning (Wohlstetter & Odden, 1992). A shared vision that clearly articulates
school-wide instructional improvement efforts is more effective at fostering
coherent, high quality instruction across the school than efforts that are
disconnected or that do not directly address instruction (Snow et al., 1998;
Wohlstetter et al., 1997).
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Recent studies have found greater effects of school autonomy on
educational program decisions when schools have a guiding instructional vision or
goal that centers on improving instruction (Hill & Bonan, 1991; Hoffman, 1991;
Wohlstetter et al., 1997). Studies of autonomous schools with such instructional
goals suggest that these schools are able to select curricula, instructional activities,
and materials more appropriate to the specific needs of students (Leithwood &
Menzies, 1998; White, 1992). Schools with autonomy had more flexibility to
change their educational programs by adding new courses, integrating new
curricula, and introducing more technology (General Accounting Office, 1994b;
Hatry et al., 1994).
The degree of school flexibility over curricular decisions is dependent on a
number of factors. School-wide curricular decision-making is often dependent on
positive teacher involvement in decisions (Heck, Brandon, & Wang, 2001) and
supportive policies from education agencies (General Accounting Office, 1994a).
Factors that can hinder school decisions on educational programs include school
satisfaction with performance levels, government emphasis on compliance
monitoring, and the temporary status of autonomy policies (General Accounting
Office, 1994a). School autonomy over curriculum is closely linked to the
instructional practices implemented in schools.
When schools have control over instructional practices, they are better able
to determine which practices are most effective for their student populations, since
school personnel have the most knowledge about the educational needs of students.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Schools with extensive control over instructional practices can select effective
practices such as intervention strategies, extended instructional time, or specialized
teaching methods that are tailored to improving the performance of their unique
student populations (Snow et al., 1998).
School selection of effective practices can improve the effectiveness of
instruction and increase student achievement. Intervention strategies can provide
individual tutoring, small group instruction, or whole class changes that target
students assessed to be struggling (Allington, 2001). School determination of
instructional time can extend the quantity of instruction by requiring greater
allotments of time for certain subjects. Successful schools are more effective at
enhancing instructional time (Allington, 2001). Schools can reschedule activities
and pull-out programs to support blocks of uninterrupted instructional time.
Schools can even offer Saturday, after school, or summer school classes to increase
time for instruction (Allington & Cunningham, 1996).
School control over instructional practices is distinct from individual
teacher determination of classroom practices. While studies have found that
teachers continue to maintain considerable control over classroom practices
(Cuban, 1993; Little, 1990), school control over instructional practices implies a
collaborative decision-making process among school personnel to determine
instructional practices. This aspect of school autonomy may actually reduce
individual teacher autonomy. However, research suggests that high levels of
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
individual teacher autonomy may negatively impact school-wide improvement
efforts (Louis et al., 1995; Rosenblum & Louis, 1981).
Local control over the selection of student assessment measures allows
schools to focus on evaluating their students for the purpose of improving
instruction, rather than for external accountability (Calfee & Hiebert, 1991).
Student assessments are frequently controlled by organizations external to schools
as a means of holding schools accountable for student performance. A school-wide
assessment strategy can support effective instruction by allowing personnel to
determine student progress and the success of instructional programs (Kapinus,
1995). The systematic implementation of internal assessments school-wide has
been significantly correlated with growth in student literacy performance (Taylor,
Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 1999). In these schools, teachers regularly
administered the assessments at least three times throughout the year and shared
information about student performance with other school personnel.
The three dimensions of school autonomy— over budget, personnel, and
educational decisions— discussed in this section are significant for schools to
influence classroom practices. The next section analyzes the existing literature to
determine the effects of school autonomy policies on classroom practices.
Effects of School Autonomy on Classroom Practice and Student Achievement
Research on the effects of school autonomy policies has gradually noted the
positive effects of these policies on classroom practice and student achievement.
Though initial studies found few positive effects, a fault of many of these early
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
studies was their utilization of simplistic models of the relationship between school
autonomy and instruction. More recent studies have demonstrated that school
autonomy can lead to improvements in classroom practice and student
achievement.
Early studies of school autonomy found only limited or indirect impacts of
these policies on improving instruction (Malen et al., 1990; Smylie, 1994).
Systematic reviews of the literature found that school autonomy policies, such as
school-based management and teacher participation in decision-making, did not
facilitate adaptations or innovations in instruction (Clune & White, 1988; Malen et
al., 1990; Smylie, 1994). Other studies concluded that school autonomy policies
actually had no direct or positive linkage with improved teacher practice
(Chapman, 1990; Murphy & Beck, 1995).
These early studies found that the effects of school autonomy on instruction
were reduced due to the division of labor among school personnel. Some studies
argued that autonomy policies had limited effects because teachers already had
considerable flexibility over instruction in classrooms (Hatry et al., 1994). School
autonomy often created new governance structures in schools but did not
significantly influence traditional relationships among school personnel (Levine &
Eubanks, 1992; Malen & Ogawa, 1988; Malen et al., 1990). As a result, teachers
maintained their autonomy over instruction, principals continued to make
administrative decisions, and parents failed to wield influence on significant issues.
In many cases, local autonomy resulted in increased participation in school
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
decision-making by teachers and parents (Malen et al., 1990). However, the
maintenance of traditional relationships among school personnel caused these
decisions to be primarily trivial and peripheral to the instructional practices of the
schools (Clune & White, 1988; Lieberman, Darling-Hammond, & Zuckerman,
1991).
Other early studies of decentralized schools identified several indirect but
positive effects of autonomy on instruction in schools. Increased teacher
participation in decision-making often resulted in increased teacher satisfaction,
morale, and commitment to improving instruction (Malen et al., 1990; Rowan,
1990). This was encouraging since schools with higher teacher satisfaction are
more effective organizations (Ostroff, 1992), and since high levels of teacher
morale and commitment have also been found to encourage collaboration to
improve instruction (Little, 1990).
The duration of these effects was also found to be significant. In some
cases, school autonomy resulted in only initial, positive impacts on instruction that
diminished with time (Chapman, 1990; Malen et al., 1990). Factors such as large
time commitments, stress, and frustration tended to limit the impact of school
autonomy on instruction. In addition to inadequate time, studies found that school
personnel lacked the training and technical assistance needed to effectively
implement school autonomy (Levine & Eubanks, 1992).
Some early research on school autonomy policies actually found a negative
impact on instruction. Many of the factors limiting the impact of school autonomy
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on instruction could potentially hinder instruction. Some studies noted that
teachers could become preoccupied with administrative duties, supplanting time for
instructional planning and drawing the energy of personnel away from improving
practices (Chapman & Boyd, 1986; Hannaway, 1993; Murphy & Beck, 1995;
Smylie, 1994).
More recently, a number of studies have demonstrated some direct effects
of school autonomy on instruction. In a multivariate analysis of national data,
school autonomy was associated with the use of innovative practices such as
mixed-ability classrooms, team teaching, emphasis on critical thinking skills, and
common planning periods for teachers (General Accounting Office, 1994b). A
review of the effects of school-based management on teachers found evidence of
changes in classroom instruction due to increased collaboration, information
sharing, and accountability (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998). Similarly, Heck,
Brandon, and Wang (2001) found that positive teacher involvement through site-
based decision-making resulted in the selection of organizational, curricular, and
pedagogical methods to improve instruction. Some evidence in that study also
suggested that decentralized decision-making led to improved student achievement.
Though these studies found positive effects on instruction, they did not attempt to
systematically explain the cause of these results.
Recent studies have attempted to model these positive effects by utilizing
more complex models to study the relationship between school autonomy and
instruction. A study of 17 site-based managed schools found that autonomous
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools were able to generate curricular and instructional innovations (Robertson,
Wohlstetter, & Mohrman, 1995). The ability of these schools to improve was
largely due to the presence of conditions associated with high-involvement
organizations— specifically, decentralization of power, knowledge and skills,
information, and rewards. Smylie, Lazarus, and Brownlee-Conyers (1996) found
that school-based participative decision-making was related positively to
instructional improvement and student achievement. This relationship was, in part,
the result of renewed teacher enthusiasm and a strong focus on instruction. A
comprehensive analysis of Chicago’s school-based management efforts also found
progress in instructional innovations such as authentic instruction (e.g., hands-on
math and science, cooperative learning) that resulted from improved recruiting and
professional development for teachers (Bryk et al., 1998). A study of teacher
empowerment through participation in school decision-making demonstrated a
positive relationship with authentic instruction due to improved teacher
professional community, defined as an increased focus on student learning, de
privatization of practice, reflective dialogue, and shared norms and values (Marks
& Louis, 1997).
In a series of studies, researchers investigated the effects of teacher
empowerment in decentralized schools on instruction and student achievement
(Marks & Louis, 1997, 1999; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). Marks and Louis
(1997) found that overall teacher empowerment was an important but insufficient
condition to change instruction. A significant contribution of these studies was the
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
recognition that teacher empowerment could be divided into different dimensions
such as teacher influence over school operations and classroom instruction. These
findings indicated that the dimensions of teacher influence were distinguishable,
suggesting that not all forms of empowerment will have the same effects on
instruction.
This chapter has presented evidence from the literature that is relevant for
this study of the relationship between school autonomy and classroom practice.
Using the discussion of the dimensions of school autonomy, the next chapter
identifies some indicators of school autonomy that can encourage schools to use
research-based classroom practices. Given these indicators, the next chapter
develops the theoretical framework that will be used to analyze the relationship
between school autonomy and classroom practice in nine autonomous schools.
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In order to investigate the relationship between school autonomy and
classroom practice, this study proposes a general model describing this
relationship. In conjunction with this general model, a framework for investigating
the relationship between each indicator of autonomy and specific types of
classroom practices will be developed. This framework will be applied in this
study to analyze the nine case study elementary schools.
School
Autonomy
Policy
Increased
Student
Achievement
Use of Research-
Based Practices
School Control
over Decision-
Making
Figure 2. General model of the relationship between school autonomy policies and
increased student achievement.
Figure 2 presents a general model of the relationship between school
autonomy policies and increased student achievement. Relationship 1, linking
school autonomy policies to school control over decision-making, was detailed in
prior chapters. The link between school control over decision-making and the use
of research-based practices, Relationship 2, was also analyzed from the existing
literature in the previous chapter. This study concentrates on investigating
Relationship 2 of this model. The final relationship between the use of research-
based practices and increased student achievement, Relationship 3, is dependent on
the content area of the instruction and will not be directly explored, since this study
identifies research-based literacy practices that have demonstrated positive effects
on student achievement. The following section identifies eight indicators of school
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
autonomy that describe specific areas of school control over decision-making that
are expected to influence classroom practice.
Indicators of School Autonomy
Since the literature has identified several dimensions of decision-making
autonomy that are significant for schools, this study expands on previous research
by creating a framework that includes eight specific indicators of school autonomy
that can lead to changes in classroom practices. The eight indicators developed in
this section attempt to explain how school autonomy can lead to improved
classroom instructional practices. Because each indicator delineates a specific area
of school decision-making control, indicators are expected to have different
influences on certain instructional practices.
Prior to this study, school autonomy was primarily defined using the areas
of budget, personnel, and educational program control. Few studies disaggregated
which specific types of decisions are the most significant for generating
improvements in instruction. Over what items in the budget should schools have
control to improve instruction? What types of school control over personnel most
directly affect instruction? What decisions about the educational program should
schools control to improve instruction most effectively?
This section goes beyond earlier studies of autonomous schools by breaking
autonomy down into specific decisions within each of the three dimensions of
autonomy. These eight indicators of autonomy, presented in Table 1, can be used
to classify the degree to which schools have been vested with the autonomy
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
necessary to change instructional practices. These indicators of autonomy are
derived directly from the literature review section on the dimensions of school
autonomy. For this study, levels of autonomy in sample schools were assessed
using interviews of personnel such as principals and teachers. The methods used to
interview personnel will be discussed in Chapter Four.
Table 1. Summary of the eight indicators of school autonomy
Indicator___________ Interview Questions
Control over curriculum and •
instruction-related
expenditures
Control over external •
resources
®
Control over teacher •
socialization
40
How much control does the school have
over expenditures for texts and other
literacy materials?
Does the school require authorization
from another authority to spend school
funds?
How dependent is the school on the
district for funding?
To what extent is the school accessing
external resources?
Does the school have a formal procedure
for accessing external resources?
How much control does the school have
over hiring teachers?
How much control does the school have
over actively recruiting teachers?
How much control does the school have
over the criteria for evaluating teacher
performance?
How much control does the school have
over rewards for teachers?
How much control does the school have
over the frequency, length, and content of
teacher professional development?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1. Summary of the eight indicators of school autonomy (continued)
Indicator Interview Questions
Control over personnel
structure
Control over parent
involvement policies
Control over the literacy
curriculum
Control over instructional
practices
Control over student
assessment measures
Can the school implement team teaching
or other forms of teacher collaboration in
the classroom?
How much control does the school have
over the use of aides for instruction?
Can the school create specialist positions
to assist with literacy instruction?
Can the school create requirements for
parent involvement in the classroom?
How much control does the school have
over involving parents in school decision
making?
How much control does the school have
over selecting its literacy curriculum?
How much control does the school have
over selecting supplemental literacy
materials such as texts and periodicals?
How much control does the school have
over literacy instruction in the classroom?
How much control does the school have
over selecting interventions for low-
performing students?
How much control does the school have
over scheduling instructional time for
literacy?
How much control does the school have
over the selection of student assessment
measures in addition to the required state
assessment?
Do teachers have access to timely student
assessment data?
Does the school determine how student
assessment data will be used?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The next section identifies some specific examples of research-based practices that
have proven to be effective at increasing student literacy performance.
Research-Based Literacy Practices
The practices in this study have been identified by research as effective
methods of improving student literacy performance.5 Studies have noted an
improvement in knowledge about “what works” in effectively instructing students
(Hoffman, 1991; Louis, 1998). Effective research-based literacy practices have
been identified by extensive empirical studies on literacy (American Federation of
Teachers, 1998; National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators, 1996; National
Reading Panel, 2000). These studies have found direct empirical relationships
between the use of these literacy practices and improved student performance.
Though this study does not directly measure student literacy performance, school
autonomy is expected to directly affect teacher practices rather than student
performance.
It is also important to emphasize that this discussion focuses on teacher
literacy practices rather than on literacy curricular content. In the past, debates
have raged over the “correct” content of literacy programs, especially between
phonics and whole language curricula (Routman, 1996). The research-based
practices identified in this study can be implemented in schools to support effective
5 The content area o f literacy was selected for this study because public attention has increasingly
focused on improving literacy instruction in schools, particularly at the elementary (K-5) level
(Manzo, 2001). For the purposes o f this study, literacy is defined as the ability o f students to read
and write fluently.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
literacy instruction, regardless of the content of the curriculum. In the following
sections, the research underlying each research-based practice is summarized.
Print-Rich Classrooms
Teachers can improve the availability of print materials to students in order
to support student literacy achievement. Print materials include a wide range of
materials with text that primarily include books and periodicals. Reviews of the
literature unequivocally conclude that classrooms with more abundant print
materials at appropriate reading levels result in increased opportunities for reading,
which is directly correlated with better student literacy achievement (Allington,
2001; Krashen, 1993).
Use o f Technology
Teacher use of computers and other instructional technologies for literacy
instruction can support individualized instruction, present material in new ways,
and assist with student assessment (Strickland, Feeley, & Wepner, 1987).
Comprehensive examinations of the research conclude that computer-based
instruction increases student literacy achievement at least as much as conventional
modes of instruction (National Reading Panel, 2000; Reinking & Bridwell-Bowles,
1991). For instance, use of computers for literacy instruction can free students to
concentrate on sentence structure and vocabulary rather than on handwriting skills.
Instruction Tailored to Students ’ Reading Levels
Teacher selection of appropriate instruction and literacy materials at
students’ reading levels optimizes opportunities for student learning and high
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
performance (Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission,
1999; Hoffman, 1991). Though schools traditionally disaggregate students into
grade levels according to age, differences in student reading levels, albeit reduced,
still persist within classrooms. A common characteristic of effective literacy
instruction is that students must be exposed to appropriate instruction and materials
in order to optimize their opportunities for learning (Hoffman, 1991). Students that
are exposed to instruction at inappropriately difficult levels are unable to learn
because their existing skills are insufficient to aid them in understanding the lesson.
On the other hand, students that are exposed to instruction at inappropriately easy
levels are unable to expand their existing skills. Instruction tailored to students’
reading levels is closely linked with the assessment of students for instruction,
since the design of appropriate instruction requires some assessment of student
ability levels.
Small Group Instruction
Small group instruction allows teachers to customize classroom instruction
to address variations in student needs (Barr & Dreeben, 1991; Curriculum
Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, 1999; Taylor et al., 1999).
This instructional practice is most effective for classes with a range of student
abilities.
The method of grouping students according to ability level across schools
has been improved over time. Comprehensive reviews of research on the effects of
grouping students according to ability level have concluded that ability grouping
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
has the potential to impede the academic progress of students in low groups
(Hallinan, 1987). However, studies have demonstrated methods of alleviating these
detrimental effects and increasing the potential for improved student performance.
As opposed to grouping according to overall student ability, grouping plans across
grades and classrooms according to individual subject areas such as literacy can
increase student achievement (Slavin, 1987). The use of frequent, systematic
assessments are also necessary to prevent groups from becoming rigid and
inflexible as student ability levels change (Slavin, 1987; Taylor et ah, 1999). In
addition, deviations from the norm of equal instructional time across ability groups
may be necessary, since low ability students may require longer lengths of time to
learn (Hallinan, 1987).
Assessment Designed for Student Instruction
Frequent performance-based assessments designed to evaluate students’
reading levels can assist teachers in the planning of instruction (Calfee & Hiebert,
1991; Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, 1999;
Snow et al., 1998). Teacher use of assessments designed to measure effectiveness
of instruction have been significantly correlated with increases in student literacy
performance (Taylor et al., 1999). In these schools, teachers regularly administered
assessments at least three times throughout the year and shared information about
student performance with other school personnel.
Teachers should develop assessments that are administered frequently,
designed for classroom decisions, performance-based, valid for guiding instruction,
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and linked to curriculum and instruction (Calfee & Hiebert, 1991). Since schools
are focusing more on what students need to be able to do in the real world,
assessments should be authentic and nonstandardized in the form of portfolios,
writing samples, observations, self-evaluations, and interviews (Allington &
Cunningham, 1996; Kapinus, 1995).
Strong School-Home Connections
Coordination of literacy instruction at school with parents reading nightly
with students reinforces classroom instruction (Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman,
& Hemphill, 1991). Teachers can support classroom instruction by establishing a
strategy for linking instruction with parent involvement. Increased school
connections with the home are intended to reinforce student learning from school
(Snow et al., 1991). In an in-depth study of low-income schools, parent-student
interactions such as direct teaching and creating opportunities to learn correlated
positively with student literacy performance (Snow et al., 1991). The same study
found that formal parent involvement in schools (e.g., joining organizations,
volunteering) was also linked with student outcomes. Such results have also been
confirmed by other studies (Taylor et al., 1999).
Table 2 summarizes the research-based practices identified above. These
literacy practices were assessed in sample schools using a survey of all teachers.
The methods for administering and analyzing the surveys will be discussed in detail
in the next chapter.
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2. Summary of research-based literacy practices and the teacher survey
items used to assess the use of these practices in sample schools
Literacy Practices Teacher Survey Items
Print-rich classrooms Supplementary materials for teaching
reading (e.g., literature sets, student level
periodicals, manipulatives) are readily
available at my school, (strongly disagree,
disagree, agree, or strongly agree)
Use of technology Students use technology to produce their
own text, (strongly disagree, disagree,
agree, or strongly agree)
Instruction tailored to student I select all available materials, including
reading levels but not limited to the basal materials, for
use with each group/student according to
the students’ reading level, (strongly
disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree)
Small group instruction When teaching reading, I deliver teacher
directed lessons primarily in small groups,
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or
strongly agree)
Assessment designed for I use assessment to plan for instruction.
student instruction (disagree or agree)
Strong school-home Parents are involved in reading instruction
connections with my students through reading nightly
with their child, (strongly disagree,
disagree, agree, or strongly agree)
The next section describes the expected relationships between the indicators of
school autonomy and the research-based literacy practices.
Framework: School Autonomy and Research-Based Practices
The framework for this study is organized according to several types of
classroom practices. These broad types of classroom practices include materials,
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instructional practices, assessment, and parent involvement. The literature has
identified these types of practices as important for evaluating the effectiveness of
instructional programs (Bean, 1995; Kapinus, 1995; Snow et al., 1991; Tuckman,
1979). By focusing on these types of classroom practices, direct and indirect
relationships between the indicators of autonomy and each type of classroom
practice can be hypothesized.
Instructional Materials (Print-Rich Classrooms)
Instructional
Materials
School Control over
Curriculum
School Control over Curriculum
and Instructional Expenditures
School Control over
External Resources
Figure 3. Relationships between school control over instructional expenditures,
external resources, and curriculum and the presence of instructional materials.
The availability of adequate instructional materials in classrooms is
essential for effective instruction. Even the most highly skilled teacher would have
difficulty teaching literacy without print materials. Figure 3 illustrates that three
indicators of autonomy are expected to directly affect the availability of materials
in classrooms. For this study, instructional materials will include the research-
based practice of having print-rich classrooms. Schools with more control over
these three indicators of autonomy are expected to have greater presence of
necessary instructional materials.
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Each of these indicators of autonomy contributes in a different way to the
presence of instructional materials in classrooms. School control over curricular
and instructional expenditures provides school personnel with the ability to direct
financial resources toward the purchase of necessary classroom instructional
materials. Schools with control over external resources may be able to seek out
sources of funding such as grants and partnership that may yield additional
instructional materials for classrooms. Since the curricula of a school consist of
what is to be taught to students, the selection of curricula such as a literacy program
often encompasses purchasing necessary materials, such as texts and workbooks,
which may accompany the program. Schools that have control over selecting
curricula are expected to be able to determine which resources are needed in the
classroom based on the input from teachers.
Instructional Practices (Instruction Tailored to Student Reading Levels, Small
Group Instruction, Use o f Technology)
Instructional
Practices
School Control
over Instruction
School Control over
Personnel Structure
School Control over
Teacher Socialization
Figure 4. Indirect and direct relationships linking school control over teacher
socialization, personnel structure, and instruction to instructional practices.
Figure 4 presents the expected indirect and direct relationships between
three indicators of autonomy and effective instruction. For this study, effective
instruction will include the following three research-based practices: instruction
tailored to student reading levels, small group instruction, and use of technology.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School control over teacher socialization and personnel structure is expected to
have an indirect influence on classroom instruction because these indicators are
dependent on schools having control over instructional decisions. For instance,
schools that are provided with extensive control over teacher socialization and
personnel structure are expected to have very little influence on instructional
practices if their districts dictate how students are to be taught.
School control over instruction is expected to improve instruction in a
number of ways, as discussed earlier in the chapter. This school control is expected
to increase the commitment and accountability of teachers to adhere to school-wide
decisions on instruction, since all stakeholders can be involved in the decision
making process. School autonomy over instruction is also expected to improve
classroom instruction by bringing school-wide resources to bear on instructional
decisions, rather than relying on individual teachers to determine appropriate
instructional practices. In this way, school-wide decision-making on instruction
can result in more effective instructional practices across all classrooms.
Assessment (Assessment for Instruction) and Parent Involvement (Strong School-
Home Connections)
Use of
Assessments
Parent
Involvement
School Control over
Student Assessment
School Control over Parent
Involvement Policies
Figure 5. Relationship between school control over student assessment and the use
of assessments and the relationship between school control over parent
involvement policies and parent involvement.
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The final two relationships presented in Figure 5 link the two remaining
indicators of autonomy to their respective instructional practices. Schools with
greater control over student assessments are expected to be able to use student
assessments more effectively to improve instruction. District and state
requirements to administer certain assessments may limit the ability of schools to
tailor items to their curricula and to analyze student data on their own. Given the
opportunity to select appropriate student assessments, stakeholders— particularly
teachers-in schools are expected to link those assessments to instruction and to use
assessments to improve practices.
Parent involvement policies that are determined by schools can be tailored
to the characteristics of parents whose students attend those schools. Provided this
control, schools can implement parent involvement policies that maximize parent
support for instruction. This school-wide effort to increase parent involvement is
expected to result in improved parent involvement with students in support of
classroom instruction.
This framework for studying the relationships between the indicators of
autonomy and classroom practices guides the data analysis for this study. These
expected relationships will be examined using data from the nine sample schools.
The next chapter presents the methods used to gather and analyze data for this
study.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FOUR: STUDY METHODS
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between school
autonomy and the implementation of research-based literacy practices. The study
investigated schools with various degrees of autonomy-both charter schools and
site-based managed schools— and examined how the sample schools used their
autonomy to implement research-based literacy practices in classrooms. The
following research questions guided the study:
1. Do schools under different autonomy policies vary in their power over
school-based decisions?
2. To what extent are research-based literacy practices implemented in
autonomous schools?
3. Are schools with more autonomy more likely to implement research-based
literacy practices?
4. How do schools use their autonomy to implement research-based literacy
practices?
The research methods used in this study include both qualitative (school-
level interviews) and quantitative (teacher surveys) data to investigate the research
questions. The qualitative data were primarily used to assess the degree of
autonomy in sample schools. Qualitative data were also used to provide more in-
depth information on the school’s approach to literacy and on teacher classroom
practices. The quantitative data assessed teachers’ use of research-based literacy
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
practices. The following section describes the methods used to select the sample
schools for this study.
Description of Sampling Procedure and Sample Schools
The nine sample elementary (K-5) schools were purposefully selected from
the Los Angeles area as part of two independent but parallel research projects6
conducted under the auspices of the Center on Educational Governance at the
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. The present study
was intended to be an exploratory investigation using a multisite case study design
that involved the identification of themes across multiple cases. This research
design was employed to enhance the generalizability of findings (Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Turpin & Sinacore, 1991). The deliberate selection of diverse
cases, rather than random cases, can enhance the generalizability of results and
increase the external validity of findings (Turpin & Sinacore, 1991; Yin, 1994).
The definition of school autonomy developed for this study has some
implications for the selection and comparison of school autonomy policies. The
prerequisite of school self-governance can be considered a categorical variable,
since schools either have some structure for collective decision-making or they do
not. All school autonomy policies identified in this study incorporated some form
of school self-governance. On the other hand, the external relations of schools are
6 With funding from the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation, charter schools in
this study participated in a research project entitled, “Innovations in Charter Schools: Impact on
Student Achievement.” The district-run schools in this study participated in a second research
project, “Pockets of Excellence: Organizing for Literacy Achievement,” funded by the Center for
Urban Education at the University o f Southern California. The data collection methods used for
both study samples were identical.
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
similar to a continuous variable, since the degree of decision-making control
granted to schools may differ incrementally across various policies. As a result,
differences across school autonomy policies will likely be due to the external
relations of schools, rather than due to the presence or absence of a collective
decision-making structure. These differences became evident as this study
examined how school autonomy policies can influence instruction.
The three groups of schools— independent charter, dependent charter, and
site-based managed (SBM) schools-were selected to capture schools with varying
degrees of autonomy (see Table 3). California charter school law allows schools to
negotiate, through their charter petition, the extent to which they have fiscal
autonomy (Powell, Blackorby, Marsh, Finnegan, & Anderson, 1997; Wohlstetter,
Griffin, & Chau, 2002). The three charter schools with extensive control over their
budgets— independent charter schools— were hypothesized to be the most
autonomous of the sample (Schools A, B, and C). The other three charter schools
selected for the study were dependent charter schools that still relied on their
charter authorizers for approval of their budgets (Schools D, E, and F). The three
SBM schools in the sample (Schools G, H, and I) operated under a district-
sponsored SBM initiative and were expected to have the least amount of autonomy
among the schools we studied.
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3. Characteristics of autonomy policies in sample elementary schools
School Year of Policy
Adoption
Startup/Conversion?
Independent Charter
School A 1993 Start-up
SchoolB 1993 Conversion
SchoolC 1994 Conversion
Dependent Charter
SchoolD 1993 Conversion
School E 1994 Conversion
SchoolF 1998 Start-up
Site-Based Managed
SchoolG 1993
—
School H 1994 -—
School I 1996 —
Charter schools in the sample were also selected to include both start-up
and conversion charter schools, as shown in Table 3. The research on charter
schools has identified differences between the needs of start-up and conversion
charter schools (Finn Jr. et al., 2000). For example, start-up charter schools
typically find it more difficult than conversion charter schools to secure facilities.
All three SBM schools were located in the same Los Angeles area school
district. As described on the district’s website, the SBM plan transferred
“significant decisions in instruction, budgeting, staffing and school operations” to
schools. However, the district revised its instructional policies in Fall 2000 and
centralized decisions about reading instruction. As a result, all elementary schools
in the district, including the three SBM schools in this sample, were required to use
the same published literacy program for the first through third grades during the
55
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2000-2001 academic year. SBM schools retained control over other curriculum
decisions.
From the universe of district schools that had implemented SBM, schools
were selected that had been successful in improving student achievement in the
area of reading; these schools were expected to be more likely to use research-
based literacy practices. To identify SBM schools with improvements in scores,
Stanford 9 reading achievement test scores for third graders between the 1997-98
and 1998-1999 school years were compared. Third grade test scores were used
because of the school district’s emphasis on having students read by that grade
level. This was to identify schools that had struggled with reading instruction and
had improved in the following year. For the three sample schools, the average
scores for students at or above the 50th percentile increased from 17% to 30%
between the two years. The data used to select SBM schools were compiled from
the California Department of Education database (California Department of
Education, 2000) and were sorted using the statistical program SPSS (SPSS Inc,
2000).
Across all three sample groups, schools were selected that had been
operating under their respective reforms for at least three years (see Table 3). This
selection criterion was applied to ensure the schools’ instructional programs were
fully implemented. The only exception to this criterion was the newer dependent
charter school, School F, that was operated by an educational management
organization (EMO). The availability of facilities and the extensive support of the
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EMO were expected to minimize the difficulties from being a start-up charter
school.
Another consideration in selecting sample schools was the ethnic diversity
of the student populations. This concern was to ensure the relevance of the study
for urban settings (see Table 4). For instance, within the universe of district SBM
schools, schools were selected for the sample only if their student populations
included large percentages (over 85%) of non-white, particularly Latino and
African-American, students. Likewise, preference was given to charter schools
with higher percentages of non-white students. The only exceptions in the sample
were in the group of dependent charter schools; in the Los Angeles area, few
dependent charter schools had student populations of over 85% non-white and had
operated for over three years.
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4. Demographic information for sample elementary schools during the
1999-2000 academic year
School
Number
of
Students
Student Demographics
Latino Black Asian White Other
Independent Charter
School A 232 53.9% 44.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.9%
SchoolB 1,237 81.4% 13.3% 0.5% 2.3% 2.5%
SchoolC 1,024 97.4% 0.3% 0.3% 1.6% 0.4%
Dependent Charter
School D 364 18.1% 19.5% 19.8% 40.7% 1.9%
School E 738 9.1% 7.3% 12.7% 69.0% 1.9%
SchoolF 808 57.2% 10.6% 12.3% 15.2% 4.7%
Site-Based Managed
SchoolG 769 86.1% 2.1% 10.4% 1.2% 0.2%
SchoolH 715 71.5% 8.0% 3.6% 11.6% 5.3%
School I 545 54.5% 20.2% 11.2% 11.6% 2.5%
Additional characteristics of urban populations were also used to select
sample schools. Since urban schools often have disproportionately high
percentages of English Language Learners (ELLs), schools were selected for the
study that had high percentages of ELLs, as shown in Table 5 below. Students
receiving “Free/Reduced Price Meals” were used as a proxy for identifying schools
serving low-income families. However, the small number of charter schools in the
Los Angeles area limited the selection of dependent charter schools with high
percentages of students receiving “Free/Reduced Price Meals.”
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5. Urban characteristics of sample elementary schools for the 1999-2000
academic year
School Title I
English Language
Learners
Free/Reduced
Price Meals
Independent Charter
School A Yes 39.4% 82.9%
SchoolB Yes 61.4% 85.2%
SchoolC Yes 69.9% 81.5%
Dependent Charter
School D No 23.6% 31.5%
School E No 8.9% 9.0%
School F No 8.0% 44.8%
Site-Based Managed
SchoolG Yes 53.6% 89.1%
SchoolH Yes 40.1% 83.6%
School I Yes 48.8% 81.2%
After schools that met the study criteria were identified, phone calls were
conducted with principals at the prospective schools to receive approval to
participate in the study. As an incentive, the researchers offered charter schools a
stipend of $500, while district-run schools were offered $600. The stipend for
district-run schools was higher to compensate for the cost of substitute teachers
during the site visits. Only one prospective charter school declined to participate in
the study. The principal of that charter school explained that the teachers had
declined the offer because the school was already involved with several other
research studies. All other charter schools agreed to participate in the study. Four
prospective SBM schools chose not to participate in this study. Two SBM
principals declined the offer to participate in the study. One SBM principal did not
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reply to requests to discuss the study. One other SBM school declined to
participate because the school had just hired a new principal.
The sample schools represent a unique set of high capacity schools. The
charter schools demonstrated initiative and strong community by voluntarily
petitioning and creating their schools, while the SBM schools had successfully
improved student achievement. Since this study was designed to explore the
relationship between school autonomy and classroom practices, schools were
selected with the highest likelihood of demonstrating this relationship. As a result,
findings from this study can be used to explain findings from cases of other high
capacity autonomous schools, but should not be generalized to represent findings
for all charter or SBM schools.
The selected sample schools also represent unique examples of autonomy
policies in California and the Los Angeles area. Of the numerous charter school
laws across the United States, California’s charter school law is widely considered
“strong” in supporting extensive charter school autonomy (Center for Education
Reform, 2002). The variations in SBM policies across the nation have also been
widely documented (Murphy & Beck, 1995). As a result, this study’s findings
should only be applied to cases under similar autonomy policies.
Data Collection Methods
Data for the study were collected from a variety of sources, including
school-site interviews, surveys of teacher literacy practices, and a review of
archival documents. Teams of two researchers from the Center on Educational
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
G overnance conducted data collection during a two-day site visit to each school.
Prior to data collection, all members of the research team attended a one-day
training session to familiarize them with the instruments for data collection; the
logistics of scheduling; the methods for conducting and writing-up interviews; and
the process of administering teacher surveys. Site visits occurred during the 1999-
20 0 0 and 2000-2001 school years. For all data collection instruments, participant
consent was acquired and confidentiality was assured.
Interviews
One-on-one interviews at the nine school sites were conducted with
individuals knowledgeable about school decision-making processes and about
school literacy efforts. These individuals included principals, instructional
coordinators, teachers, librarians, and parents. Interviews were conducted during
two-day site visits from Fall 1999 to Spring 2001.
Participants. Selection of interview participants was a combination of
purposeful selection by researchers and recommendations from principals. The
goal was to identify individuals with knowledge of school decision-making
processes and knowledge about school literacy programs. Individuals selected at
each school for their knowledge of school decision-making processes included the
principal, two members of the school’s decision-making council, and the grade-
level leaders from the first and fifth grades. Teachers from the first and fifth grades
were selected because they would have knowledge about the beginning and end of
the school’s reading program. Participants interviewed about the school literacy
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
programs included instructional coordinators, first grade teachers, and fifth grade
teachers. Two parents were also interviewed from each school regarding school
decision-making processes and literacy practices. During initial principal phone
interviews, principals were asked if other personnel should be interviewed to
provide information about the school decision-making processes and literacy
programs. Any principal recommendations were added to the list of interviews.
For example, one principal suggested that the librarian also be interviewed, so that
interview was added to the study. The full list of interview participants is included
in Table 6. The study design called for a total of 12 interviews per school.
Table 6. Total number of interviews conducted across the nine sample schools
Participant Number of Interviews
Principal 18
Instructional Coordinator 11
Governance Council Members 16
1st Grade Level Leader 7
1st Grade Teachers 16
5th Grade Level Leader 8
5th Grade Teachers 18
Parents 17
Miscellaneous Personnel 6
TOTAL: 116
After initial phone interviews with principals, the list of school personnel
needed for interviews was faxed to the school. The principal then selected
interview participants at the school. If the school organization did not have grade
level leaders, the principals selected teachers who were most involved with
decision-making at the schools. A total of 116 interviews were conducted across
the nine sample schools.
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Instruments. Semi-structured protocols were used to guide all interviews.
At the beginning of the study, a master list of questions was generated addressing
issues related to school decision-making autonomy and literacy. From this master
list, subsets of questions were selected that were relevant for each particular
interview participant. For example, classroom teachers were given more questions
regarding school literacy practices, while principals were given more questions
regarding school autonomy. A miscellaneous protocol was created for participants,
such as librarians, who did not fit directly into any of the planned interview
protocols, but were still cited as important to the school by the principals. Identical
questions were used across interview protocols in order to confirm the accuracy of
participant responses. This study used a total of eight different interview protocols
including the following: principal pre-site telephone, principal on-site, instructional
coordinator, governance leader, grade level leader, classroom teacher, parent, and
miscellaneous personnel.
Data Collection. After approval for the study, a pre-site telephone interview
was conducted with each principal. These interviews each lasted approximately 30
minutes. During the telephone interview, principals were asked to give an
overview of school governance and the school literacy program. At the end of the
interview, the list of desired interviews was shared and principals were asked if
they would recommend any additional interviews. The complete list of interviews
was then faxed to the school. Researchers also scheduled the dates of the two-day
site visit with the principals.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interviewers for this study included faculty, staff, and graduate students
from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. A
total of seven interviewers participated in two-day site visits at the sample schools
from 1999-2001. As discussed earlier, all researchers participated in a training
session to introduce them to the study and the procedures for conducting and
transcribing interviews.
All interviewers followed similar procedures during interviews. Interviews
during the two-day site visits were each approximately one hour long. Schools
were asked to provide substitutes during the site visits to provide interview
participants with the time to be interviewed. In addition, some interviews were
conducted during lunch periods and after school. Interviewers brought protocols
and took written notes during the interviews; no interviews were tape recorded.
Interviewers then transcribed participant responses to questions onto computer
files. These transcriptions were the texts used for data analysis.7
Data Analysis. Responses from interviews were stored and organized using
the qualitative data management program, ATLAS.ti 5.0 (Muhr, 2001). A
preliminary list of codes was created before analysis of the interviews, based on
indicators of autonomy and research-based literacy practices. The list of codes
evolved during analysis of the interviews. Consistent with qualitative data analysis,
analysis for this study was an iterative process that involved creating, splicing,
7 Quotations from interviews will be labeled using the following system: school letter.autonomy
policy (either ind, dep, or SBM).position. For instance, an interview with the principal at School A
would be labeled: A.ind.P.
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
abandoning, and splitting codes (Dey, 1993). The final codes used to assess the
degree of school autonomy are listed in Table 7.
Table 7. List of codes used to assess the degree of school autonomy from
interview data
Code Description
Curriculum and instruction-
related expenditures School control over budgets or expenditures for
curricular or instructional materials
External resources School use of grants, partnerships, or other
outside funding sources
Hiring of teachers School control over the hiring of teachers or
other personnel
Professional development School control over decisions on professional
development (e.g., content and frequency)
Personnel performance
evaluation School control over the evaluation of personnel
performance
Personnel structure School control over the scheduling and
placement of personnel (e.g., aides, volunteers)
for instruction
Parent involvement School control over parent involvement policies
for academic and/or non-academic activities
Literacy curriculum School control over literacy curriculum
Instructional practices School control over instructional practices (e.g.,
interventions, group instruction)
Assessment of students School control over school-wide or classroom
assessments of student performance
After coding individual interviews, cross-case analysis techniques were
used to assess the degree of autonomy in sample schools. Using the codes from
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interviews specific to each school, a partially ordered meta-matrix (Miles &
Huberman, 1994) was created to profile school autonomy across the sample of
schools. Each cell in the meta-matrix represented the combined coded responses
from participants at each school that corresponded to the indicators of school
autonomy. For instance, the “school control over external resources” cell for
School A held all of the quotations from interviews at School A that related to the
school’s use of grants, partnerships, or other outside funding sources.
Using the partially ordered meta-matrix, the study focused on comparisons
of interview data across schools. The degree of school control within each
indicator of autonomy— determined by examining and comparing the cells of the
meta-matrix— was rated on an absolute scale (limited control = 1; moderate control
= 2; extensive control = 3) to create summed indices for each sample school. For
example, a dependent charter school, such as School D, that was able to decide on
how much money to spend on literacy materials but required district authorization
to spend school funds was given a “moderate control” rating for the indicator of
“control over curriculum and instructional expenditures.”
A list of codes, separate from the codes designed to assess school
autonomy, was developed in order investigate the research-based literacy practices
used in sample schools. Table 8 below lists these codes.
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8. Summary list of codes used to investigate the use of research-based
literacy practices in sample schools
Benefits of adopting autonomy policy
Decision-makers on the literacy program
Goals of the literacy program
Organization of students for literacy instruction
Decision-maker on student assessment
Use of technology for literacy instruction
Use of texts for literacy instruction
Literacy program addresses special student populations (e.g., bilingual)
Use of extra personnel in classrooms (e.g., aides)
Decision-makers on professional development
Use of academic programs outside of the classroom (e.g., Saturday classes)
Use of the library in the reading program
School use of external resources (e.g., grants)
Parent involvement in classrooms
_______________ ______ Use of parent contracts _______ _
Data identified using these codes were used to complement findings from teacher
survey responses. These data were also used to investigate how school autonomy
was used to implement research-based literacy practices in sample schools.
Archival Documents
Documents such as budgets, annual reports, and charter petitions were
collected from sample schools to supplement original data collection efforts. These
documents were used to provide information that may differ from or may not be
available to interview participants (Hodder, 2000). Personnel at sample schools
provided copies of all documents for this study.
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Types of documents. The types of documents were selected for their
information on school autonomy and classroom practices. Below is the full list of
documents:
• School budget
• Charter school petition
• Written description of reading program, including the list of literacy
standards the school uses
• Evaluations of the school and/or its reading program
• Faculty information - number per grade level, turnover
• Facilities information - number of classrooms per grade, number of
computers per classroom, number of books in the library
Collection of school documents. After the preliminary telephone interviews
with principals, the list of the selected school documents was faxed to schools.
Schools were offered reimbursements for the cost of copying documents.
Documents were collected by researchers during or after the two-day site visits
conducted at schools.
Analysis of school documents. Information from school documents was
combined with the interview data for analysis. The school documents provided
background information on school organization and literacy efforts. These
documents also provided contextual information on the decision-making processes
within the schools.
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher Surveys
Surveys were administered to teachers at all sample schools either during or
after the two-day site visits. The surveys were designed to assess the literacy
practices of all classroom teachers in the sample schools.
Participants. All classroom teachers in sample schools were asked to
voluntarily complete the surveys. Over 310 surveys were administered to the
sample schools. Of that total, 228 surveys were completed and returned. The
average response rate across the nine sample schools was 76%. Table 9 presents the
response rates for each sample school.
Table 9. Survey response rates from sample schools
School
Number of
Teachers
Surveys
Returned Response Rate
Independent Charter
School A 6 6 100%
SchoolB 43 31 72%
SchoolC 55 49 89%
Dependent Charter
SchoolD 20 10 50%
SchoolE 39 28 72%
SchoolF 39 33 85%
Site-Based Managed
SchoolG 40 15 38%
SchoolH 38 31 82%
School I 30 26 87%
Instrument. The survey for the study was designed to investigate the
literacy practices of all classroom teachers in the sample schools. The survey
consisted of 99 items. The survey, which was structured around the research-based
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
literacy practices identified in Chapter Three, was designed to assess teachers’ use
of research-based practices in the classroom. All survey items, except for the item
“assessment designed for student instruction,” utilized four-point Likert scales
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree). The survey item for
“assessment designed for student instruction” employed a dichotomous scale
(disagree, agree). To facilitate analysis across all the survey items, the responses
were aggregated to determine the percentage of positive (agree and strongly agree)
responses per school.
Data Collection. Surveys were administered in two different ways. In
schools with faculty meetings, surveys were administered at those meetings by a
study researcher. In schools without faculty meetings or that did not wish to
administer the surveys during those meetings, surveys were provided for all
teachers. Principals were then given primary responsibility for collecting the
surveys and returning them using pre-paid Federal Express envelops. The survey,
on average, required 20 minutes to complete. In cases where initial response rates
were low, additional surveys were provided to principals, who were asked to
redistribute and return completed surveys with pre-paid Federal Express envelops.
Data Analysis. Data from surveys were analyzed to assess teachers’ use of
research-based literacy practices in sample schools, and how those practices
differed. Average teacher responses to survey items were aggregated by school
using the quantitative analysis program SPSS 10.0.5. Analysis of variance was
used to confirm that average teacher responses across the three groups of sample
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools— independent charter, dependent charter, and site-based managed schools-
differed significantly. The average teacher responses for the nine individual
schools were also tested to confirm that they differed at significant levels. Table 10
below presents the values for the analysis of variance of teacher responses on the
survey items.
Table 10. Analysis of variance for survey items across the three groups of sample
schools and across the nine individual sample schools
F
P
Across the Three Sample Groups
Print-Rich Classrooms 18.493 .000
Use of Technology 20.129 .000
Instruction Tailored to Student Reading Levels 1.317 .270
Small Group Instruction 3.080 .048
Assessment Designed for Instruction 1.106 .333
Strong School-Home Connections 22.174 .000
Across the Nine Sample Schools
Print-Rich Classrooms 5.935 .000
Use of Technology 11.864 .000
Instruction Tailored to Student Reading Levels 4.198 .000
Small Group Instruction 9.448 .000
Assessment Designed for Instruction 4.554 .000
Strong School-Home Connections 7.617 .000
Most items varied significantly across the three sample groups. The lack of
significant differences for some items across the three sample groups was not a
concern, since the focus of this study was to examine the differences across
individual schools. All of the items varied significantly (p<.001) across the nine
sample schools. Using Microsoft Excel, graphs were created to analyze the
relationships between teacher use of research-based literacy practices and the
degrees of school autonomy. These graphs are presented in Chapter Five.
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The data collection methods that assessed the use of research-based literacy
practices in sample schools were dependent on teacher self-reporting. Data on
literacy practices were reliant on indirect measures such as teacher surveys and
teacher interviews. This reliance on self-reporting may decrease the validity of
findings on classroom practices. However, other methods of assessing classroom
practices using observations or teacher logs were impractical due to the high labor
and financial costs. As a method of increasing the validity of findings from this
study, teacher survey responses were triangulated with teacher interview responses
as well as archival documents about school literacy programs.
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS
This chapter presents the results from interviews with school personnel and
surveys of classroom teachers. First, this chapter discusses the results from surveys
that investigated teacher use of research-based practices in sample schools. In the
second section, an analysis of the autonomy in schools, based on interview data, is
presented. Finally, the relationship between school autonomy and the use of
research-based practices is investigated using the detailed framework developed in
Chapter Three.
Overview of Classroom Practices in Sample Schools
This study hypothesized that schools operating under more autonomous
policies would have greater use of research-based practices. As presented in
Chapter Three, research-based practices were defined to include: print-rich
classrooms, use of technology, instruction tailored to student reading levels, small
group instruction, assessment designed for instruction, and strong school-home
connections. The three groups of sample schools for this study— independent
charter schools, dependent charter schools, and site-based managed schools—
operated under policies with varying degrees of autonomy. This section presents
the findings on the use of research-based practices in the three groups of sample
schools. Variations within each group of schools will be discussed later in the
chapter.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Results from the teacher surveys displayed the expected relationship
between the autonomy policies of sample schools and the availability of print
materials in classrooms (see Figure 6).
1 0 0 -i
0
□ Site-Based Managed
B Dependent Charter
■ Independent Charter
Print-Rich Classrooms
Research-Based Literacy Practice
Figure 6. Percentage of teachers who agreed that they had print-rich classrooms in
the three sample groups.
Note. Sample included three site-based managed schools (n = 72); three dependent
charter schools (n = 70); and three independent charter schools (n = 84).
Teachers in independent charter schools, when compared to the other two groups of
schools, responded that they had the highest availability of print materials. More
teachers in dependent charter schools responded that they had sufficient print
materials available than teachers in site-based managed schools.
Figure 7 presents the use of four research-based practices— the use of
technology, instruction tailored to student reading levels, small group instruction,
and strong school-home connections— in sample schools.
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
90
0
□ Site-Based M anaged
@ D ependent C harter
U Independent C harter
Use o f In struction Small Group
T echnology T ailored to Instruction
Students’ Reading
L evels
Strong School-
H om e
C onnections
R e se a r c h -B a se d L ite ra c y P ractice
Figure 7. Percentage of teachers who agreed that four research-based practices
were present in the three sample groups.
Note. Sample included three site-based managed schools (n = 72); three dependent
charter schools (n = 70); and three independent charter schools (n = 84).
These survey results were more mixed, but added some support to this study’s
hypothesis by demonstrating that charter schools used more research-based
practices than site-based managed schools. Charter schools in the sample had
higher use of technology and instruction tailored to students’ reading levels than
site-based managed schools. However, findings on the use of small group
instruction appeared more haphazard, with independent charter schools using small
group instruction as much as site-based managed schools. Teacher use of strong
school-home connections did demonstrate some relationship with the operation of
schools under more autonomous policies. Teachers in charter schools responded
that they used strong school-home connections more than teachers in site-based
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
managed schools. Almost all teachers (98.5%) in dependent charter schools asked
for parents to help children with reading at home every night. Overall, these results
did not suggest that schools with more autonomy had greater use of technology,
instruction tailored to student reading levels, small group instruction, or strong
school-home connections.
Figure 8 shows the extent to which the three groups of schools used
assessment to guide student instruction.
Figure 8. Percentage of teachers who agreed that assessment was designed for
instruction in the three sample groups.
Note. Sample included three site-based managed schools (n = 72); three dependent
charter schools (n = 70); and three independent charter schools (n = 84).
The use of assessment designed for student instruction in sample schools
showed little relationship with the types of autonomy policies. As mentioned in
Chapter Four, results on this survey item were not significantly different across the
three groups of sample schools. Nevertheless, the percentage of teachers in
independent charter schools who used this practice was higher than the other two
100
□ Site-Based Managed
■ Dependent Charter
■ Independent Charter
0
Assessment Designed for Student Instruction
Research-Based Literacy Practice
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
groups of schools. Teachers in dependent charter schools used this practice less
than teachers in site-based managed schools.
Overall, findings from teacher surveys indicate that schools operating under
more autonomous policies used more research-based literacy practices. However,
the greater use of some research-based practices in dependent charter schools
deviated from the predicted results. A closer analysis of the nine individual sample
schools can confirm whether schools operating under more autonomous policies
had greater decision-making control. The following section discusses the actual
degrees of decision-making control granted to individual sample schools.
Ratings of School Autonomy
Based on interview responses from school personnel, autonomy ratings for
the nine sample schools were generated based on the eight indicators of autonomy
developed in Chapter Three. This section presents these ratings and examines
some of the differences in the degree of decision-making control in the sample
schools. The discussion that follows is organized according to the three dimensions
of autonomy— control over budget, personnel, and educational decisions.
Autonomy over Budget Decisions
The ratings of school control over educational expenditures are presented in
Table 11.
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 11. Ratings of autonomy over budget decisions in sample schools
School Control over
Educational Expenditures
Control over
External Resources
Independent Charter
School A 3 3
SchoolB 3 3
School C 3 3
Dependent Charter
SchoolD 2 3
School E 2 3
SchoolF 2 2
Site-Based Managed
SchoolG 1 1
SchoolH 1 1
School I 1 1
Note. 1 = limited control; 2 = moderate control; 3 - extensive control.
Independent charters exhibited the most extensive control over educational
expenditures. As one principal at an independent charter school explained:
We are also able to manage all of our own finances, which we could not do
before [becoming a charter school]. This makes it easier to get things done-
-for example, when the school needed new computers we were able to buy
them quickly, rather than waiting for permission from the district, or being
denied by the district altogether. (C.indep.P)
When compared to the independent charter schools, the dependent charter
and SBM schools in the sample had less control over educational expenditures. All
dependent charter schools in the sample still maintained ties with the district with
respect to budget decisions. During interviews, personnel in these schools
responded that district control over educational expenditures tended to limit school-
based decisions. The principal in a dependent charter school explained, “An
important factor that inhibits our ability is that we're fiscally dependent on the
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
district. The fact that we're still tied to them, even though we're a charter school,
keeps us from going in different directions we'd like to pursue— we get lots of ‘no's’
from the district” (E.dep.P). Likewise, SBM schools in the sample had only limited
amounts of control over educational expenditures; the district continued to control
the bulk of their budget decisions.
Almost all of the charter schools, both independent and dependent, were
rated with extensive control over external resources. Personnel in these schools
cited numerous instances in which grants and/or assistance were obtained from
outside organizations such as universities, public libraries, and private companies.
The charter school in the sample operated by an education management
organization, the dependent charter School F, was the only charter school with
moderate control over external resources. External resources of the school were
controlled primarily by the education management organization.
All three SBM schools, according to interviews, had limited control over
external resources. SBM schools remained heavily dependent on the district to
provide all educational resources. As a result, many personnel in these schools
either responded that their schools utilized no external resources or did not know if
their schools had any. The dependent relationship of SBM schools to the district
also required the schools to first obtain district permission before seeking outside
resources.
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Autonomy over Personnel Decisions
The autonomy of sample schools over personnel decisions was noticeably
different in the charter and SBM schools. All of the independent and dependent
charter schools were rated with moderate and/or extensive control for all indicators
of personnel autonomy. By contrast, the SBM schools in the sample had much less
control than charter schools over teacher socialization (e.g., hiring, evaluation, and
professional development) and parent involvement policies. These ratings are
presented in Table 12.
Table 12. Ratings of autonomy over personnel decisions in sample schools
School Control over
Teacher
Socialization
Control over
Personnel
Structure
Control over
Parent Involvement
Policies
Independent Charter
School A
o
J 3 3
SchoolB 3 3 3
SchoolC 3 3 3
Dependent Charter
School D 3 3 3
School E 3 3 3
School F 2 3 3
Site-Based Managed
SchoolG 1 3 2
SchoolH 1 3 2
School I 1 2 2
Note. 1 = limited control; 2 = moderate control; 3 = extensive control.
Since charter school policies typically provide schools with control over hiring,
evaluation, and professional development for personnel, it was not too surprising
that personnel in charter schools explained that they had a great deal of decision-
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
making control in those areas. The only exception was the dependent charter
School F (the charter school operated by an education management organization),
which had restricted control over some professional development decisions; much
of the professional development is conducted nationally and regulated by the
education management organization. As a teacher involved in the governance
council at School F explained:
The literacy program and the math program are very structured, and the
nature and content of professional development are predominantly
determined by [the education management organization]. In other areas,
such as social science and science, there are more opportunities for the
school curricular coordinators to design and implement their own
professional development activities. (F.dep.G)
Personnel working in the sample SBM schools indicated that the schools had
limited control over teacher socialization; regardless of the particular SBM plan,
the district maintained control over many of those decisions.
Results from the interviews indicated that almost all schools in the sample
had extensive control over decisions regarding the organization of school personnel
for instruction. For instance, schools were able to determine how teacher aides and
volunteers were assigned to classes. The principal at an SBM school explained:
The school recently discussed the use of teaching assistants at the school. I
presented the data from two days of observations from August and proposed
to teachers that TA’s be sent to classes that needed more help for an hour
each day. It took some work, but I got the consensus of teachers based on
the data and this has had an impact on the literacy program. (G.sbm.P)
Only one sample school, the site-based managed School I, was rated with moderate
control over its personnel structure. Personnel at School I provided less evidence
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
than other SBM schools that they were able to make collective decisions on the
organization of personnel. As a first grade teacher complained, “My classroom
aide is still being pulled out [of my classroom] constantly to do other things.
Although he likes this, I do not” (I.sbm.T).
Based on interview data, all of the charter schools had extensive control
over parent involvement policies. As discussed in Chapter One, charter school
policies have a strong foundation in the parent involvement movement, so it was
not all that surprising that charter schools had considerable control over parent
involvement policies. Personnel in four of the sample charter schools made
reference to the use of parent contracts that specified the role of parents in their
childrens’ education. For instance, the instructional coordinator at an independent
charter school stated, “The school [through our parent contract] requires parents to
volunteer during the school year. The school also encourages parents to volunteer
in the classrooms (A.indep.IC).” Control over parent involvement policies was the
most consistent difference between the sample group of charter and SBM schools.
Nevertheless, even SBM schools were found to have some discretion with respect
to parent involvement decisions. Though district control restricted the sample
SBM schools from creating parent involvement requirements, the schools
developed other ways of increasing parent involvement. One principal in an SBM
school provided an example: “With the recent changes in [student] assessments at
the state and local level, the school decided to hold a meeting to teach parents about
the testing program” (G.sbm.P).
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Autonomy over Educational Decisions
Across the sample of nine schools, the greatest differences between charter
and SBM schools were found in decisions related to the education program. All
charter schools, except for School F (operated by an education management
organization), had extensive control over all indicators of educational autonomy.
On the other hand, the three SBM schools had only limited control over the
indicators. The ratings of autonomy over educational decisions in sample schools
are presented in Table 13.
Table 13. Ratings of autonomy over educational decisions in sample schools
School Control over
Literacy
Curriculum
Control over
Instructional
Practices
Control over
Assessment
Independent Charter
School A 3 3 3
School B 3 3 3
School C 3 3 3
Dependent Charter
SchoolD 3 3 3
SchoolE 3 3 3
SchoolF 1 1 1
Site-Based Managed
SchoolG 1 1 1
SchoolH 1 2 1
School I 1 1 1
Note. 1 = limited control; 2 = moderate control; 3 = extensive control.
Based on the interview data, both independent and dependent charter
schools had extensive control over the curriculum. During interviews, personnel in
these five charter schools discussed the ability of their schools to decide on literacy
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
curricula. The principal in a dependent charter school explained, “As a charter
school, we’re able to tailor curriculum decisions to our school. We have the choice
of doing or not doing what the district does” (E.dep.P). An independent charter
school principal echoed these sentiments by saying, “On the plus side, charter
status allows us to control our curriculum. We are not tied to district norms or
programs-we can choose the curriculum we like best and send teachers out for
professional development when it’s needed” (C.indep.P).
School F, though a dependent charter school, was rated with limited control
over curriculum due to the strong role of its education management organization in
those decisions. A teacher at School F explained, “When it comes to curriculum
and instruction, we are limited in the types of decisions we can make, because the
curriculum is controlled by [the education management organization]” (F.dep.T).
Decisions on the literacy curricula of the SBM schools remained under
district control. Though the SBM policy did provide schools with some control
over curricular decisions, it was evident from interviews that, in practice, the
district continued to assert its control over the literacy curriculum. As the assistant
principal at School G stated, “Many of these curricular decisions are dictated by the
district. For the example of [our literacy program], the district provided the school
with a ‘Communist Russia’ vote with only one program to really vote for”
(G.sbm.G). A first grade teacher at School I added, “At this point, being an [SBM]
school has no influence on how we teach reading— w e have to use [the same literacy
program] just as every other school in the district does” (I.sbm.T). For these
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reasons, SBM schools were rated with only limited control over their literacy
curricula.
The ratings for school control over instructional practices were similar to
the ratings for control over literacy curriculum. Many sample schools adopted or
were forced to adopt a single published literacy program. These published
programs often consisted of specific instructional practices tightly linked to the
curriculum. This tight linkage between curriculum and instruction meant that the
ability of schools to select their literacy program determined whether schools had
control over both curriculum and instruction. Schools that selected their own
literacy program had control over curriculum and instruction; schools that were
unable to select their literacy program were forced to adopt the curriculum and
instructional practices that were determined by others. As an example of the lack
of control over curriculum and instruction, the instructional coordinator in a
dependent charter school explained:
Of course, [the literacy program] has had a huge impact on how the teachers
teach reading— all teachers follow [the literacy program’s] structure and
content. Similarly, the use of technology, assessment systems, and
classroom management structure are also all dictated by [the education
management organization] and [the literacy program]. (F.dep.IC)
Two SBM schools, Schools G and I, were also required to follow the instructional
practices-mainly phonics-based direct instruction-dictated by the district.
Although it was also required by the district to adopt a published literacy program,
the third SBM school, School H, had moderate control over instructional practices.
According to the principal, the school developed decision-making structures within
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the school to modify and strengthen the published program that was required by the
district:
The Instructional Transformation Team guides the overall direction of
instruction. For example, it might determine that the school needs to spend
time on ‘focus skills.’ It would tell the grade-level teams to work on ‘focus
skills,’ and the grade level teams would meet to determine what their
particular classes would work on. (H.sbm.P)
Consequently, School H’s control over instructional practices was higher than the
other two SBM schools.
In the related area of student assessment, schools with extensive control
were able to make decisions on the frequency, content, and evaluation of
assessments. For example, the principal in an independent charter school
explained:
In the past, testing was run through the district. But in 1999-2000, the
school decided to do independent testing. The school wanted more timely
reporting of results. The school also developed its own database and is now
working on how to get our database to work with the district database.
(B.indep.P)
Schools with limited control over student assessments were dependent on the
district or education management organization to make decisions on assessments.
A fifth grade teacher at School F explained, “The assessments that the school uses
are determined by [the education management organization] as well, with the
exception of the SAT-9 district-required test” (F.dep.T).
In summary, the ratings of autonomy indicated that, as expected,
independent charter schools had the highest levels of autonomy across all decision
making dimensions. The difference in autonomy between charter and SBM
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools was much more pronounced than the difference between independent and
dependent charter schools. Although dependent charter schools had only moderate
control over their budgets (since charter authorizers were required to approve all
financial decisions), they had few restrictions with respect to personnel and
educational decisions. On the other hand, the three SBM schools in the sample had
only limited control over most dimensions of autonomy. This finding was
consistent with much of the previous research on SBM, concluding that SBM plans
tend to maintain district authority over decision-making, especially over the areas
of budget, personnel, and curriculum (Bimber, 1993; Malen et al., 1990).
Relationship Between School Autonomy and Classroom Practices
The remainder of this chapter explores the relationship between autonomy
and classroom practices in sample schools, in order to assess the extent to which
school-site autonomy influenced educational practice. For this analysis, the ratings
of school autonomy were compared with teacher survey responses from each
school. Information from interviews with school personnel were also included to
support and enrich these findings. The following discussion is structured according
to the four types of classroom practices-instructional materials (print-rich
classrooms), instructional practices (use of technology, instruction tailored to
student reading levels, small group instruction), assessment (student assessment for
instruction), and parent involvement (strong school-home connections)~identified
in the framework that was presented in Chapter Three.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Instructional Materials (Print-Rich Classrooms)
The three indicators of school autonomy that were expected to influence the
availability of print-rich materials in classrooms included school control over
educational expenditures, external resources, and literacy curriculum. School
control over educational expenditures and school control over external resources--
the two indicators of budget autonomy— were expected to allow schools to purchase
necessary print-rich materials. Schools with greater control over their literacy
curricula were expected to be better able to determine which materials were
necessary for classrooms.
Results showed that schools with budget autonomy invested in print-rich
classrooms. The relationships between the two indicators of budget autonomy and
the presence of print-rich classrooms are presented in Figures 9 and 10,
respectively.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
H
< + - .
o
u
8 P
u
p .
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 J
20
10
H
• G
D
• F
• B
• C
• A
1 2 3
R atings o f A utonom y
Figure 9. Relationship between the percentage of teachers who provided print-rich
classrooms and ratings of school control over educational expenditures.
Note. Each dot represents a sample school.
H
c
O J
o
o
Ph
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
• B
• F
A
] 2 3
R a tin g s o f A u to n o m y
Figure 10. Relationship between the percentage of teachers who provided print-
rich classrooms and ratings of school control over external resources.
Note. Each dot represents a sample school.
The strong trends suggest that schools with more budget authority were able
to allocate funds to acquire print materials for classrooms. Staff in schools with
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
extensive budget autonomy-the three sample independent charter schools— were
positive about their ability to acquire needed materials. A teacher at School C
explained, “The power over our own finances that came with charter status really
facilitates the ability of the school to make decisions and implement changes”
(C.indep.T). On the other hand, school-site administrators and teachers at the three
dependent charter and three SBM schools mentioned during interviews that school
district requirements hindered their ability to make purchasing decisions. The
principal at an SBM school remarked, “There are district requirements with strings
attached to funding, so this limits the use of funds” (G.sbm.P).
The trends in Figures 9 and 10 also demonstrate a pronounced difference
between the presence of print-rich classrooms in the six charter schools (Schools A
through F with moderate to extensive control over budget) and the three SBM
schools (Schools G through I with limited control over budget). This difference
was also apparent in the interview data. For instance, a first grade teacher in an
independent charter school explained, “The school’s charter status has helped
because I have all of the materials and anything else I need. They are all available
to me” (B.indep.T). On the other hand, a teacher in an SBM school bemoaned,
“Good instruction at our school is inhibited by a lack of materials. Some teachers
are trying to teach without workbooks for the literacy program” (G.sbm.T).
Schools with high levels of control over external resources were better able
to focus resources directly on improving instruction, rather than on peripheral
issues. The principal at an independent charter school explained, “The school gets
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
funding for instructional assistants to help classrooms for four hours per week each.
Private funding comes for books, supplies, and technology such as computers”
(A.indep.P). Schools with high ratings of control over external resources used their
decision-making power to seek out new avenues to obtain needed educational
resources. The use of external resources in SBM schools was less focused on
instruction, often limited to occasional grants for small amounts of books or
renovations for facilities.
Figure 11 indicates that schools with greater control over their literacy
curricula also had higher presence of print-rich classrooms.
D - * g E
• F * A
I
®G
1 2 3
Ratings o f Autonomy
Figure 11. Relationship between the percentage of teachers who provided print-
rich classrooms and ratings of school control over literacy curriculum.
Note. Each dot represents a sample school.
Most of the charter schools were rated with extensive control over their literacy
curricula. By being able to determine their own literacy curricula, these schools
91
100
90
80
J 7 0
J 60
S 5 0
© £ )
I 4 0
4)
O
5 3 30
20
10
0 + -
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were able to decide on the materials needed in classrooms. A first grade teacher at
School B explained this relationship by saying, “Every student has the necessary
materials: books, workbooks, tests, all the supplements, and the classroom library
from [the literacy program]. We chose [our literacy program] and we can make
sure we have the materials to make it work” (B.indep.T).
The SBM schools and the dependent charter School F had limited control
over literacy curriculum decisions. In the SBM schools, personnel experienced
more difficulty in acquiring instructional materials for the literacy program required
by the district. The instructional coordinator at School I complained:
Some pieces of [the literacy program] are not available due to a lack of
funds. For example, I like the idea of [the literacy program] picture files,
but I have never seen a picture file. I myself did not do the ordering, so I
could not control what materials would be used. (I.sbm.IC)
Though the dependent charter School F was unable to select its own literacy
curriculum, its education management organization used its considerable financial
resources to purchase a published literacy program. This access to additional
resources helps to explain the high presence of print-rich classrooms in School F,
the only school in the sample operated by an education management organization.
In addition to selecting materials for their literacy programs, schools with
control over the curriculum were better able to address weaknesses in their literacy
programs. When weaknesses were identified, these schools often pilot tested
supplemental programs in order to determine whether those programs would be
complementary to the existing curriculum. For instance, a teacher at School B
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
described the adoption of a program for remedial reading instruction by saying,
“The program was piloted first and then a written evaluation was prepared for the
Curriculum Council. The Curriculum Council voted to adopt the program and then
sent it to the Budget/Operations Council for final approval” (F.indep.T). Schools
with limited control over their literacy curricula were subject to the decisions made
by the district or education management organization.
Instructional Practices (Instruction Tailored to Student Reading Levels, Small
Group Instruction, Use o f Technology)
Of the nine identified indicators of autonomy in this study, three were
expected to influence the use of research-based instructional practices in schools.
Schools with greater control over instruction were expected to have more research-
based instructional practices such as using small group instruction, tailoring
instruction to students’ reading levels, and using technology. High levels of school
control over teacher socialization and personnel structure were hypothesized to
improve the ability of schools to control the use of these effective instructional
practices.
General trends suggest that schools with more control over instructional
practices also had teachers who reported higher usage of small group instruction
and instruction tailored to student reading levels (see Figures 12 and 13).
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
< 0
X
u
t a
1 >
H
o
u
60
c t i
'S
< u
a
< u
p.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
■ I
• F
B
E ->*
• D
• A
• H
1 2 3
Ratings of Autonomy
Figure 12. Relationship between the percentage of teachers who used small group
instruction and ratings of school control over instructional practices.
Note. Each dot represents a sample school.
< 0
X I
o
w
H
tw
O
< D
60
a j
'S
< 0
o
u
Cl,
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
.D
a B
• G
• H
• A
• C
1 2 3
Ratings of Autonomy
Figure 13. Relationship between the percentage of teachers who used instruction
tailored to students’ reading levels and ratings of school control over instructional
practices.
Note. Each dot represents a sample school.
Almost 75% of the teachers in schools with extensive control over instructional
practices reported using small group instruction compared to only about 43% in the
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
other sample schools. The graph of this relationship (Figure 12), however, shows
considerable variation in the use of small group instruction among schools with
extensive control over instructional practices. Likewise, Figure 13 shows variation
in the use of instruction tailored to student reading levels in sample schools.
The types of literacy programs adopted by sample schools may explain
some of the variations among schools with similar ratings of autonomy. As
mentioned earlier, published literacy programs often consist of a curriculum that is
linked with specific instructional practices. Noteworthy from interviews with
school staff was the apparent relationship between the type of school literacy
programs adopted and the experience of teachers in sample schools.
Differences in the experience levels of teachers in sample schools were
apparent from survey responses. Table 14 presents the average years of teacher
experience in the sample schools.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14. Average years of teacher experience in sample schools
School Number of Teacher
Responses
Average Years of
Teacher Experience
Standard
Deviation
Independent Charter
School A 6 10.7 7.0
SchoolB 31 9.1 7.1
SchoolC 49 9.3 10.3
Average: 9.3 9.0
Dependent Charter
SchoolD 10 20.2 11.8
SchoolE 28 15.9 11.4
SchoolF 33 2.2 1.5
Average: 10.1 8.3
Site-Based Managed
SchoolG 15 10.3 10.4
SchoolH 31 14.9 12.1
School I 26 12.0 10.2
Average: 11.9 10.7
On average, independent charter schools had less experienced teachers than most
other sample schools. Teachers in the three site-based managed schools had the
highest average years of experience. The dependent charter schools had large
differences in teacher experience. Two dependent charter schools, Schools D and
E, had teachers with more years of experience than all other sample schools. By
contrast, the remaining dependent charter school, School F, had a strikingly low
average for teacher experience.
Sample schools with less experienced teachers, such as Schools B and C,
may have adopted published literacy programs to support new teachers. As the
principal at School C explained, “Our school’s published literacy program is very
structured and scripted, which is what we wanted because of our high number of
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
new teachers” (C.indep.P). Such programs consist of highly scripted, teacher-
directed practices that even inexperienced teachers would be able to use effectively,
such as whole group instruction and sequential lessons. A confounding factor in
this study resulted from the district-required use of a published literacy program in
the three SBM schools, which was the same program used by one of the charter
schools, School C. As a result, some similariti es in the use of research-based
practices are evident between the three SBM schools and School C.
Schools with more experienced teachers, such as Schools A, D, and E,
developed their own custom literacy programs by either designing programs from
scratch or piecing together a number of different published programs. Teachers in
these schools designed programs based on their extensive experiences and the
resources available to them in their schools. As the instructional coordinator at
School A explained:
The school allows teacher flexibility over their curriculum... The school
uses [a published literacy program] in K-3. But teachers do not use this
exclusively. The school uses [published literature sets] for small group
instruction. The school has numerous class book sets for use in the upper
grades. Some teachers use [a second published literacy program] in two
classrooms for guided reading. Kindergarten uses [a third literacy program]
as a foundation for phonics. (A.indep.IC)
The resulting programs in these schools tended to utilize more practices that
focused on individual student reading levels such as small group instruction.
Interview data provided support that schools used their control over
instructional practices to select literacy practices that were tailored to the needs of
their students. As the principal in a dependent charter school explained, “The
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
charter empowers us in the areas of curriculum, staffing and governance. The
autonomy we have helps us make changes quickly and put in place instructional
improvements. We're able to change course when we see something isn't working”
(E.dep.P). A first grade teacher at School E with over seven years of teaching
experience also added:
Based on my experiences at other non-charter schools, I feel that the
school’s charter status allows it to give freedom to teachers to do what
satisfies classroom needs. We are not locked into a reading block that
might not work with all of the kids. Teachers have full control over reading
instruction, which is generally not the case at non-charter schools.
(E.dep.T)
Personnel in schools with extensive control over instruction often compared
previous school experiences with their increased autonomy.
Data from school-site interviews further suggested that several of the
charter schools with extensive levels of control over instruction used their
autonomy to not only shape classroom instruction, but also to design intervention
strategies for struggling students, including tutoring centers and pull-out assistance.
For example, the intervention center at independent charter School C provided one-
on-one instructional time between students and paraprofessionals and utilized
computer-aided instruction to allow students to practice their skills. Illustrating
School C’s school-site control over instruction, the principal explained, “Once the
staff voted to implement the intervention program and appointed two teachers as
directors, the two of them organized the implementation of the Center. The
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
directors and the school hired the paraprofessional staff and selected the
instructional materials” (C.indep.P).
Teachers in schools with more control over instructional practices tended to
use more technology, as shown in Figure 14.
E — "
O
$ >
c
< u
o
L.
U
CL,
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 H
10
0
,D
i A
>C
• H
Ratings of Autonomy
Figure 14. Relationship between the percentage of teachers who used technology
for instruction and ratings of school control over instructional practices.
Note. Each dot represents a sample school.
Eighty-one percent of teachers in the sample schools with extensive control over
instructional practices used technology to help students produce text, compared to
about 64% of the teachers in the other sample schools. As an example of the use of
technology, a fifth grade teacher at an independent charter school explained, “On
Monday through Thursday, I begin with 15 minutes of typing and 20 minutes of
editing skills and journal writing, using the computers. Then we correct work as a
group and share their journal entries” (B.indep.T). High usage of technology for
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instruction was also associated with the availability of computers in classrooms. A
distinct advantage of sample schools with high usage of technology was their
access to external resources.
Figure 15 presents the relationship between school control over external
resources and the use of technology.
Figure 15. Relationship between the percentage of teachers who used technology
and ratings of school control over external resources.
Note. Each dot represents a sample school.
Schools with more external resources appeared to use them to purchase technology
for instructional purposes. For instance, the principal of School D explained that
her school not only received a grant for computers, but also obtained other grants
over time to upgrade the computers. Among the autonomous schools studied,
many schools directed efforts to acquire external resources that included the
purchase of computers.
100 -
90 -
D
B
E
30
• I
• G
• F
• A
• C
< D
e u
20 J
• H
10 -
0
2
Ratings of Autonomy
3
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For the autonomy indicator of control over teacher socialization, schools
with extensive control over the hiring of teachers tended to have more research-
based literacy practices in place. Some earlier studies of charter schools
(Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998) have noted strong levels of trust among charter
school colleagues in part because the schools are in charge of recruiting and hiring
their own staffs. The findings from this study offer further support for these
findings.
Schools with high levels of control over hiring teachers had detailed
processes for selecting qualified teachers. In describing the dependent charter
School D’s hiring process, a third grade teacher explained:
When there is a teacher opening, the whole school interviews the
candidates, and the partner selects the new teacher. The hiring process
speaks volumes about what the team should be able to do— work together to
develop ideas and weave content standards into the curriculum. It is a
marriage. You must be able to trust each other. Hours are spent dialoging
about curriculum and students. (D.dep.T)
A fifth grade teacher at School E discussed the importance of successful working
relationships between teachers by saying:
The biggest change since becoming a charter school is an increased focus
on teacher collaboration, especially at each grade level. If a teacher does not
want to work collaboratively and have an open door policy, then they will
not last long here. (E.dep.T)
The importance of hiring teachers in schools with extensive control over
teacher socialization also carried over to the evaluation of teachers. Many of these
schools in the sample developed unique forms of teacher evaluation that attempted
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to add value to the evaluation process. The principal at School D described this
process by saying:
I use my own version of the district’s evaluation system. I wanted to be a
coach, rather than take on a hard-core evaluation role... If I noticed a
problem, or there were parent concerns, I would address them all along, not
just at evaluation time. (D.dep.P)
The director of school-community relations at School B explained:
Emergency credentialed teachers are evaluated four times per year, and
probationary teachers are evaluated twice per year. Other teachers have a
choice of either peer coaching or portfolio development. For peer coaching,
the teacher chooses another staff member to work with her on one domain,
such as lesson planning or interacting with parents. (B.indep.G)
These processes suggest that schools with extensive control over teacher
socialization were willing to gear evaluations toward increasing teacher knowledge
about instruction, rather than simply assessing teacher competency.
In schools with high levels of control over teacher socialization, the
interview data suggests that professional development was more responsive to
teacher needs. Frequent communication among personnel facilitated the
responsiveness of school-based professional development. For example, a third
grade teacher in a dependent charter school explained, “Two years ago, many
teachers initiated conversation about authentic assessment. As a result, we
structured a staff-wide training session with a consulting group” (D.dep.T).
Similarly, a teacher in an independent charter school explained, “Many of the new
teachers felt that they needed more training in [our literacy program], so this year
the school is offering more of these activities” (C.indep.T). On the other hand, the
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
principal at School I, like many personnel in SBM schools that had limited control
over teacher socialization, complained, “Most of the on-site professional
development is driven and dictated by the district” (I.sbm.P).
Finally, the extensive control over personnel structure in almost all sample
schools limited the ability to compare this indicator with the use of research-based
practices. Almost all sample schools had extensive control over personnel
structure; for instance, personnel were able to decide on the allocation of teacher
aides and volunteers across the school. The principal in an SBM school explained,
“The school decided that fourth graders who were retained needed more
interventions, so more teaching assistants are sent to that class for review and
preview of lessons for about an hour each day” (G.sbm.P).
Most sample schools also used their control over personnel structure to
create full-time instructional coordinator positions. According to interviews,
coordinators assumed a number of responsibilities to support school instructional
programs. Coordinators worked with teachers to support the consistent delivery of
educational programs across the school, helped teachers analyze assessment data,
and served as a clearinghouse for information about professional development
opportunities and new approaches to teaching and learning.
Student Assessment (Assessment for Instruction)
Results in Figure 16 indicate that schools with more control over student
assessment used assessments designed to enhance instruction.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
90
80 t/5
o
•s 70
C 3
( D
£ 60
° 50
to
$ 40
| 30
20
10
0
. A, D
• G
• E
• H
• C
• B
e I
• F
1 2 3
Ratings o f Autonomy
Figure 16. Relationship between the percentage of teachers who used assessments
designed for student instruction and ratings of school control over student
assessment measures.
Note. Each dot represents a sample school.
According to interview data, schools with extensive control over student
assessment were better able to select assessments that aligned with curricular and
instructional goals. In schools with extensive control over student assessment,
about 90% of teachers reported that they used assessment measures to plan for
instruction. Describing an example of this school autonomy, the instructional
coordinator in an independent charter school explained, “The school was not happy
with using the district literacy test and wanted to align the writing diagnostics, so
the school got all of its grade level chairs together and compared the rubrics and
decided on the new diagnostic” (B.indep.IC). The greater autonomy of these
schools facilitated the use of assessments to inform instruction.
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Since schools with extensive autonomy were administering their own
assessments, these schools also had greater control over the analysis of student
performance data. The instructional coordinator at School E discussed the use of
the school’s self-implemented assessments by saying:
All of the grades are doing entry-level assessments and follow-up
assessments during the year. Both of these impact on instruction. The
entry-level assessments help determine the instructional grouping that the
student will be placed in. The follow-up assessments are used by the
teachers to monitor both student progress and how effective the
instructional programs are. (E.dep.IC)
Personnel in other schools with extensive control over assessments also mentioned
the development of on-site databases that included student performance data in
order to improve access by teachers and administrators.
Personnel in schools with limited control over student assessment measures
were unable to align assessments with their instructional programs. Even though
all SBM schools were required to adopt a published literacy program that included
assessments, these schools rarely used assessments to inform decisions on
instruction. A first grade teacher at School I explained, “Individually, teachers
conduct on-going assessments as part of the [published literacy program], but I do
not know if this information will be collected and monitored school-wide to
evaluate the program” (I.sbm.T). These schools relied heavily on the state
mandated assessment, administered by the district only once at the end of the
school year, for information on student performance. As a result, these schools had
limited ability to analyze student performance data on their own and were only able
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to assess the overall impact of their literacy programs, rather than analyzing the
progress of programs and students during the school year.
Parent Involvement (Strong School-Home Connections)
In this study, it was expected that the autonomous schools would create
parent involvement policies to support classroom instruction. The results presented
in Figure 16 do indeed indicate a relationship between school control over parent
involvement policies and the involvement of parents in home instruction.
D, F
m
• E
c - h»a
• I ®B
• G
• H
1 2 3
Ratings of Autonomy
Figure 17. Relationship between the percentage of teachers who cited strong
school-home connections and ratings of school control over parent involvement
policies.
Note. Each dot represents a sample school.
Findings from the present study complement earlier research and also suggest that
charter schools may opt to adopt stronger and more specific parent involvement
policies than less autonomous schools. Research in charter schools (Becker,
Nakagawa, & Corwin, 1995; Finn Jr. et al., 2000) suggests that parent involvement
is significantly higher in charter schools than in district-run schools, in part due to
106
< l >
J C
o
c S
< L >
H
4)
$
a
u
o
1 —
u
o.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the fact that charter schools are schools of choice. Across the sample of six charter
schools, nearly 90% of teachers responded that parents read nightly with their
children. By contrast, only about 55% of teachers in the three SBM schools
reported that parents read nightly with their children. Four of the charter schools in
the sample instituted school-wide parent contracts that in part required parents to
read nightly with their children.
Another interesting finding related to parent involvement in the sample
schools concerned the work to bolster the skills of parents in their schools so that
parents would be effective “teachers” with their children at home. Many sample
schools with high numbers of parents who were English language learners (see
Table 5 in Chapter Four) offered courses for parents in English as a second
language (ESL) and held parent meetings to explain school literacy programs and
student assessments. In some SBM schools, the district had even implemented
English language learner programs for parents. The principal at School C
described her school’s program by saying:
Many of the parents at the school are not able to speak English, and the
school has helped them in improving their English skills. The parent center
on campus provides ESL classes for parents. The family literacy trainer
works with 15 families at home to improve English literacy. (C.indep.P)
Schools with greater control over parent involvement policies tailored their
methods to address the characteristics of their specific communities.
To summarize, the results of this section examined the relationship between
school autonomy and the presence of research-based literacy practices across the
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
nine sample schools. Schools with higher ratings of autonomy were expected to
use m ore research-based practices. Overall, the results demonstrated that the
presence o f these practices tended to be higher in schools with more autonomy.
Some indicators of autonomy displayed stronger relationships with
research-based practices than others. In particular, school control over educational
expenditures, external resources, and literacy curriculum had strong relationships
with the presence of print-rich classrooms. Schools with greater control over
student assessment also tended to use assessment to inform instructional practices.
Additionally, schools with more control over parent involvement policies had more
parent support for instruction at home. The indicators of autonomy expected to
influence instructional practices— instruction tailored to student reading levels,
small group instruction, and use of technology— were weak, based on teacher
survey results. Interview responses from school personnel provided some evidence
that autonomy influenced instructional practices. The following chapter uses the
study data to discuss conclusions and implications of these findings.
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION
This chapter addresses the four research questions proposed in Chapter Four
by drawing on the study data. The research questions concentrated on various
aspects of the relationship between school autonomy and classroom practice. The
discussion also draws upon relevant literature that may support or challenge the
conclusions generated from this study. Avenues for future research are also
explored. The chapter concludes with implications for policy makers and school
personnel in autonomous schools.
Research Question #1: Do schools under different autonomy policies vary in
their power over school-based decisions?
From the results presented in the previous chapter, this study confirmed that
schools under different autonomy policies tended to vary in their power over
school-based decisions. The sample of schools for this study consisted of three
groups of schools— independent charter schools, dependent charter schools, and
site-based managed schools-that were expected to be operating under different
degrees of autonomy. As predicted, the three independent charter schools were
rated with the highest levels of autonomy across all indicators. Dependent charter
schools, while more limited in their budget decisions than independent charter
schools, were also rated with high levels of autonomy over personnel and
educational decisions. The only exception was the dependent charter School F that
was operated by an education management organization. The three site-based
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
managed schools had the least amount of autonomy; the district maintained control
over many areas of decision-making.
The differences between independent and dependent charter schools
reflected the design of the California charter school policy. As mentioned in
Chapter Four, the charter school policy in California provides all charter schools,
whether dependent or independent, with high levels of autonomy over personnel
and educational decisions. Given the option of applying for either dependent or
independent charter status, schools were able to decide whether they were willing
to take on the responsibility of controlling their own fiscal decisions. As the
principal at a dependent charter school explained:
The school received charter status in 1993. It was a natural step based on
its history. We wanted freedom from empowerment and district
requirements. We became a dependent charter in order to focus more on
instruction and empowerment, without having to deal with fiscal issues.
(D.dep.P)
The ratings of autonomy in the sample charter schools confirmed that independent
and dependent charter schools were indeed provided with different degrees of
control primarily over budget decisions.
One dependent charter school, School F, was the only sample charter school
that deviated from the predicted ratings of autonomy. California charter school
policy granted personnel in School F control over personnel and educational
decisions. However, the education management organization that operated School
F controlled the majority of those decisions for the school. As a result, personnel
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
within the school had little decision-making power; consequently, the school had
less site autonomy than other dependent charter schools on most indicators.
The lower ratings of autonomy for School F suggest that the operation of
schools by this education management organization may actually reduce school
autonomy. Drawing on the definition of school autonomy developed in Chapter
Two, schools are autonomous when personnel within the schools are able to self-
govem and are immune from external restrictions on their actions. If decisions
within autonomous schools are determined by education management
organizations, then those schools have limited site autonomy. Decision-making
responsibility in these schools shifts from the district office and/or school site to the
education management organization.
As education management organizations become more prevalent in the
education system (Reid, 2002; Walsh, 2002), further research is necessary to
determine how these organizations affect school autonomy. The presence of
education management organizations in the education system may complicate the
assessment of school autonomy by adding another actor that may also be involved
with school decision-making. The literature has begun to recognize that the extent
to which education management organizations control decision-making within
schools varies from organization to organization (Bulkley, 2001). This study
included only one sample school that was controlled by an education management
organization, so findings from this study are difficult to generalize to the particular
education management organization or any other. In addition, further study is
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
necessary to examine the influence of education management organizations on
school autonomy policies. If autonomy policies are designed to increase school
decision-making power, the operation of schools by education management
organizations may actually be working counter to this rationale, since public school
districts may be simply being replaced by private organizations as the primary
decision-makers for schools.
Site-based managed schools in the study sample had lower levels of
autonomy than the amount described in the district policy. As discussed in Chapter
Four, the district website described the SBM plan as granting “significant decisions
in instruction, budgeting, staffing, and school operations” to SBM schools.
However, in practice, the SBM policy provided only minor amounts of decision
making control to schools. For instance, after being asked whether the SBM policy
had served to facilitate or impede the school’s decision-making processes, a teacher
involved with the governance council at School I responded, “I don’t know. [The
SBM policy] hasn’t changed anything from my vantage point. I don’t see the real
value of [the SBM policy]. It’s just another idea that [the district] grabbed a hold
o f’ (I.sbm.G). The district requirement in 2000 that all of its SBM schools adopt
the same published literacy program also demonstrated its unwillingness to provide
schools with real decision-making power.
The limited ratings of control in SBM schools are consistent with previous
research on site-based management. Previous studies have found that SBM
policies tended to maintain district authority over decision-making, especially over
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the areas of budget, personnel, and curriculum (Bimber, 1993; Malen et al., 1990).
In many cases, SBM policies were found to be vague in defining the extent of
decision-making power transferred from districts to schools (Wohlstetter &
Ingwerson, 1996; Wohlstetter & Odden, 1992). This ambiguity confounded school
attempts to make significant decisions related to instruction. SBM policies were
also found to be more restrictive than charter school policies, because SBM
policies, usually determined by local districts, did not exempt schools from the
rules and regulations of state education agencies like state charter school laws
(General Accounting Office, 1994b).
In spite of the lower ratings for most indicators of autonomy, the three SBM
schools in this study had control over a few indicators of school decision-making.
Sample SBM schools were rated with moderate to extensive control over both
personnel structure and parent involvement policies. In these areas of decision
making, school personnel worked within the restrictions of the district to develop
policies that were tailored to their school environments. For instance, the district
had little or no requirements for assigning teacher aides to classrooms, so personnel
in SBM schools were able to decide on the most suitable arrangements for their
needs. The lack of district requirements and policy activity in these areas allowed
schools to assume decision-making control over those decisions.
Further investigation of school autonomy is necessary to determine whether
an appropriate balance of autonomy is possible between district offices and
schools. Recent evidence indicates that districts are deciding to recentralize some
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
decisions while decentralizing others (Gewertz, 2002). The challenge for districts
is to determine whether schools should be treated differently and over which
decisions schools should have control. Due to the limited sample of schools in this
study, additional research would benefit from a larger sample that included
autonomous schools as well as schools operated in centrally-managed districts.
Research Question #2: To what exten t are research-based literacy practices
used in autonomous schools?
Teachers reported the use of research-based literacy practices, to some
extent, in all sample schools. On average, charter school teachers responded with
the highest usage of these practices. However, the percentage of teachers in the
three site-based managed schools— the least autonomous schools— who cited using
these practices never averaged below 35%. As discussed in Chapter Four, the
process for selecting SBM schools was expected to identify schools that used
research-based practices. These results confirm the effectiveness of this selection
process. Across all schools, teachers responded that they used assessment designed
for student instruction the most, with approximately 80% of teachers using this
practice. On the other hand, teacher responses for instruction tailored to student
reading levels was the lowest for all schools, with only about 47% of teachers using
this practice. The presence of research-based literacy practices in all sample
schools suggests several factors, besides school autonomy, that may influence the
use of these practices.
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Though the dependent charter School F was rated with limited autonomy
over many indicators, the role of its education management organization
contributed to the presence of some research-based practices. As mentioned in
Chapter Five, School F’s EMO used its considerable financial resources to support
the school. For example, the EMO purchased computers for all students and
provided materials and training to teachers for an entire published literacy program.
The contribution of resources by the EMO provided School F with high levels of
print-rich classrooms as well as higher usage of technology for instruction. The
EMO for School F also selected the school’s published literacy program, though
the program had less emphasis on research-based instructional practices such as
small group instruction and instruction tailored to student reading levels.
As observed in Chapter Five, the adoption of published literacy programs
influenced the use of research-based practices in sample schools. The majority of
sample schools-including Schools B, C, and F as well as the three SBM schools—
were using published literacy programs in their classrooms. These published
programs consisted of literacy curricula tightly linked with specific instructional
practices, some of which reflected the practices identified in this study while others
did not. The type of published program adopted by schools mediated the use of
research-based practices. In this way, the decision to use a research-based practice
was less the result of selecting the practice, but more the result of selecting the
“right” published program. For instance, the published program adopted by School
C and the three SBM schools consisted of highly scripted lessons that were
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
primarily delivered using whole class instruction and worksheets. The adoption of
this literacy program in these schools resulted in less use of small group instruction
and instruction tailored to student reading levels.
The influence of published literacy programs suggests that further research
is necessary into the role of these programs in improving classroom practices.
Results from sample schools indicate that some published literacy programs do not
incorporate several of the research-based practices identified in this study, such as
small group instruction, use of technology, or parent involvement. These findings
lend support to recent efforts by the U.S. Department of Education to identify
literacy programs that are supported by empirical research (Manzo, 2002; Olson &
Viadero, 2002).
Some sample schools attempted to address deficiencies in their literacy
programs by adopting supplemental programs that complemented the published
programs. These findings indicate that school adoption of a single published
literacy program may be insufficient, since a single program may not accommodate
the wide variations in student abilities, especially in urban areas. Further study of
the relationship between the adoption of published instructional programs and
improvements to classroom practices could contribute to school reform efforts, as
schools increasingly adopt these programs.
The adoption of published literacy programs in some sample autonomous
schools seemed to be guided by the levels of teacher experience in those schools.
Studies have noted that teachers in charter school are generally less experienced
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
than teachers in other public schools (Ballou & Podgursky, 2001; Finn Jr. et al.,
2000; Wohlstetter & Malloy, 2002). This general trend in teacher experience levels
was supported by this study (see Table 14 in Chapter Four). Findings from this
study suggest that schools with less experienced teachers, such as Schools B, C,
and F, may benefit from adopting a published literacy program. Those programs
may allow less experienced teachers to focus on instructional practices rather than
on curriculum development.
The findings on literacy practices in this study indicate that more research
on teacher practices in autonomous schools would contribute to the evaluation of
school autonomy policies. The focus of this study was on autonomy that centered
on the school, rather than on individuals within the school. Additional study of
autonomy within the school, such as teacher autonomy, may provide insight into
the relationship between school autonomy and instruction. This study relied
primarily on teacher reporting in order to assess classroom practices due to time
and financial constraints. Other studies may benefit from more direct or
longitudinal methods of assessing classroom practices such as observations of
lessons or teacher logs. Also, studies of teacher practices in other subject areas
such as mathematics and science would also provide a more complete profile of
classroom practices in autonomous schools.
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question #3: Are schools with more autonomy more likely to use
research-based literacy practices?
Based on the results from this study, school autonomy does seem to matter.
The findings from this study indicate that schools with more autonomy do tend to
use research-based practices to a greater degree. The graphs of the indicators of
autonomy and the use of research-based practices in sample schools demonstrated
some relationships, while results from interviews with school personnel further
strengthened these predicted relationships. The strong relationship between some
indicators of autonomy and specific research-based practices can be attributed to
the proximity of decision-making to the use of those practices.
School decisions related to print-rich classrooms and parent involvement
policies had more direct influence than decisions related to classroom instructional
practices. Schools that had control over educational expenditures, external
resources, and literacy curriculum were able to purchase print materials directly
from publishers. Likewise, schools with control over parent involvement policies
were able to directly institute requirements for parents. On the other hand, the
indicators of autonomy that were expected to influence instructional practices—
school control over teacher socialization, personnel structure, and instruction— still
required teachers to implement decisions in those areas. As mentioned in Chapter
One, the difficulty of monitoring classroom practices reduces the power of
decisions made outside of the classroom to affect instruction. Studies of teacher
practices have noted the extensive control that teachers have over classroom
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
practices (Cuban, 1993; Little, 1990). Additional studies would be useful to
determine whether greater school autonomy leads to greater teacher control over
classroom practices.
The extensive use of research-based literacy practices in dependent charter
schools suggests that these schools were more able to concentrate on educational
issues. Dependent charter schools often were the result of local educators’
unwillingness or lack of capacity to oversee budgetary issues for their schools.
Without responsibility for budget issues, personnel in these schools may have
viewed their dependent charter status as allowing them to focus on personnel and
instructional issues. The extensive use of research-based practices in these schools-
-particularly when compared to independent charter schools— suggests that the
responsibility of managing school budgets may detract personnel from educational
issues. The literature on charter schools has recognized that independent charter
schools have struggled to develop the capacity to oversee fiscal issues (Finn Jr. et
al., 2000; Griffin & Wohlstetter, 2001). Further investigation into the capacity of
schools to manage additional responsibilities under autonomy policies is necessary
to determine whether additional autonomy detracts from classroom practices.
The lack of variation in the ratings for some indicators of autonomy reduced
the ability of this study to investigate the relationship between some indicators and
research-based practices. Ratings of autonomy for personnel structure and parent
involvement policies resulted in no sample schools with limited control. Other
indicators of school autonomy such as control over literacy curriculum, instruction,
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and assessment also lacked variation because few schools were rated with moderate
degrees of autonomy. Future studies that compare school autonomy policies may
benefit from an expanded sample of schools that include a variety of autonomous
schools as well as schools in centrally-managed districts.
Research Question #4: How do schools use their autonomy to influence
classroom practices?
Sample schools used their autonomy in three different ways to influence
classroom practices. With additional autonomy, schools concentrated decisions
specifically on the quality of education in classrooms. In order to develop
consensus for these decisions, schools developed organizational structures to bear
the additional workload that resulted from increased autonomy and to influence
classroom practice. Finally, autonomous schools developed the quality of
personnel to ensure effective decision-making and classroom practices.
The schools in this study that had greater use of research-based practices
used their autonomy to influence classroom practices by focusing decision-making
on the quality of instruction. Personnel in these schools provided evidence that
they used their autonomy to make significant decisions related to instruction, rather
than simply concerning themselves with peripheral issues. For instance, many
charter schools used their autonomy to select or design appropriate literacy
programs for their students. Also, schools provided examples of identifying
weaknesses in their literacy programs and making decisions to alleviate these
weaknesses. The literature on school decentralization supports these findings by
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
also noting that successful schools focus decisions on improving instruction
(Robertson et al., 1995; Wohlstetter et al., 1997)).
Greater autonomy allowed some schools to create and support specialized
positions within their organizations in order to increase the ability of schools to
influence classroom practice. Schools that developed specialized positions, such as
literacy coordinators and intervention directors, were better able to hold personnel
accountable by clarifying responsibilities and improving school control over
instruction. For instance, the role of the instruction coordinator in School B was to
assess the literacy program using various assessment measures and to present
results to teachers, who would then develop strategies to address weakness in the
program. Examples of these positions were especially prevalent in the sample
charter schools. Responsibilities ranged from overseeing the entire instructional
program at the school to coordinating parent involvement efforts. Other
specialized positions involved developing an intervention center for low achieving
students and coaching teachers in literacy practices.
Decision-making committees were integral to sample schools as
organizational structures to facilitate collective decisions on classroom practices.
Many of these committees had control over specific domains of decision-making
such as budget, personnel, and instruction. By including representatives of the
personnel and parents in the schools, these committees were used to decide on the
allocation of resources to classrooms, and many of the committees also had
established procedures for monitoring classroom practices and assessing areas for
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
improvement. The presence of these committees provided schools with the ability
to take on roles that were previously conducted by the district central office. In
addition, the inclusion of all stakeholders in the decision-making process seemed to
increase stakeholder buy-in and feelings of ownership of decisions.
The literature on site-based management and other school autonomy
policies has also recognized the importance of committees as decision-making
bodies for schools, but has found some challenges to effective school use of these
committees. While autonomy policies may grant schools more control over
decisions, collective decision-making is a process that personnel in schools must
develop, and may be hindered by the persistence of traditional relationships among
stakeholders (Malen & Ogawa, 1988; Malen et al., 1990). For instance, school
administrators may seek to retain complete control over determining the budget,
while teachers may be unwilling to follow decisions on instruction as determined
by committees. By opening decisions to debate and requiring stakeholder
participation, committees may also require large amounts of time and commitment
from stakeholders. Studies have found that personnel in autonomous schools often
cite large time commitments and greater responsibilities as challenges to school
improvements (Finn Jr. et al., 2000; Malen et al., 1990). These challenges raise the
issue of the ability of schools to accept greater autonomy over decision-making.
Sample schools with larger student populations were able to take advantage
of their additional autonomy by distributing work across a greater number of
personnel. The greater number of personnel in larger schools allowed tasks to be
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
disaggregated among many personnel and reduced the workload on individual
personnel. Personnel in smaller schools were burdened with greater individual
responsibilities, since fewer personnel were able to oversee classroom practices.
The differences in personnel tasks were apparent when comparing larger sample
schools, such as independent charter Schools B and C, with smaller sample schools.
Larger schools had personnel who specialized in coordinating parent involvement,
overseeing the budget, and managing student interventions. However, the
challenge for larger schools was coordinating the work of numerous personnel,
since larger faculties can also be more disjointed due to lack of communication.
Sample schools also used their autonomy to develop quality personnel who
were able to contribute to decision-making and instruction. Selective hiring
processes in autonomous schools ensured that new personnel shared the schools’
teaching philosophies and had the skills to deliver the instructional program. To
complement the hiring processes, schools held professional development activities
that were closely linked to classroom practices. In order to ensure successful
personnel participation on decision-making committees, schools also provided
professional development in managerial and facilitation skills. The literature on
school decentralization has noted that such skills can contribute to effective
decision-making in schools (Lawler, 1986; Wohlstetter et al., 1997). School
control over the quality of personnel increased their ability to ensure that decisions
at the school level would influence classroom practices.
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Overall, this study explored how schools utilized their autonomy to
influence classroom practices. It should be noted that the sample schools in the
study were unique due to the motivation of personnel to seek out and adopt their
autonomy policies. In other words, sample schools were willing to assume greater
decision-making responsibilities. Also, sample schools in this study possessed
unique characteristics and operated under specific autonomy policies that limit
comparisons with other schools. The assumption that granting autonomy to any
public school would be faulty, since other public schools may be unable to take
advantage of increased autonomy. Additional research is needed to investigate
schools that represent a broader range of school characteristics.
Implications for Policy and Practice
This section discusses some implications of the conclusions presented in
this chapter. Conclusions for this study suggest that policy makers should be
cognizant of the types of autonomy delegated to schools. The characteristics of
schools selected to receive additional autonomy may also be significant to the
policy process. Some practical implications for personnel in autonomous schools,
or personnel in schools considering greater autonomy, can also be drawn from this
study. Due to the small sample size and exploratory nature of this study, these
implications are intended to be suggestions, rather than concrete recommendations.
Policy makers should pay close attention to the types of autonomy granted
to schools during the design of school autonomy policies, since the design of
school autonomy policies may affect whether schools are able to influence
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
classroom practices. This study found that certain types of autonomy granted to
schools could have a greater influence on the use of research-based practices.
Specific types of budget autonomy, personnel autonomy, and autonomy over
educational issues were linked to the use of research-based practices. Though
school autonomy policies can be created for a number of purposes (Malen et al.,
1990), improvements in student performance remain an important indicator of
school improvement. If policy makers expect school autonomy policies to result in
increases in student performance, this study suggests that policies that foster school
autonomy are more likely to improve educational practices if schools are given
control over decisions related to instruction.
The selection of schools with sufficient organizational capacity should be
an important element of any school autonomy policy. Schools that were better able
to use research-based practices possessed high levels of organizational capacity
such as personnel commitment, professional development, and financial support.
In addition, the large amounts of time and energy required of personnel in
autonomous schools— generally more than personnel in other public schools— placed
additional stress on the work of personnel (Finn Jr. et al., 2000; Wohlstetter &
Malloy, 2002). Though this study did not include schools that were forced to adopt
autonomy policies, the results suggest that such schools may be at a considerable
disadvantage, since personnel in those schools may not be prepared to bear the
burden associated with additional autonomy. Autonomy policies that incorporate
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
processes to select schools with sufficient organizational capacity may be more
likely to produce schools that are able to influence classroom practices.
The results from this study provide some useful recommendations for
personnel in schools, whether operating under autonomy policies or not. The
different means by which schools in this study used their autonomy to influence
instruction can be applied to any other public school to some extent. The
development of organizational structures such as specialized positions and
committees can be used to support effective instruction. The addition of these
organizational structures required that schools provide adequate professional
development to support personnel as they carried out these new tasks (Lawler,
1986; Wohlstetter et al., 1997). Schools could also use their autonomy to sustain
the quality of their personnel over time by developing hiring processes to select for
the most qualified candidates who would complement the existing school culture.
However, the most important recommendation for school personnel is that they
focus school autonomy on instruction.
In conclusion, results from this study suggest that school autonomy policies
can affect the ability of schools to influence classroom practice. Additional
research is necessary to confirm whether increased school autonomy results in
improved instruction. Though autonomy policies are developed by policy makers
who have multiple objectives, current modes of assessing school performance are
heavily dependent on student achievement test results. This reliance on
achievement tests places increased pressure on autonomous schools to demonstrate
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that their instructional programs produce results. History suggests that this turn
toward increasing school autonomy may be cyclical (Tyack, 1993), implying that
the political viability of autonomous schools may not be solely dependent on their
performance. Regardless, school autonomy policies remain an important
component of many current education reforms, and the influence of these policies
on classroom practice remains an essential question to be answered by educational
research.
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B IB L IO G R A P H Y
Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing
research-based programs. New York: Longman.
Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (1996). Schools that work: Where all
children read and write. New York: HarperCollins.
American Federation of Teachers. (1998). Building on the best: Learning from
what works. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, G. M., Shughart II, W. F., & Tollison, R. D. (1991). Educational
achievement and the cost of bureaucracy. Journal o f Economic Behavior
and Organization, 15, 29-45.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., Conley, S. C., & Bauer, S. (1990). The
dimensionality of decision participation in educational organizations: The
value of a multi-domain evaluative approach. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 26(2), 126-167.
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less maybe more: A 2-year
longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal
training. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(4), 494-519.
Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2001). Personnel policy in charter schools.
Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. In R.
Barr & M. L. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook
o f reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 885-910). New York: Longman.
Bean, R. M. (1995). Effective reading program development. In S. B. Wepner & J.
T. Feeley & D. S. Strickland (Eds.), The administration and supervision o f
reading programs (2nd ed., pp. 3-21). New York: Teachers College Press.
Becker, H. J., Nakagawa, K., & Corwin, R. G. (1995). Parent involvement
contracts in California's charter schools. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest
Regional Laboratory.
Bernhardt, R. (1981). Federalism and autonomy. In Y. Dinstein (Ed.), Models o f
autonomy (pp. 23-30). New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bierlein, L. A. (1997). The charter school movement. In D. Ravitch & J. P. Viteritti
(Eds.), New schools for a new century: The redesign o f urban education
(pp. 37-60). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bimber, B. (1993). School decentralization: Lessons from the study o f
bureaucracy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Bohte, J. (2001). School bureaucracy and student performance at the local level.
Public Administration Review, 61(1), 92-99.
Brown, D. J. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management. London:
Falmer.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. Q. (1998).
Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for
change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bulkley, K. (2001, November 12-13). Balancing act: Educational management
organizations and charter school autonomy. Paper presented at the CPRE
Educational Issues in Charter Schools Conference, Wahsington, DC.
Bullock, A., & Thomas, H. (1997). Schools at the centre? A study o f
decentralization. London: Routledge.
Bush, T., Coleman, M., & Glover, D. (1993). Managing autonomous schools: The
grant-maintained experience. London: Paul Chapman.
Byrne, G., & McKeown, P. (2000). Learning to manage spending: Experiences of
schools in Northern Ireland. Oxford Review o f Education, 26(2).
Caldwell, B. J. (1990). School-based decision-making and management:
International developments. In J. D. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision
making and management (pp. 3-28). London: Falmer.
Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the self-managing school.
Washington, D.C.: Falmer.
Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1998). Beyond the self-managing school. London:
Falmer.
Calfee, R., & Hiebert, E. (1991). Classroom assessment of reading. In R. Barr & M.
L. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook o f reading
research (Vol. 2, pp. 281-309). New York: Longman.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California Department of Education. (2000). Dataquest. California Department of
Education. Available: http://data 1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ [1999, Fall].
Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. O., & Usdan, M. D. (1985). The
organization and control o f American schools ( 5 th ed.). Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Center for Education Reform. (2002). Charter schools.
http://edreform.com/charter_schools/ [2002, July 3,2002].
Chapman, J., & Boyd, W. L. (1986). Decentralization, devolution, and the school
principal: Australian lessons on statewide educational reform. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 22(4), 28-58.
Chapman, J. D. (1990). School-based decision-making and management:
Implications for school personnel. In J. D. Chapman (Ed.), School-based
decision-making and management (pp. 221-244). London: Falmer.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools.
Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Clark, G. L. (1984). A theory of local autonomy. Annals o f the Association o f
American Geographers, 74, 195-208.
Clarke, S. E. (1989). Urban innovation and autonomy: Cross-national analyses of
policy change. In S. E. Clarke (Ed.), Urban innovation and autonomy:
Political implications o f policy change (pp. 21-30). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Clune, W. H., & White, P. A. (1988). School-based management: Institutional
variation, implementation, and issues for futher research. New Brunswick,
NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Center for Policy Research in Education.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M.,
Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality o f educational opportunity.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Conley, S. C., Schmidle, T., & Shedd, J. B. (1988). Teacher participation in the
management of school systems. Teachers College Record, 90(2), 259-280.
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Council of Great City Schools, & Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2001).
Striving for excellence: A report on Stanford achievement test results in the
Great City Schools. Washington, DC.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American
classrooms 1890-1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission. (1999).
Reading/language arts framework for California public schools:
Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Education.
David, J. L. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management.
Educational Leadership, 46(8), 45-54.
Davies, B., & Hentschke, G. C. (1994). School autonomy: Myth or reality -
developing an analytical taxonomy. Educational Management and
Administration, 22(2), 96-103.
Davies, D. (1981). Citizen participation in decision making in the schools. In D.
Davies (Ed.), Communities and their schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists.
New York: Routledge.
Dimmock, C. (1993). School-based management and linkage with the curriculum.
In C. Dimmock (Ed.), School-based management and school effectiveness
(pp. 1-21). London: Routledge.
Finn Jr., C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action:
Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fischer, D., & Rolff, H.-G. (1997). Autonomie, Qualitat von Schulen und staatliche
Steuerung: Chancen und Risiken von Schulautonomie (Autonomy, the
quality of schools, and state control: Chances and risks of "school
autonomy"). Zeitschrift fur Padagogik, 43(4), 537-549.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P.
(1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading
failure in at-risk children. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37-55.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fredericks, A. D. (1995). Community outreach. In S. B. Wepner & J. T. Feeley &
D. S. Strickland (Eds.), The administration and supervision o f reading
programs (2nd ed., pp. 178-193). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fuhrman, S. H., & Elmore, R. F. (1995). Ruling out the rules: The evolution of
deregulation in state education policy. Teachers College Record, 97(2),
279-309.
Fuller, B. (2000). The public square, big or small? Charter schools in political
context. In B. Fuller (Ed.), Inside charter schools: The paradox o f radical
decentralization (pp. 12-65). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
General Accounting Office. (1994a). Regulatory flexibility in schools: What
happens when schools are allowed to change the rules? Washington, DC:
Author.
General Accounting Office. (1994b). School-based management results in changes
in instruction and budgeting. Washington, DC: Author.
Gerber, S. B., Finn, J. D., Achilles, C. M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2001). Teacher
aides and students' academic achievement. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 23(2), 123-143.
Gewertz, C. (2002). N.Y.C. mayor gains control over schools. Education Week, 21,
1, 20.
Gittel, M. (1972). Local control in education: Three demonstration school distrits
in New York City. New York: Praeger.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Griffin, N. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2001). Building a plane while flying it: Early
lessons from developing charter schools. Teachers College Record, 103(2),
336-365.
Halasz, G. (1990). School autonomy and the reform of educational administration
in Hungary. Prospects, 20(3), 387-394.
Halasz, G. (1993). The policy of school autonomy and the reform of educational
administration: Hungarian changes in an East European perspective.
International Review o f Education, 59(6), 489-497.
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hallinan, M. T. (1987). Ability grouping and student learning. In M. T. Hallinan
(Ed.), The social organization o f schools: New conceptualizations o f the
learning process (pp. 41-70). New York: Plenum Press.
Hannaway, J. (1993). Decentralization in two school districts: Challenging the
standard paradigm. In J. Hannaway & M. Camoy (Eds.), Decentralization
and school improvement (pp. 135-162). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hanushek, E. A. (1981). Throwing money at schools. Journal o f Policy Analysis
and Management, 7(1), 19-41.
Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in
public schools. Journal o f Economic Literature, 24, 1141-1177.
Hatry, H. P., Morley, E., Ashford, B., & Wyatt, T. M. (1994). Implementing
school-based management: Insights into decentralization from science and
mathematics departments. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Heck, R. H., Brandon, P. R., & Wang, J. (2001). Implementing site-managed
educational changes: Examining levels of implementation and effect.
Educational Policy, 75(2), 302-322.
Hill, P., Lake, R., Celio, M. B., Campbell, C., Herdman, P., & Bulkley, K. (2001).
A study o f charter school accountability.'. Center on Reinventing Education,
University of Washington.
Hill, P. T., & Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and accountability in public
education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Hodder, I. (2000). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f Qualitative Research (pp. 703-
715). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hoffman, J. V. (1991). Teacher and school effects in learning to read. In R. Barr &
M. L. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook o f
reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 911-950). New York: Longman.
Johnson, S. M., & Landman, J. (2000). "Sometimes bureaucracy has its charms":
The working conditions of teachers in deregulated schools. Teachers
College Record, 102(1), 85-124.
Kapinus, B. A. (1995). Assessment of reading programs. In S. B. Wepner & J. T.
Feeley & D. S. Strickland (Eds.), The administration and supervision o f
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reading programs (2nd ed., pp. 162-177). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Knight, B. (1993). Delegated financial management and school effectiveness. In C.
Dimmock (Ed.), School-based management and school effectiveness (pp.
114-142). London: Routledge.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power o f reading: Insights from the research. Englewood,
CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Lakoff, S. (1990). Autonomy and liberal democracy. The Review o f Politics, 52,
378-396.
Lange, H. (1995). School autonomy: Problems of decision-making from a politico-
administrative point of view. Zeitschrift fur Padagogik, 47(1), 21-37.
Lawler, E. E. (1986). High-involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based
management: A review. Educational Policy, 72(3), 325-346.
Levacic, R. (1995). Local management ofschools: Analysis and practice.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Levin, H. M. (Ed.). (1970). Community control o f schools. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution.
Levine, D. U., & Eubanks, E. E. (1992). Site-based management: Engine for
reform or pipedream? Problems, prospects, pitfalls, and prerequisites for
success. In J. J. Lane & E. G. Epps (Eds.), Restructuring the schools:
Problems and prospects (pp. 61-82). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Lieberman, A., Darling-Hammond, L., & Zuckerman, D. (1991). Early lessons in
restructuring schools. New York: National Center for Restructuring
Education, Schools, and Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Lima, L. C., & Afonso, A. J. (1995). The promised land: School autonomy,
evalutaion and curriculum decision making in Portugal. Educational
Review, 47(2), 165-172.
Lippman, L., Bums, S., & McArthur, E. (1996). Urban schools: The challenge o f
location and poverty ( NCES 96-184). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in
teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 569-584.
Lodewijks, H. G. L. C. (1997). Raising the effectiveness of schooling and learning
by enlarging school autonomy: The case of the Netherlands. In R. Shapira
& P. W. Cookson (Eds.), Autonomy and choice in context: An international
perspective (pp. 439-456). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Louis, K. S. (1998). "A light feeling of chaos": Educational reform and policy in
the United States. Daedalus, Fall, 13-40.
Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., & associates. (1995). Professionalism and community:
Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Loveless, T. (2001). The 2001 Brown Center report on American education: How
well are American students learning? Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution.
Malen, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based
governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 251-270.
Malen, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-
based management? A case study of the literature - a call for research. In W.
H. Clune & J. F. White (Eds.), Choice and control in American education
volume 2: The practice o f choice, decentralization and school restructuring
(Vol. 2, pp. 289-342). London: Falmer.
Manzo, K. K. (2001). Anxious educators await details of Bush reading initiative.
Education Week, 20, 30.
Manzo, K. K. (2002). New panels to form to study reading research. Education
Week, 21, 5.
Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the
classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional
practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245-275.
Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for
organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly,
^^(Supplemental), 707-750.
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., Cole, S., & Intili, J.-A. K. (1978). Instructional
dissensus and institutional consensus in schools. In M. W. Meyer &
Associates (Eds.), Environments and organizations (pp. 233-263). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., Strang, D., & Creighton, A. L. (1994).
Bureaucratization without centralization: Changes in the organizational
system ofU.S. public education, 1940-1980. In W. R. Scott & J. W. Meyer
& associates (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations:
Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 179-206). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mitchell, D. E., Marshall, C., & Wirt, F. M. (1985). Building a taxonomy of state
education policies. Peabody Journal o f Education, 62(4), 7-47.
Mohrman, A. M. J., Cooke, R. A., & Mohrman, S. A. (1978). Participation in
decision making: A multidimensional perspective. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 14(1), 13-29.
Muhr, T. (2001). ATLAS.ti for windows (Version 4.2). Berlin: Scientific Software
Development.
Murphy, J., & Beck, L. G. (1995). School-based management as school reform:
Taking stock. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Characteristics o f the 100 largest
public elementary and secondary school districts in the United States:
1999-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The condition o f education 2002.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.
National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators. (1996). Learning to read:
Reading to learn. Washington, DC: Distributed by the National Center to
Improve the Tools of Educators, and the United States Department of
Education.
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment o f the scientific research on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. Washington, DC: Author.
Nevo, D. (1997). The function of evaluation in school autonomy. In R. Shapira &
P. W. Cookson (Eds.), Autonomy and choice in context: An international
perspective (pp. 161-176). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A
report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization
and Restructuring of Schools.
Nordlinger, E. A. (1981). On the autonomy o f the democratic state. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Odden, A., & Busch, C. (1998). Financing schools for high performance. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Odden, A. R. (1991). The evolution of education policy implementation. In A. R.
Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 1-12). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2000). School finance: A policy perspective ( 2nd
ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Olson, L., & Viadero, D. (2002). Law mandates scientific based for research.
Education Week, 21, 1, 14, 15.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and
performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 77(6), 963-974.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations.
American Sociological Review, 79(686-704).
Powell, J., Blackorby, J., Marsh, J., Finnegan, K., & Anderson, L. (1997).
Evaluation o f charter school effectiveness. Menlo Park, CA: SRI
International.
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reid, K. S. (2002). Groups named to lead dozens of ailing Philadelphia schools.
Education Week, 21, 10.
Reinking, D., & Bridwell-Bowles, L. (1991). Computers in reading and writing. In
R. Barr & M. L. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook o f reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 310-340). New York: Longman.
Robertson, P. J., Wohlstetter, P., & Mohrman, S. A. (1995). Generating curriculum
and instructional innovations through school-based management.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 375-404.
Rosenblum, S., & Louis, K. S. (1981). Stability and change. New York: Praeger.
Routman, R. (1996). Literacy at the crossroads: Crucial talk about reading,
writing, and other teaching dilemmas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the
organizational design of schools. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review o f research
in education (Vol. 16, pp. 353-389). Washington, DC: AERA.
Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S. W., & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Teaching as a nonroutine
task: Implications for the management of schools. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 479-500.
RPP International. (2000). The state o f charter schools (National Study of Charter
Schools ). Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1994). Environmental linkages and organizational
complexity: Public and private schools. In W. R. Scott & J. W. Meyer &
associates (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations: Structural
complexity and individualism (pp. 137-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seder, R. C. (1999). Satellite Charter Schools: Addressing the School-Facilities
Crunch Through Public-Private Partnerships ( Policy Study No. 256). Los
Angeles, CA: Reason Public Policy Institute.
Seeley, D. S. (1985). Education through partnership. Washington, D.C.: American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Shapira, R., & Cookson, P. W. (Eds.). (1997). Autonomy and choice in context: An
international perspective. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). Oxford English Dictionaiy (2nd).
Oxford University Press. Available: oed.com [2002, January 18].
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary
schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review o f Educational Research, 57(3),
293-336.
Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Madden, N. A. (1989). Effective programs for
students at risk. Boston: Allyn and Boston.
Sleegers, P., & Wesselingh, A. (1995). Dutch dilemmas: Decentralisation, school
autonomy and professionalisation of teachers. Educational Review, 47(2),
199-207.
Smylie, M. A. (1994). Redesigning teachers' work: Connections to the classroom.
In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review o f research in education (Vol. 20,
pp. 129-177). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research
Association.
Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional
outcomes of school-based participative decision making. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 181-198.
Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill, L. (1991).
Unfulfdled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Snow, C. E., Bums, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading
difficulties in young children. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
SPSS Inc. (2000). SPSS (Version 10.0). Chicago, IL.
Strickland, D. S., Feeley, J. T., & Wepner, S. B. (1987). Using computers in the
teaching o f reading. New York: Teachers College Press.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K. F., & Walpole, S. (1999). Beating the odds
in teaching all children to read. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the
Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University of Michigan.
Taylor, B. O., & Levine, D. U. (1991). Effective schools projects and school-based
management. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 394-397.
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tuckman, B. W. (1979). Evaluating instructional programs. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Turpin, R. S., & Sinacore, J. M. (Eds.). (1991). Multisite evaluations. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Tyack, D. (1993). School governance in the United States: Historical puzzles and
anomalies. In J. Hannaway & M. Camoy (Eds.), Decentralization and
school improvement: Can we fulfill the promise? (pp. 1-32). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century o f public
school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vacca, J. L., & Genzen, H. (1995). Staff development. In S. B. Wepner & J. T.
Feeley & D. S. Strickland (Eds.), The administration and supervision o f
reading programs (2nd ed., pp. 146-161). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Walsh, M. (2002). Edison: More schools in Fall, investors in wings. Education
Week, 21, 3.
West, E. G. (1992). Autonomy in school provision: Meanings and implications -
review essay. Economics o f Education Review, 11{4), 417-425.
White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under "ideal" school-site autonomy.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 69-82.
Wissler, D. F., & Ortiz, F. I. (1986). The decentralization process of school
systems: A review of the literature. Urban Education, 21, 280-294.
Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. (1998). Creating and sustaining learning
communities: Early lessons from charter schools. University of
Pennsylvania: Consortium for Policy Research In Education.
Wohlstetter, P., & Ingwerson, D. I. (1996). The Compton high performance schools
project: Process, progress, and results. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County
Office of Education.
Wohlstetter, P., & Malloy, C. L. (2002). Teachers and charter schools: What's the
attraction? Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Wohlstetter, P., & Odden, A. R. (1992). Rethinking school-based management
policy and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(4), 529-549.
Wohlstetter, P., Van Kirk, A. N., Robertson, P. J., & Mohrman, S. A. (1997).
Organizing for successful school-based management. Alexandria, YA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United
States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(4), 331-358.
Wohlstetter, P. W., Griffin, N. C., & Chau, D. (2002). Charter schools in
California: A bruising campaign for public school choice. In S. Vergari
(Ed.), The charter school landscape: Politics, policies, and prospects.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods ( 2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

California charter schools: Including students with disabilities

PDF

Impact of the policy context on the evolution of DELTA (Design for Excellence: Linking Teaching and Achievement)

PDF

Accountability in public -private partnerships

PDF

Holding traditional and charter schools accountable for student achievement in one California school district

PDF

Data -driven strategies to improve student achievement: A cross-case study of four California schools

PDF

A study of SBM and literacy in one elementary school

PDF

A study of the principal's role in increasing achievement in literacy in a low -performing elementary school

PDF

Improving math and science education in charter secondary schools through the use of technology

PDF

An exploration of project -based learning in two California charter schools

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's High Priority School: A case study

PDF

Homeostatic regulation of intracellular signaling networks by Etk /Bmx

PDF

Assessment of prognostic comorbidity in hospital outcomes research: Is there a role for outpatient pharmacy data?

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high -achieving urban elementary school

PDF

Biopharmaceutical strategic alliances: Interorganizational dynamics and factors influencing FDA regulatory outcomes

PDF

Demand -side obstacles to girls' education in developing countries

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Orchard Field Unified School District

PDF

Curriculum policy and educational practices: A study of primary classroom music education in Kern County, California

PDF

Hospital conversions: The California experience

PDF

Exploring a team-based model for organizing schools: The case of Fenton Avenue Charter School

PDF

Does program quality matter? A meta-analysis of select bilingual education studies

Asset Metadata

Creator Chau, Derrick Christiaan (author)

Core Title Does autonomy matter? Investigating research -based practices in charter and other public schools

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, administration,education, elementary,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee chair), Graddy, Elizabeth (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-245384

Unique identifier UC11339454

Identifier 3093744.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-245384 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3093744.pdf

Dmrecord 245384

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Chau, Derrick Christiaan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA