University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UM I films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note w ill indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EXPLORING A TEAM-BASED MODEL FOR ORGANIZING SCHOOLS:
THE CASE OF FENTON AVENUE CHARTER SCHOOL
by
Ira Berman
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2001
Copyright 2001 Ira Berman
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U M I Number 3065763
Copyright 2001 by
Berman, Ira Isaac
All rights reserved.
UMI’
U M I Microform 3065763
Copyright 2002 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, M l 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
School of Education
Los Angeles. California 90089-0031
This dissertation, written by
Ira Berman
under the direction o f Dissertation Committee, and
approved by all members o f the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School
o f Education in partialfulfillment o f the requirementsfor
the degree o f
D octor of Educati on
i
Dissertation Committee
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this dissertation was made possible by the assistance of
many people. First, I would like to thank Dr. Priscilla Wohlstetter, my committee
chair, for her feedback and support. Next, I would like to thank my committee
members, Dr. Stuart Gothold and Dr. Guilbert Hentschke. Finally, I would like to
thank my family, Benjamin, Roger, and especially my wife, Evelyne, for
encouraging me and putting up with the long hours of work that the doctoral
program entailed.
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.
vii
Chapter 1: Introduction. I
Concern about Quality of K-12 Education
Inadequate Student Achievement
Teacher Isolation and Lack of Involvement
Participative Management as Possible Solution
Team-Based Participative Management Model
School-Based Management
Teacher Teams
Purpose of Study
Organization of Dissertation
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature.......................................................... 13
Classical Management
Participative Management
Team-Based Organizations
Schools as Knowledge Work Settings
Mohrman's Model of Team-Based Organizations
Summary
Chapter 3: Research Methods....................................................................37
Research Questions
“Organizing for Literacy Achievement” Study
Data Sources
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Archival Data
Description of Fenton Avenue Charter School
Methodological Limitations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 4: Findings and Results, S O
Introduction
Evolution of Fenton's Governance Structure
Structure and Functional Responsibilities of Fenton's Teams
Individual Versus Team Roles
Effects of Teams on Teachers, School Organization and Performance
Summary
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations........................................76
Summary of Findings
Suggestions for More Fully Implementing Team-Based Model
Policy Implications and Suggestions for Future Research
References.................................................................................................... 90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
1. Characteristics of OLA Schools................................................... 36
2. Characteristics of Fenton Avenue Charter School....................... 37
3. Interviews: Interviewee Position, Interview Form
Administered and Information Obtained........................................ 38
4. Interview Question Content and Related Research Questions 41
5. Stanford 9 National Percentile Rank (NPR) Scores by Subject
and Grade-level at Fenton: 1998,1999, and 2000....................... 67
6. Summary of Findings on Team Governance............................... 70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Original Governance Council Structure At
Fenton Avenue Charter School.................................... 48
2. Current Governance Council Structure at
Fenton Avenue Charter School.................................... 49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
Ira Berman Priscilla Wohlstetter
ABSTRACT
EXPLORING A TEAM-BASED MODEL FOR ORGANIZING SCHOOLS:
THE CASE OF FENTON AVENUE CHARTER SCHOOL
This study investigated the use of teams in schools using a team-based
organizational model developed for private sector knowledge work settings.
Research questions guiding the study included: To what extent are teams used at
Fenton Avenue Charter School? What is the structure of teams at Fenton? What are
the functional responsibilities of teams at Fenton? In what particular decision
making areas have teams been active? What is the relative importance of team
versus individual roles at the school? What are the effects of teams on teacher
participants and on school organization and performance?
The study was a case study of an elementary charter school with extensive
team usage. Data sources included interviews with administrators, teachers and
parents, an observation of a team-meeting, and archival data that included previous
evaluations and background information.
Findings indicated that the school used teams extensively. Teams included (a)
working councils having jurisdiction over the areas of curriculum, human resources,
school-community relations and budget/facilities; (b) a management council that
oversaw the work of the other councils; and (c) grade level teams that met regularly
to discuss curricular issues.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
The study found, however, that the school's team-based structure
supplemented (rather than replaced) a classical management structure: administrators
and teachers functioned mostly as individuals in their core activities. Even with only
partial implementation of a team-based structure, the effects of using teams appeared
positive. There was improved collaboration among teachers, administrators and
parents, and there were more venues for participation. Better decisions were made
because the people that were directly affected were engaged in the governance
process. Student performance appeared to be positively influenced by the governance
structure.
Suggestions were made for how the school could more fully implement a
team-based organizational model. Policy implications were discussed for state and
district levels as well as for the school site.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In recent years, concern about the quality of public K.-12 education has
grown. Discussion about ways to improve public education has taken place on
the center stage of the national public policy arena. State of the Union
addresses, budget priorities and the current debate over reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act all attest to a major interest in
improving our educational system. In his 1997 State of the Union address,
President Clinton issued a ten-point call to action for American education in the
21st century. He called for all children to master basic reading and math skills
and for providing “a talented and dedicated teacher’ '... "in every classroom"
(Clinton, 1970). President Bush spoke extensively about public education
concerns during the presidential campaign. Since being elected, he has proposed
a budget that contains an increase in funding for education that is greater than
any other domestic Federal department. He has made a commitment to
providing every child in America with access to a quality education and
considers this to be his number one legislative priority (United States
Department of Education, 2001). The United States Senate has also been an
arena for discussion about improvements needed in public education. It is
currently discussing the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. The debate includes proposals about school accountability and
how to aarirpB8Dlhppiti^le6tbf pdtoariipdh^£scliBslfe(RDtidHie<$flfii)^
student achievement. Achievement is poor in many areas, including basic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
subjects such as math and reading. Poor math skills are exemplified in a recent
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), where only 38% of
eighth graders could calculate a 15% tip on a meal (in a multiple-choice format)
(Weame & Kouba, 1999). Reading skills are equally poor. 38% of 4th grade
students and 26% of 8th grade students read below a basic level according to the
1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (National Center for
Educational Statistics. 1999). The recently released results of the 2000 NAEP
showed little or no improvement (Phillips. 2001). In general, when compared to
students from other industrialized countries. U.S. students lag far behind
(Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). In addition, many studies show that students from
lower socioeconomic level families perform even worse than the population at
large (Allington & Cunningham. 1996; National Center for Education Statistics,
1999; Phillips, 2001).
The poor performance of students can be associated with several factors.
Among them are teacher problems that include isolation and lack of
involvement. These, in turn, may lead to poor morale and a high attrition rate.
Of course, teachers are isolated from their colleagues partially because
they are in the classroom with children all day (Ascher, 1991; DuFour, 1999).
However, this is not the only reason for teachers’ sense of isolation. In addition,
there is a culture of isolation (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2001) where
relations with peers become “remote, oblique and defensively protective”
(Lieberman & Miller, 1984, p. 11). Isolation is a problem for several reasons.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
Firstly, there is a positive correlation between isolation and occupational stress
(Dussault, 1997). Secondly, it allows little opportunity to share successes with
colleagues, which can lead to low morale (Lumsden, 1998). Lastly, a culture of
isolation leads to a lack of discussion of instruction and underutilization of
teacher skills (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Lieberman & Miller, 1984).
Many studies have shown that teachers are not involved as much as they
need to be in school organization and policy making (Busman, 1992; Clarke &
Keating, 1995; Sick & Shapiro, 1991). Even though teacher participation has
increased in recent years with the advent of shared decision making and school
based management, it is still likely that in most schools teacher leadership is
limited to what goes on in the classroom (Institute for Educational Leadership,
2001). This means that the qualities that good teachers possess, such as
knowledge of children and subject matter, dedication, team spirit and
communication skills, are not being used to make decisions about such matters
as scheduling, class placement, hiring decisions and budget decisions (Institute
for Educational Leadership, 2001).
Low morale is a problem that is related to both isolation and lack of
involvement and can adversely affect student learning and the health of the
organization (Lumsden, 1998). Research indicates that a substantial number of
teachers have morale that is so low that they would not choose education as a
profession if they could start over again or are considering leaving the
profession. For example, Parks (1983) found that 40% of the teachers in his
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
survey would not select teaching again as a profession. A decade later,
Henderson & Henderson (1996) conducted a survey of teachers in Texas and
found that 44% of respondents were seriously considering leaving the teaching
profession.
In fact, many teachers do leave the profession. Currently, 30% of all
new teachers stay in teaching less than five years and 50% of all new teachers in
urban schools leave within three years (Institute for Educational Leadership,
2001). Improving the educational system will necessitate breaking down the
culture of isolation and involving teachers in school-wide decisions. A collegial
culture of collaboration and shared leadership would help create better
performing schools where students achieve at a high level (Dariing-Hammond,
1997; Fletcher, 1990; Hord, 1997; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2001).
The private sector may hold solutions to the teacher problems currently
hampering our educational system. One private sector solution that has
generated improved employee involvement as well as improved performance is
participative management. Participative management is a form of management
that arose as a challenge to the bureaucratic management approach. It stemmed
in part from the sociotechnical systems approach in Europe (Passmore, 1988).
This approach tried to fulfill both the needs of employees and the requirements
of the work by creating settings where more self-management took place. It
was used primarily in manufacturing settings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
The sociotechnical systems management style was imported and used in
the United States in the 1970s to create what Lawler (1978) called new-design
plants and Walton (1985) called high-commitment work systems. These plants
are characterized by "flat organizational structures, enriched and often team-
based jobs, cross-training, sharing of information at all levels of the
organization, self-direction at the lowest level, few status differentiators between
ranks, pay for performance and skills, and employee input" into goals, policies
and practices of the organization (Mohrman. 1994, p. 28).
In the 1980s, the principles of participative management began to be
applied to service and knowledge work areas. These principles found fertile
ground because in a knowledge work setting the widespread distribution of
knowledge and information enhance the quality of decision-making, thus
leading to more effective organizations.
Commitment is strengthened through involving employees in their work by
giving them more influence over their job setting and encouraging them to
identify and solve problems in the organization (Lawler, 1986; Mohrman, 1994).
In a full-scale participative management approach, employees are
involved in everything from day-to-day operations to high-level strategy
decisions. Decision-making is pushed to lower levels of the organization. The
rationale for this shift in power is that the people directly involved in an activity
are in a position to make the best decisions, thus resulting in greater
organizational effectiveness (Lawler, 1986). A participative management
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
assembly-line work) and holding him accountable for it (Hackman & Oldham,
1980).
One specific type of participative management structure is called a team-
based organization. In a team-based organization, the team takes the place of the
individual as the basic organizational unit and becomes responsible for a whole
product or service. There are many advantages to using teams (as opposed to
individuals) as the basic organizational unit. Teams help integrate information from
various disciplines, help ensure greater acceptance of decisions and foster innovation
through the collaboration of individuals from different perspectives and fields of
expertise (Hackman & Oldham. 1980; Mohrman, Cohen & Mohrman, 1995).
However, it is crucial to note that an organization cannot merely decree that
teams will be the basic organizational unit. The organization itself must be
restructured to support teams. The whole logic of the organization is different. In a
bureaucratic organization there is a hierarchy of management, maximum
specification of jobs and methods, specialized, narrowly defined skill sets of
employees and controlled information flow. In contrast, the team-based organization
thrives on a hierarchy of information (meaning that teams assigned to deal with
broader issues make decisions that teams dealing with narrower issues must follow
regardless of the hierarchical rank of individual team members), minimum job and
method specification, multiskilled employees and many directions of information
flow (Fisher & Fisher, 1998).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
narrower issues must follow regardless of the hierarchical rank of individual
team members), minimum job and method specification, multiskilled employees
and many directions of information flow (Fisher & Fisher, 1998).
A specific team-based participative management model will be used in
this dissertation. It is designed for knowledge work settings and is the work of
Susan Mohrman. Susan Cohen and Allan Mohrman (Mohrman et al.. 1995).1
The model is a tripartite one. At its center are core work teams that perform
the central work of the organization. Next, there are integrating mechanisms
(usually teams) whose role is to coordinate and integrate the work of the core
operation teams. Finally, there are management structures and roles.
Management is viewed as a function that takes place at all levels within the
organization and not merely at higher levels. In fact, core work teams are
encouraged to take on as many management functions as possible.
The team-based participative management approach has applicability to
the schools because it has been found to improve both employee involvement
and overall organizational performance (Mohrman, et al., 1995). Improvement
in employee involvement would help schools solve problems such as teacher
isolation and retention. Improvement in overall organizational performance
would help address issues related to student achievement.
Traditionally, schools have been run according to a classical,
bureaucratic model. A superintendent in a central office performs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
administrative functions and directs his assistants. At the school site level, the
principal and assistants perform these functions. However, this management
model has been effective neither in dealing with problems related to teacher
morale and involvement nor in dealing with issues of low student performance.
Although not totally abandoning the hierarchical model, many schools
have incorporated the use of teams into their everyday functioning. The use of
teams, although not tied to a comprehensive management theory, is usually an
attempt to improve either involvement or performance. The approaches to
using teams can be divided into two major categories. The first approach
attempts to reform the management of a school and is usually called School-
Based Management (SBM)(Wohlstetter, Mohrman and Robertson, 1997). The
second approach involves the use of teacher teams for some combination of
planning, instruction and assessment (Crow & Pounder, 2000).
The first approach, school-based management, is highly variable in its
implementation but generally involves decentralizing power from a central
office to school sites. Usually a central council is set up at the school site that
includes teachers, administrators, parent/community members and sometimes
students. The composition of the council and balance of power on the council is
highly variable as are the domains under the council’s jurisdiction. These may
include budget, personnel, scheduling and curriculum (Wohlstetter, Mohrman
& Robertson, 1997).
1 For ease of reference, this model will henceforth be called the Mohrman model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
SBM has been touted as a solution to many current problems in our
educational system. Specifically, SBM has been suggested as a way to improve
teacher participation, student performance (including the skills required in a
technologically advanced society), community input into schools and the
introduction of innovative approaches to teaching (Cohen, McLaughlin, &
Talbert, 1993).
Although SBM has been analyzed within a participative management
framework by researchers (Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1994). few practitioners
have looked at it with organizational management goals in mind. From a school
district perspective, it has been a way to achieve political reform relating to a
power shift to the local site (Wohlstetter & Mohrman. 1994). In contrast, a
team-based participative management model in the private sector is usually
designed with the specific objective of increasing the productivity and
competitive advantage of the company. The primary objective of the use of
teams is not the redistribution of power, even though this may be an outcome of
the use of teams. The underlying assumption is that the more that employees
are involved and their skills utilized, the greater the overall productivity of the
organization will be (Mohrman et al., 1995). In a fast changing, highly
competitive world, an organization can no longer afford to maintain a system
where underutilized employees work in isolation. A highly integrated, involved
work force must continuously learn, innovate and improve in order for the
organization to be successful. Teams are viewed as the ultimate integrating
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
mechanism. In addition, an organization cannot merely start teams but must
(re) design the organization to support and empower teams (Mohrman et al.,
1995). In short, the primary difference between the use of teams within the
context of SBM and that of the private sector is that in the schools team usage is
mainly conceived of as a redistribution of power whereas in the private sector it
is mainly looked at as an organizational strategy to improve performance.
The other major approach to teams in the schools has been that of
teacher teams. Teachers are the core workers of schools and therefore, teacher
teams are analogous to core work teams in the private sector. Teacher teams
have been used most extensively in secondary schools with the goal of
coordinating teachers' work and students' experience that is frequently
fragmented into subject areas with little integration (Pounder, 1998). Teacher
teams are involved in designing and implementing curriculum, developing
coordinated strategies for addressing learning and behavioral problems of
students, providing coordinated communication with parents, planning,
teaching and evaluation and professional development (Crow & Pounder, 2000).
Here again, the theoretical framework for the use of teacher teams does
not appear to be broad enough. Teacher teams cannot operate successfully
without organizational support. A traditional, hierarchical organizational
model provides neither for the distribution of rewards, information and
knowledge that is necessary for individual teams to thrive nor for the intense
integration necessary for teams to work smoothly together (Guiton, et al., 1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
for decisions or are used in the context of teacher teams for the purposes of planning,
instruction and evaluation. In both cases, the use of teams is narrow rather than
global. Little thought has been given to creating an adequate organizational structure
for teams to function successfully. Teams are not incorporated into the design
fabric of the organization. Therefore, one might say that schools use teams but are
not team-based organizations. In contrast, in the private sector, some organizations
are being redesigned or reengineered as team-based organizations. Not only is
power reassigned to teams but also the support necessary for teams to be successful
(including rewards, information and resources). Core teams are the base unit of the
organization. The work of core teams is coordinated through the use of integration
teams and other integrating mechanisms. As many management roles as possible are
pushed down to work and integration teams. Decisions that affect more than one
team are negotiated between teams or made by teams (including management teams)
with broader scope of authority (Mohrman et al., 1995; Fisher & Fisher, 1998).
The purpose of this study is to take Mohrman's model of team-based
organization for knowledge work settings and apply it to public schools. The
ultimate goal is to contribute to the development of a framework for the current post
hoc usage of teams in schools and create a vision of schools as team-based
organizations that will increase both the involvement of teachers and the
achievement of students.
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. In this, the first chapter, a
statement of the problem was put forth. In the next chapter the relevant literature is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
post hoc usage of teams in schools and create a vision of schools as team-based
organizations that will increase both the involvement of teachers and the
achievement of students.
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. In this, the first chapter, a
statement of the problem was put forth. In the next chapter the relevant
literature is reviewed. This includes research about the theory and practice of
participative management as well as a presentation of Mohrman’s model of
team-based organizations in a knowledge work setting. Chapter 3 presents the
research questions and describes the research methodology used in the study. In
Chapter 4 the findings for each research question are presented. Chapter 5
integrates the findings through a discussion of the ways in which schools might
implement Mohrman’s model more fully, ways in which the model would need
to be modified for use in the schools and policy implications of the model for the
public school setting.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
As stated in the introductory chapter, the present study seeks to take
Mohrman, Cohen and Mohrman's (1995) model of team-based organization for
knowledge work settings and apply it to the public school setting. In order to hilly
understand a team-based organizational model for knowledge work, it is necessary to
set this model in a historical and theoretical context before describing the model
thoroughly. Therefore, this review of the literature will briefly describe classical
management theory, the dominant management approach of the last century. Next,
the theory of participative management, which arose as a challenge to classical
management, will be presented. After this, the focus will narrow and team-based
models of participative management in knowledge work settings and how they
compare to production settings will be explored. Included in this part of the review
will be a brief discussion about how schools fit into a knowledge-work framework.
Finally Mohrman's model of team-based organizations for knowledge work will be
described in detail.
Classical Management
During the middle ages, a work system of craftsmen and guilds was
developed. Under this system, craftsmen worked alone or in small groups to
complete a whole product. As the industrial revolution progressed in the 1800s and
early 1900s, larger groups of people worked together in factories. A new system was
needed to organize work in factories in an efficient manner and gradually a system of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
scientific, bureaucratic or classical management was developed in order to organize
the new work place (Sussman, 1979).
Around the turn of the century, writers such as Max Weber in Germany,
Frederick Taylor in the United States and Henri Fayol in France began to describe
the classical management system by which work in factories was organized. This
system was developed to combat waste and inefficiency and to run organizations in a
“scientific” manner. It was characterized by a hierarchical organization, power
concentrated at the top of the hierarchy and a clear chain of command. Goals were
clearly defined and formal rules and procedures were developed to achieve them.
Individual jobs were simplified and specialized as much as possible. Extrinsic
rewards were put into place to encourage worker productivity (Hackman and
Oldham, 1980; Hanson, 1996; Yeattsand Hyten, 1998).
The primary goal of classical management was to increase productivity
through organizing for maximum efficiency. Simplifying jobs increased the
interchangeability of employees, avoided time changing tasks and reduced training
time. A clear chain of command avoided argument about authority and promoted
disciplined behavior (Hanson, 1996).
The classical management approach has evolved over the years into what
Lawler (1992) calls the control-oriented approach and is currently used in some form
in most organizations (including schools) in the United States (Hanson, 1996;
Lawler, 1992). Classical management probably reached its apogee in the 1960s,
developing into “a combination of careful controls, centralized top-down decision
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
making, and carefully programmed and prescribed tasks for production employees”
(Lawler, 1986, p. 6). In classical management, thinking and decision-making power
are kept at the top of the organization (Sussman, 1979).
Participative Management
The first research in the United States that challenged classical management
techniques was conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne plant in the late 1920s
and 1930s. This research was conducted within a classical management framework
and was intended to be a study on the effects of the level of lighting on worker
productivity. However, to the surprise of the researchers, productivity went up even
when lighting was lowered to just above a moonlight level. The attention focused on
the group of workers had more of an effect than the lighting conditions of the
experiment. Over many years, research at the plant continued to demonstrate that
organizational performance did not depend only on technical factors but also on
human relations factors such as job satisfaction and morale (Hanson, 1996; Yeatts
and Hyten, 1998).
Criticism of classical management began in earnest in the United States in the
late 1950s and early 1960s. Authors such as Argyris (1957), McGregor (1960) and
Likert (1961) focused on the negative social consequences of the classical
management approach. They talked about the adverse psychological impact of doing
repetitive, simplified work day in and day out. In addition they claimed that this type
of work had a negative impact on productivity and led to poor quality work (Lawler,
1986).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
In one of the seminal works in the area of participative management,
McGregor (1960) challenged the principles of classical organizational theory with
his “Theory X” and “Theory Y“ characterization of management In McGregor’s
thesis, classical management was “Theory X” and was based on the following
principles:
1. The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and
will avoid it if he can.
2. Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most
people must be coerced, controlled, directed, threatened with
punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the
achievement of organizational objectives.
3. The average human prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid
responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above
all. (McGregor, 1960, p. 33)
McGregor (1960) felt that this theory did not accurately describe human
nature and motivation. In support of his viewpoint, he turned to Maslow’s theory of
human motivation. This theory states that people are motivated by needs that are
hierarchically arranged as follows: 1) physiological, 2) safety, 3) belongingness and
love, 4) selfesteem and 5) self-actualization. A person’s first concern is to have his
physiological needs met. When these needs are met, the person can be motivated by
safety, belongingness and love and so forth (Maslow, 1954).
Borrowing from Maslow’s work, McGregor (1960) developed “Theory Y”,
which he described as the integration of individual and organizational goals.
Underlying this theory are the assumptions that physical and mental effort in work is
natural and that people are capable of exercising self-direction and self-control while
pursuing objectives to which they are committed. Achievement of goals is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
considered to be reward in and of itself. Theory Y states that people can learn to
accept and even seek responsibility and that most people are capable of using a “high
degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational
problems” (McGregor, I960, 1985, p.48). Based on these assumptions, McGregor
felt that conditions could be created whereby individuals would meet their needs for
belongingness, self-esteem and self-actualization through directing their efforts
toward the success of the organization.
Interestingly, Maslow had an experience that afforded him the opportunity to
comment on the use of his work in the development of McGregor's “Theory Y”. In
the summer of 1962, he spent some time at a plant of a company called Non-Linear
Systems in Del Mar, California as a visiting fellow and became intrigued by
management theory. He read the above-cited book by McGregor as well as works by
Drucker, Likert and Argyris. Maslow wrote his observations in a book entitled
Eusvchian Management (1965). In general, he agreed with a “Theory Y”
management style but felt that it would only work for people “at the top of the
hierarchy of human deveIopment”(Maslow, 1965, p. 15).
Around the same time in Europe, the sociotechnical approach to management
was being developed (Pasmore, 1988; Trist and Bamforth. 1951). This approach
combines classical management theory and human relations theory into an approach
that attempts to optimize both technical work systems and worker satisfaction
(Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Yeatts and Hyten, 1998). Sociotechnical systems
theory emphasizes the interrelationship of the social and technical systems within a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
company. Organizations designed using sociotechnical systems theory usually use
some form of work groups or teams. When sociotechnical change is put into place,
multiple aspects of the work system are altered. These may include such factors as
job responsibilities, rewards, schedules and supervisory relationships (Hackman and
Oldham, 1980). Sociotechnical systems theory became the basis for newly designed
factories that incorporated many components of participative management (Lawler,
1986).
In his book High-Involvement Management (1986), Lawler discussed and
consolidated much research about participative management. He then developed a
theoretical framework he called “High-Involvement Management”. Lawler's model
operationalizes the somewhat vague tenets of sociotechnical systems theory. The
model describes what an organization that optimizes both employee involvement and
organizational productivity would look like. It underscores the need for the
alignment of the different subsystems within an organization and emphasizes the
need for rewards, knowledge, information and power to be distributed to all
employees so that everyone has a stake in the organization's performance. Lawler’s
model begins by describing the underlying belief system of a high-involvement
organization. The model then describes and discusses the rationale for
organizational components crucial to a high involvement organization’s success.
Drawing inspiration from McGregor’s “Theory Y”, Lawler (1986) states that
high-involvement management must start with a belief that people want to
participate, that they are capable of participation, and that their participation leads to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
greater organizational effectiveness. Furthermore, a high-involvement organization
must have core values that are consistent with this belief. The values must
emphasize the fair and respectful treatment of people, the value of people’s
knowledge, ideas and commitment, and the capability of people to make important
decisions about their work activities. In addition, the organization must believe that
these core values will ultimately lead to greater organizational productivity (Lawler,
1986).
The first component of a high involvement organization is an organizational
structure that has few layers of management and where production workers take on
many activities traditionally performed by support staff. In addition, employee
grouping is centered on a particular product or customer rather than grouping around
function (such as engineering, accounting or sales). The reason for this
organizational pattern is to create identification between employees and the product
they are producing or the service they are providing. Lawler (1986) theorizes that if
there is more awareness of what is being produced, there will be more commitment
to the production of a high-quality product. This organizational pattern may be taken
so far as to have employees organized into mini-enterprises, which act as semi
independent organizations (Lawler, 1986, 1992).
A second component is to design jobs that are either individually enriched or
are team-based. Depending on which option is chosen, either the individual or the
team should be responsible for a whole task or process. Assembly-line work does
not lend itself to high involvement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
The information system is another key to the success of the high-involvement
organization. All employees should have access to the organization's financial and
production data. Accurate feedback about productivity should be communicated
regularly to employees and suggestions from employees solicited regularly. Lawler
(1986, 1992) notes that computer networks allow the development of an information
system that was not possible until recently.
Another component of the high-involvement model is the physical layout of
an organization's workspace. Firstly, the physical and technical design of the
organizational workspace should reflect egalitarianism. This symbolically reinforces
the fact that decisions should be based on expertise rather than organizational
hierarchy. In addition, if a team design is used, physical layout should reflect team
boundaries in order to create a sense of ownership. In general, the physical layout
should support small employee units that can exercise a large degree of self
management.
The reward system of the organization should encourage employee
involvement. This can be accomplished by using such techniques as skill-based pay,
gainsharing and employee ownership. Skill-based pay involves paying employees
more for learning new production and management skills. Gainsharing involves
obtaining baseline data on performance or productivity and then assigning a share of
profit from improvement over baseline to each employee. Employee ownership can
take place though a variety of stock-purchase plans.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Personnel policies need to be developed on a participative basis to insure
buy-in. These policies deal with areas such as hours of work, types of benefits and
discipline. Personnel policies should be flexible enough to meet the needs of both
employees and the organization. Stability of employment should be an organization
priority. Worker commitment will be stronger if the company only lays off workers
when absolutely necessary. In addition, in a participative management paradigm, the
organization has invested heavily in employee training and does not wish to lose
well-trained employees (Lawler, 1986).
In terms of a career ladder, the high-involvement organization has a
disadvantage in some respects. Because the organizational structure is a flat one,
without many hierarchical levels, there is not much opportunity for upward
movement. Therefore, the organization must create opportunities for advancement in
other ways. These include opportunities for learning new skills, and putting in place
rewards (e.g. skill-based pay) for learning at all levels within the organization
(Lawler, 1986).
Selection of employees is very important to the high-involvement
organization. Employees must want to learn and grow in their jobs. In a team-based
organization, interpersonal skills and the desire to work in a group are as important
as technical proficiency. A fairly extensive job preview is a good way for applicants
to see if they really want to work in a high-involvement organization. It is also a
good idea to involve people from the area or team in which the applicant will work
in the interview process. From the current employees’ perspective, it gives them
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
input and a stake in the new employee's success. From the prospective employees'
perspective, it gives them an idea of what high-involvement is all about (Lawler,
1986).
The high-involvement organization must place an emphasis on training.
Employees need to constantly learn new technical as well as management skills.
These should include both human relations skills and the ability to interpret
economic information about the business they are in (Lawler, 1986).
Leadership style is somewhat different in the high-involvement organization.
Rather than a traditional managerial style where the manager has the decision
making power, the information and the rewards, leaders in the high-involvement
organization need to provide a sense of direction and purpose, empower people to
take control of their own work, shape the organizational culture and guide the
decision-making process (Lawler, 1986).
Team-Based Organizations
Team-based organizations grew out of sociotechnical systems theory, the
previously discussed branch of participative management that emphasizes both
worker satisfaction and productivity (Trist and Bamforth, 1951). Team-based
organization was used first in production settings in Europe such as the Volvo and
Saab factories. The idea was then incorporated into factory designs in the United
States in companies such as Procter and Gamble, General Foods and Cum m ins
Engine (Shonk, 1992).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Typically, teams in a production setting are self-managed and autonomous to
a large degree (Yeatts and Hyten, 1998). They have the “authority to handle internal
processes as they see fit in order to generate a specific group product, service, or
decision” (Hackman and Oldham. 1980, p. 164). Organizations are structured to
support teams by transferring many traditional management functions and the
resources necessary to accomplish them (power, rewards, knowledge and
information) to work teams (Lawler. 1986). The advantages to using a team-based
approach to production work include the following:
• Team members can develop skills in several areas and can therefore perform
any of several jobs thus giving an organization more flexibility (Fisher and
Fisher, 1998).
• Many layers of middle management can be eliminated because teams take on
tasks such as monitoring performance and scheduling (Mohrman, Cohen and
Mohrman, 1995).
Over the last two decades, team-based organizations have developed in
knowledge work settings as well as production settings. Knowledge work is
difficult to define. On one level, it is any work that is mental rather than physical
(Drucker, 1993). Another definition is “activity that frequently produces new
knowledge. Its core task in thinking, its outcome is information, it is typically
nonlinear in nature, and it requires mental skills to perform successfully” (Fisher
and Fisher, 1998, p. 19). Knowledge work involves analyzing information,
generating ideas, teaching, and creating new services and products. Much of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
work is non-routine and takes place in fields where the knowledge base is
incomplete. Knowledge work settings are those such as new product
development, technical sales, publishing and product development (Mohrman, et
al., 1995). Much work is actually a combination of knowledge work and physical
work.
More and more work is knowledge work. This is true for two reasons. First
of all, manufacturing is becoming an ever-shrinking part of our economy.
Secondly, routine work within the manufacturing setting is becoming automated.
Therefore, even in a production setting, much of the remaining work is
knowledge work (Fisher and Fisher, 1998; Mohrman, et al., 1995).
Even though team-based organizations have now taken hold in knowledge
work settings, it has been an arduous process. This is because “the highly
interdependent and dynamic technology in these settings makes it more difficult to
define, develop, and empower teams” (Mohrman, et al., 1995, p. 5). In addition,
much of the work is non-routine (Fisher and Fisher, 1998). Because of the highly
interdependent nature of knowledge work, lateral or integration functions become
more salient (Mohrman, 1993). Integration teams take on as much importance as
work teams. In fact, integration teams may be much more effective in processing and
communicating the immense information load that is characteristic of knowledge
work settings than traditional design components such as rules and hierarchy
(Galbraith, 1993).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
The following are other advantages to using teams that are of particular
importance in a knowledge work setting:
• Improving speed, cycle time and time to market by performing
activities concurrently rather than sequentially. This, of course
requires the extensive use of integration teams and other integration
devices to ensure that the product or service comes together in a
coherent fashion (Mohrman, et al., 1995).
• Innovative solutions to problems and new procedures that are
developed when people with different perspectives and fields of
expertise are brought together in a team environment (Mohrman, et
al., 1995).
• The use of cross-functional teams that allow an organization to focus
on organizational processes in their entirety rather than having
processes artificially broken into functional specialties. This can lead
to reengineered or redesigned organizations where product or service
delivery is more effective (Deming, 1986; Hammer and Champy,
1993).
• The flatter organization is as attractive in a knowledge setting as in a
production setting if not more so. There is a savings both in terms of
no longer having to pay for the costs of an extensive hierarchy and the
improvement in responsiveness of a leaner organization.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
Schools as Knowledge Work Settings
This section will take a look at the characteristics of knowledge work and the
settings in which knowledge work is done and examine whether schools are a
knowledge work setting.
Knowledge work is characterized by mental rather than physical work. Its
core task is thinking and it therefore requires mental skills. It is hard to preprogram
knowledge work because much of it is non-routine and complex. Furthermore, the
knowledge base upon which the work is based is frequently incomplete.
Schools seem to fit the definition of a knowledge work setting. The work is
mostly mental. Although teachers and students do some physical work such as
producing materials and projects, most of the teaching-learning interaction is mental.
The core task of schools, teaching and learning, involves communicating
information, analysis of ideas and learning new ways of thinking.
Even though there are methods and textbooks to help teach given subjects,
much of the work is non-routine and thus difficult to preprogram. This is because
each student is different and presents special challenges. Each teacher is also
different and modifies instructional techniques to suit his/her teaching style.
In addition, the knowledge base in the field of education is far from complete.
A consensus has not been reached on the basic goals of K-12 education, let alone on
the efficacy of specific techniques for reaching these goals.
An example of lack of agreement about general goals is whether education
should be geared to the “social development of the learner and the quality of his or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
her total experience” or “geared to the development of intellectual powers” (Noll,
1999. p. 2). Another area where the basic goals of education are in debate is the
degree to which the curriculum should be standardized. Should we have curricular
standards or objectives for all students or should individual teachers and students be
able to tailor goals to meet individual and local differences (Noll, 1999; Romer,
1996).
Agreement is equally lacking on what specific techniques should be used to
teach different groups of students and curricular areas. For example, the issue of how
best to teach English to the large population of immigrant children to our country is
unresolved. The data is unclear as to whether some form of bilingual education,
where the native language is used for instruction at first and a transition to English is
made gradually or whether English immersion, where English is used exclusively
from day one, is the better method (Noll, 1999; Sevilla, 1992). A curricular area
where the knowledge base has been the subject of intense debate has been that of
teaching reading. The controversy between “whole language”, a more global method
of teaching reading and “phonics” where reading is broken down into specific
components, has raged for years. Only recently does there appear to be a consensus
forming around the data and even then, the research base is still unclear as to which
mix of reading methodology is best for which child (Learning First Alliance, 1998).
In summary, it appears that education, by virtue of the mental and non
routine nature of the work as well as the incompleteness of the knowledge base
underlying its practices, fits well within the boundaries of a knowledge work setting.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Mohrman’s Model of Team-Based Organizations for Knowledge Work
Mohrman et al. (1995) have worked within the framework of “Participative
Management" and “High Involvement Management” in order to develop a model of
a team-based organization specifically for a knowledge work setting. Although the
model was developed for a private sector setting, schools fit well within the
definition of a knowledge-work setting and therefore, the model may be applicable to
schools. This section will describe the model in some detail so that the organization
of schools in general and one school in particular can be compared and contrasted
with that suggested by the model.
Mohrman's (1995) model does not explicitly provide a rationale for choosing
a team-based organizational framework. Rather, Mohrman attempts to lay out a
workable model for constructing a team-based organization once it has been
determined that “teams are an appropriate structure for implementing strategies
formulated to deal with performance demands and opportunities presented by the
changing business environment” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 6). Therefore, we must
look to the literature on team-based organizations in order to find a rationale for
transforming a traditional organization into a team-based one. There are two primary
reasons for a private sector organization to turn to a team-based model. The first is
to improve an organization's ability to meet the human needs of its employees and
the second is to improve an organization's productivity. These two reasons come
together in a mutually reinforcing way to provide the rationale for a team-based
organization. Because employees are fulfilled and involved, the organization uses
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
more of each individual's skills and talents. These talents are synergistically
combined through employee interaction and result in a more productive and
competitive organization (Lawler, 1986; McGregor, 1960).
The basic reasons for a school to turn to a team-based model are the same as
those of a private sector organization. Specifically, schools might become team-
based organizations in order to improve job satisfaction, overcome teacher isolation,
empower teachers, strengthen accountability, stimulate innovation and ultimately, to
enhance student achievement.
In order to understand Mohrman's model, it is necessary to define some
terms and present some basic principles. First of all, a team-based organization,
according to the model, is an organization that is (re) designed to support teams as
the basic operating unit rather than the individual as the basic unit. A team is defined
as . .a group of individuals who work together to produce products or deliver
services for which they are mutually accountable” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 39).
Teams are the core performing units of the organization and "a team's authority is
determined by the scope of its responsibility” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 65).
The model distinguishes between four types of teams. The first is the work
team, which "performfs] the work that constitutes the core transformation processes
of the organization” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 40). The second type of team is the
integrating team. Its task is to “make sure the work across various parts of the
organization fits together” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 41). Integrating teams may
integrate the work of two or more teams or may provide links having to do with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
customers or processes that cut across many parts of the organization. The third type
of team is a management team. A management team is a specialized type of
'‘integrating team whose power to influence the units that it is integrating comes at
least in part from hierarchical position” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p.41). The last type
of team is an improvement team. Its job is not to produce anything directly but
rather to "make improvements in the capability of the organization to deliver its
products and services effectively” (Mohrman et al., 1995. p. 41).
The operation of a team-based organization, as described by Mohrman's
model, can be described as having three components. At its center, there are the core
work teams that perform the main work of the organization. This work either
involves producing goods or providing a service. Next, there are integrating
mechanisms that coordinate and integrate the work of the core operation teams.
Finally, there are management structures and roles. Unlike a classical organizational
model, a team-based model views management as a function that takes place not
only at higher levels of the organization but as a set of processes that should be
pushed down to lower levels of the organization as much as possible. It is important
to note that although there are some individual roles in a team-based organization
and not all work has to be done in teams, the structure of the organization is set up to
support teams as the basic operating unit.
Work teams are the core of the team-based organization. They perform the
basic work, which is producing goods or providing some type of service. The
essential design principle for work teams is to “...do as much as possible to self-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
contain complete processes, key deliberations, and interdependencies required to
carry out a work process" (Mohrman et al., 1995. p. 110) In other words, work teams
should be as independent as possible and have responsibility for a whole piece of
work and decisions that are involved in successfully completing that work.
There are two basic ways to configure work teams. They may be functional,
which means that one professional discipline is represented on the team, or they may
be cross-functional, having several disciplines represented on the team. The
advantage to a cross-functional team is that the integration of perspectives from the
different disciplines represented can take place within the team. If the team is
functional in nature, then the integration of various disciplines (e.g. marketing and
engineering) would have to take place at another level. This might include the
establishment of cross-functional integrating teams.
A complex knowledge-work setting requires a high degree of coordination.
The work of various product ion/work teams needs to be integrated and the model
provides for several ways to accomplish this. They include liaison roles, overlapping
membership, cross-teams, management teams, representative integrating teams and
individual integrating roles. A liaison role involves a member of one team being
assigned to coordinate with another team. For example the liaison might attend the
other team's meetings in order to inform the other team about his own team's
activities and to bring back information that his own team needs to perform its work.
Overlapping membership is when certain people are members of two teams and can
therefore keep both teams apprised of what is going on in the other team. A cross
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
team or cross-team integrating team is a team composed of some members of other
teams. This team’s job is to make systemic decisions that affect the operation of the
other teams and to make sure that changes and decisions are communicated to the
teams and necessary information traded between the teams. A management team
determines strategy and direction for the teams under its jurisdiction. It may be
cross-functional so that different viewpoints and expertise are represented. A
management team prioritizes and allocates resources and manages the performance
of the teams that are under its supervision. A representative integrating team is a
team composed of one or more members of many work teams. It deals with issues
where it is important to align the work of the teams. Input can be gathered and
decisions made within the representative group that will then be taken back and
implemented in the various work teams. Sometimes, a team is not an appropriate
integrating structure and an individual can more flexibly perform the integration role.
Using some combination of the above structures, an organization performs
integration functions that are seen as primordial to a knowledge work setting.
In a classical management model, lower level managers perform the task of
breaking down work into individual assignments, determining methods for doing the
work, making schedules, allocating resources and monitoring progress. Higher-level
managers set the direction and make sure that work is integrated across various parts
of the organization. Under Mohrman’s team-based organizational model however,
management is seen as a function that takes place at many levels within the
organization. As many management roles as possible are pushed down to the level of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
work teams. This includes management tasks such as individual task assignments,
scheduling the work, coordinating the work within the team and facilitating team
meetings. Teams may also perform some boundary management functions such as
linking with other teams, suppliers and customers. Team members perform some
mentoring, coaching and training functions within the team. Teams also may be
active in setting objectives and finding ways to improve performance.
Management roles that are kept at a higher level within the organization are
seen as serving to link work teams to the larger organization and making large-scope
decisions. These functions include establishing priorities that allow a team to make
trade-offs. In this model, higher management is responsible for developing
• A clear system wide strategy for the organization
• Goals that are vertically and laterally aligned (that is to say across different
hierarchical levels of the organization as well as across different structures at
the same hierarchical level).
• Goals that are measurable
• Rewards that motivate the behavior and performances needed for team and
business effectiveness (such as skill-based pay, team bonuses and some form
of profit or gain sharing).
• Planning and reviewing processes that assess progress against direction.
Performance management is what is done in order to make sure that the work
performed leads to what the organization needs in order to be successful. This
model breaks performance management down into four processes. They are:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
defining the work, developing the performers, reviewing performance and
rewarding performance. It is important that these processes be defined not only
for individuals but also for teams if an organization is to be truly team-based. In
addition, rather than being just a boss-subordinate matter as in a classically
managed organization, performance management should be more open, with
peers and customers also playing a role.
In summary, Mohrman et al. (1995) have taken the theory of ^Participative
Management”, developed mostly with production settings in mind, and applied it
to a knowledge work setting. A knowledge work setting differs from a
production setting in terms of the non-routine nature of the work and the
necessity for a high level of coordination between different parts of the
organization. In order to meet these needs, Mohrman's model emphasizes the
management function as primarily establishing a clear system wide strategy
along with procedures to ensure that different parts of the organization are using
the strategy, and strengthening integration functions at every level.
Summary of Literature Review
When discussing schools as team-based organizations, it is necessary to look
at the historical and theoretical context. Much of the last century has been
dominated by a classical management approach to organizations. This approach
is characterized by a hierarchical organization, power concentrated at the top of
the hierarchy and a clear chain of command. Individual jobs are simplified as
much as possible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Criticism of the classical management approach became widespread in the
1950s and 1960s. In particular, theorists criticized the negative psychological
and social consequences of having large groups of workers performing repetitive,
simplified work. They also claimed that this type of work led to lowered
productivity and poor quality work.
Different approaches to encouraging an organizational model with more
involvement of employees were developed. In the United States, McGregor
(1960) developed “Theory Y”, which he described as the integration of
individual and organizational goals. In Europe, the sociotechnical systems
approach to management was developed. This approach tried to optimize both
technical work systems and worker satisfaction. In the 1980s, Lawler
consolidated research about participative management into what he called “High-
involvement Management”. In his book, High-involvement Management
(1986), he described the components necessary to make this style of organization
work.
Team-based organization grew out of sociotechnical systems theory. Teams
provided a way to create more meaningful work for employees and at the same
time improve quality of work and productivity. Team-based organization was
first used in production settings in Europe and then in the United States.
Over the last two decades, team-based organizations have also developed in
knowledge work settings. This has been difficult because knowledge work is
often non-routine and interdependent. Therefore, it is hard to have self-contained
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
teams. However, the advantages of teams in knowledge work have outweighed
the disadvantages. Advantages include improving efficiency, helping to find
innovative solutions to problems because of the fertile interaction of people from
different disciplines and a flatter organization.
Schools fit the definition of knowledge work. The work is mostly mental and
involves communicating information and learning new ways of thinking.
The present study uses Mohrman's model of team-based organizations for
knowledge work settings. This model is based on the theory of participative
management and lays out the specific organizational components that allow a
team-based organization to be successful in a knowledge-work setting.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS
The purpose of the present study was to look at elementary schools through
the lens of Mohrman's (1995) model for team-based organizations in a knowledge
work setting. The model describes the structure of an organization designed to
support teams as the basic operating unit rather than treating the individual as the
primary organizational unit. This structure includes teams having four different
functions: work teams, integrating teams, management teams and improvement
teams. As discussed in Chapter 2, research suggests that a team-based structure
enhances organizational performance. The study examined which aspects of the
school setting conform to the model and which aspects differ from the model. It is
hoped that this analysis will lead to the development of a better model of school
organization, one that is more conducive to the development of a high performance
organization.
The following research questions served as a framework for the study:
• What is the structure of teams at Fenton Avenue Charter School? To what
extent are teams used at Fenton?
• What are the functional responsibilities of teams at Fenton? In what
particular decision-making areas have teams been active?
• What is the relative importance of team versus individual roles at the school?
• What are the effects of teams on teacher participants and on school
organization and performance?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
This study used the vehicle of a single qualitative case study of a school
where teams are used extensively. Data used to answer the research questions
were qualitative in nature. The data used in this study were collected within the
context of a study entided “Organizing for Literacy Achievement” (OLA) which
was conducted by the Center for Educational Governance at the University of
Southern California.
The purpose of the OLA study was to examine innovations designed to
improve reading instruction in both charter and district-run elementary schools.
Innovations were categorized as either management structures or organizational
processes. Management structures included decision-making structures such as
school-based councils and work teams. Organizational processes included
strategies that are used to support parent and teacher involvement in reading
instruction such as professional development and parent training.
In the OLA study, data were collected from twelve urban elementary schools
in the Los Angeles area during the 2000-2001 school year. Six of the schools
were charter schools and six were district-run schools. The charter schools were
chosen to include three dependent and three independent charter schools. In the
district-run schools, demographics were representative of the entire school
district with less than 10% of the students being white. District-run schools were
chosen that had the greatest increase in Stanford 9 reading scores. Table 1
presents the size, charter status and ethnic characteristics of the schools in the
OLA sample.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Table 1:
Characteristics of OLA Schools (based on 2000 data from L.A.U.S.D. and CA.
Dept, of Education Websites)
School Total
Students
Charter
Status
%
White
% Hispanic % African
American
%
Other
Palms 534 District 10.67 56.74 20.79 11.80
Farm dale 731 District 0.41 88.10 1.78 9.71
Cimarron 520 District 0.19 9.23 90.38 0.19
Lassen 722 District 10.25 72.30 8.17 9.14
Normont 611 District 0.49 83.14 14.73 0.98
Wilshire
Crest
665 District 1.35 52.18 36.84 9.48
Accelerated 263 Charter 1.10 55.90 41.80 1.20
Fenton 1259 Charter 1.59 82.45 13.11 2.86
Montague 1056 Charter 1.04 97.16 0.38 1.42
Open
Magnet
364 Charter 40.93 16.48 20.33 22.25
San-Jose
Edison
964 Charter 16.10 58.00 9.00 16.90
Westwood 734 Charter 66.76 9.67 7.36 16.21
L.A.
Unified
School Dist
889,030 District
And
Charter
10.10 69.90 13.20 6.80
Fenton Avenue Charter School was one of the twelve schools in the OLA study. It
was the largest school in the sample and had demographics characteristic of the
district at large. Fenton was chosen for the present case study because a preliminary
screening of interview transcripts from the OLA study determined that it used teams
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
extensively for governance and management purposes. Table 2 presents some
of the characteristics of Fenton Avenue School.
Table 2:
Characteristics of Fenton Avenue Charter School (based on 2000 data from
L.A.U.S.D. and CA. Dent of Education Websites)
#o f
Teachers
Total
Students
API Score
(2000)
% White % Hispanic % other
minority
55 1259 509 1.59 82.45 15.97
Data Sources
Data sources were designed to yield information about the structure of teams at
Fenton, the importance of teams at the school, the responsibilities of teams and the
effects of teams on participants and on school organization and performance. They
included interviews with school administrators, teachers and parents, a team meeting
observation conducted at Fenton during the 2000-2001 school year (within the
context of the OLA study), a follow-up interview with the Director of Instruction
conducted specifically for the present study, and archival data that included previous
evaluations of the school and background information on the school.
School-Level Interviews
In-depth interviews were conducted with teachers, parents, the literacy
coordinator and administrators at Fenton as part of the OLA study. Different forms
of the interview were used depending on the interviewee’s position. Table 3 presents
a summary of the people who were interviewed, the interview form used and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
information relevant to the research questions posed by the present study that was
obtained from the interview.
Table 3:
Interviews: Interviewee Position. Interview Form Administered and Information
Obtained
Interviewee's
Position
Interview
Form
Tvne of Information about Teams Obtained
Structure Responsibilities Effects
Director of
Instruction
On-Site
Principal
X X X
Assistant Director-
Curriculum &
Instruction
Literacy
Coordinator
X X
Asst. Director-
Schoo 1/Community
Relations
Teacher-
Govemance
X X X
First Grade Chair Teacher-Grade
Level Leader
X X X
Fifth Grade Co
chair
Teacher-
Classroom
Practices
X
Fifth Grade Co
chair
Teacher-Grade
Level Leader
X X
Fifth Grade
Teacher, Co-chair
Human Resources
Council
Teacher-
Govemance
X X
Parent-Office
Assistant
Parent X
Parent Parent X
As can be seen from the above table, each interview contributed information relevant
to at least one of the research questions posed by the present study. More types of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
information came from interview forms that emphasized governance questions than
forms emphasizing teaching practices or a parent viewpoint.
Data Collection
As indicated in Table 3, nine school level interviews were conducted at
Fenton Avenue School. Each interview used a set protocol that was designed for the
position of the interviewee and lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. The interviews
were conducted with administrators, teachers and parents in July 2000 by a two-
member team of graduate students from the Center for Educational Governance at
the University of Southern California (USC). Each interviewer received one-half
day of training prior to conducting interviews. The training included interviewing
techniques and data write up skills as well as background information about the OLA
study.
Interviews dealt with the subject of school governance (including use of
teams) and literary practices. Interviewers took notes during the interviews and later
transcribed these notes. A separate answer was recorded for each individual question
on the structured interview protocol. These transcriptions provided raw data for
analysis in the present study.
A follow-up interview was conducted by the author of the present study with
Fenton’s Director of Instruction. The purpose of this interview was to ask questions
related to the structure, function and effects of teams that were unanswered in
previous interviews and by other data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Team Observation
An observation of a curriculum council meeting was conducted at Fenton in
November 2000 by a researcher from the Center for Educational Governance at the
University of Southern California with expertise in governance/management issues
as part of the OLA study. This team was selected to be observed because literacy
issues fell within its jurisdiction. Present at the meeting were the Executive Director,
the Director of Instruction, the Assistant Director of Schools and Community
Relations, the Assistant Director of Curriculum and Instruction, two teachers who
served as co-chairs of the council and an outside vendor who provides after-school
programming for Fenton.
The observer used a set protocol to record the frequency of behaviors related
to the dimensions of leadership, communication, participation, trust/cohesion,
decision-making process, goal accomplishment and knowledge sharing. These
behaviors were then summarized by category. Also, a description of conflicts,
barriers the team faced and major strengths of the team was provided. Finally, a
detailed narrative of the meeting was written.
The data from the team observation provided confirmation of interview and
archival data. It also served as a concrete example of the structure, functional
responsibilities and effects of a team at Fenton Avenue Charter School.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Data Analysis
The transcribed interview notes were analyzed for the OLA study using
Atlas/ti (Muhr, 1997), a qualitative data analysis program. For the purposes of the
present study, the interview data were reviewed for information about the structure
of teams, the responsibilities of teams and the effects of teams at Fenton Avenue
Charter School. The organization o f the school was then compared and contrasted
with an organizational structure suggested by the Mohrman model. Table 4 describes
the content of specific interview questions and indicates the research questions for
which they provided data.
Table 4
Interview Question Content and Related Research Questions
Content of Interview Ouestion Research Ouestion
Team
Structure
Team
Resoonsibilities
Team
Effects
Coordination of work of teams,
information sharing between teams
X
Leadership in school, ways of exerting
leadership
X X X
How decisions are made X X
Evaluation of school staff X
Role of principal in decision-making X
Power of school teams in decision
making
X X
Adjustments to school structures to
support language arts instruction
X
Dissemination of information about
reading program
X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Table 4 -Continued
Meetings of teachers about reading
program
X
Decision-making regarding professional
development
X
Teachers' role in reading program X
Evaluation of reading program X
Changes made to reading assessment X
Charter school status and decision
making process
X
Personal satisfaction related to
improvement in reading curriculum and
instruction
X
Factors that contribute to or inhibit
curricular and instructional improvement
X
The follow-up interview with Fenton's Director of Instruction provided
information specific to the present study that either was not included in other data
sources or served to confirm data from other sources.
The team observation document was reviewed for information about team
structure, responsibilities and effects. It provided a direct observation of topics
covered in school-level interviews and other sources.
Archival Data:
Archival data was used to provide demographic and historical information
about the school as well as further data regarding governance structures and their
effects on teachers and organizational effectiveness. The documents included
evaluative case studies, the original charter petition and its renewal, demographic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
data and student assessment data. The specific documents used and the type of
information they yielded are as follows:
• A case study of Fenton Avenue Charter School dated June 1998, written for
the Los Angeles Unified School District by WestEd in partnership with
consultants from USC, was used. This case study provided background
information about the school, data on staff and students and insight into the
organizational and governance structures in place at the school (WestEd.
1998).
• An evaluation report on Fenton Avenue Charter School, written in 1997 by
Diane Becket, a research associate for the Center on Educational Governance
at USC, was used to provide further background on the governance and
organizational structures in place at the school (Becket, 1997).
• The original charter petition, submitted by Fenton Avenue School in 1993,
was used to provide information on the philosophy of Fenton as a charter
school (Fenton Avenue School, 1993).
• The charter renewal petition was used to provide updated information on the
team governance structures and responsibilities in place at Fenton Avenue
Charter School (Fenton Avenue Charter School, 1998).
• A document from the Los Angeles Unified School District Website entitled
"Ethnic Breakdowns of LAUSD Students-Grades K-12” was used to provide
information on the ethnicity of the student population of Fenton Avenue
Charter School (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2001).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
• A document from the California Department of Education Website entitled
“ 1999-2000 Academic Performance Index (API) Growth Report” was used to
provide information on student performance at Fenton (California
Department of Education, 2000).
Description of Fenton
As noted earlier, Fenton Avenue Charter School is a three-track, year-round
elementary charter school (pre-kindergarten to fifth grade) that serves a
predominantly Latino, low-income population. It is situated in the northeast part
of southern California’s San Fernando Valley in the neighborhood of Lake View
Terrace. It currently has 66 teachers and nearly 1300 students.
Over the last 40 years, the immediate area surrounding Fenton has changed
from a white to an African American to a Latino neighborhood. By the late
1980s, the school had become extremely run-down. Graffiti, vandalism and theft
had become weekly occurrences. One of the current co-directors then began
efforts to turn the school around. In order to have more freedom to institute
reforms, the school became a fiscally independent charter school in 1994. By
1997 the school was so successful that it was named a California Distinguished
School.
The school has obtained a variety of public and private resources to support
its mission. It has used its resources for such purposes as installing an integrated
computer network for the school and compensating teachers for additional
responsibilities such as serving as grade-level chairs and teaching in after school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
programs. The staff and community report that the school has a collaborative and
collegial atmosphere. The two co-directors have been pivotal in creating and
maintaining a supportive work environment. Even the school's grounds are well
maintained. Facilities are clean and well maintained. Flowers and shrubs are
plentiful.
The school is organized in a traditional manner into classes of students at the
same grade level. Kindergarten through grade three classes average 19 students
and classes in grades four and five average 24 students. The school is governed
by five councils. Four councils focus on specific areas. They are as follows: the
Curriculum and Assessment Council (educational program policy decisions), the
Budget and Facilities Council (expenditures and facility decisions), the Human
Resources Council (hiring and personnel issues) and the School-Community
Relations Council (Community outreach and parent involvement concerns). The
fifth council is the Council of Councils whose role is to coordinate the work of
the other councils and to serve as the final authority for school-wide policy
decisions. In addition, each grade level meets as a group from three to four times
a month. Content of the meetings is determined by the Curriculum Council and
consists mostly of curricular implementation issues. Councils and grade levels
are led by co-chairs in order to ensure continuity over the three tracks.
Overlapping membership across the councils enhances coordination. All grade
level chairs serve on the Curriculum and Assessment Council. All co-chairs of
the specific subject councils serve on the Council of Councils.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
Administration consists of two co-directors and two assistant directors. One
co-director is the Executive Director of the school. He acts as the Chief
Financial Officer and deals primarily with facilities and budget. The other co
director is the Director of Instruction. Her scope of responsibility includes
curricular issues, staff evaluation and student assessment. One assistant director
deals with federal and state compliance issues, instructional materials, academic
interventions and assessment. The other assistant director takes care of the
home-school connection, including community involvement and student
discipline. The co-directors attend council meetings but are only voting members
of one of the four specific subject councils each.
Methodological Limitations
There are two major methodological limitations of this study that impact the
generalization of its findings. Firstly, it is a case study of one elementary school
that was purposefully chosen for its extensive use of teams. Secondly, the school
is a charter school and therefore is more independent than the vast majority of
schools. Teachers and administrators at the school cannot be assumed to be
representative of teachers in general in terms of their level of motivation and
desire to work in teams. They have chosen to be at the school and have taken on
responsibilities that may not be typical of teachers and administrators at large.
In the next chapter, the results from the analysis of the interviews and other
supporting documents will be discussed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND RESULTS
The present study looked at elementary schools through the lens of
Mohrman’s (1995) model for team-based organizations in a knowledge work setting.
Results of the qualitative analysis of interview data, a team observation and archival
data were used to answer the research questions posed by the study. The results show
how and to what extent teams are used at Fenton Avenue Charter School. In
addition, the results describe the responsibilities of teams and the effects of teams on
teacher participants and on school organization and performance.
As a context for the findings, the first part of the chapter traces the evolution
of Fenton's governance structure from before it became a charter school until the
present time. The second part of the chapter focuses on the first two research
questions of the present study. In this section, results of qualitative data analyses are
used to describe the structure of teams, the functional responsibilities of teams and
how each team function fits into Mohrman's model of a team-based organization for
a knowledge work setting. The third part of the chapter deals specifically with the
question of the extent to which administrators and teachers perform their duties as
individuals or as part of a team. Finally, the last part of the chapter presents data
regarding the effects of teams on teacher participants and on school organization and
performance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
Evolution of Fenton Avenue Charter School’s Governance Structure
As noted in the previous chapter, Fenton Avenue Charter School is a three-
track, year-round elementary charter school located within the Los Angeles Unified
School District. It is situated in the northeastern part of the district and serves a
predominantly Latino, low-income population. Before becoming a charter school,
observers considered Fenton one of the worst schools in the San Fernando Valley
(WestEd, 1998). The school was run-down, graffiti, vandalism and theft were
frequent and there had been five principals in six years. Attendance was poor
(91.86%' in 1992-1993) and standardized test scores (CTBS/U) were in the bottom
quartile of the Los Angeles Unified School District WestEd, 1998). Before becoming
a charter school, Fenton had not been involved in any school reform efforts but was
run in a traditional manner. In 1993, the school submitted a charter school petition to
the Los Angeles Unified School District. The charter was the result of a
collaborative effort among the faculty, staff, parents and community of Fenton
Avenue School.
According to the charter school petition (Fenton Avenue School, 1993), the
school community felt that with more autonomy they could achieve the goals of
improving learning opportunities for children, encouraging use of innovative
teaching methods, creating professional opportunities for teachers, and providing
parents and students with expanded choices in types of educational opportunities
available within the public school system (Fenton Avenue School, 1993). Included in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
their vision for the school was an emphasis on cooperative and collaborative work
among all members of the school community. Because of their belief in
collaboration, Fenton's charter set up a governance structure designed for "maximum
inclusion" (Fenton
Avenue School, 1993, p. 39) of teachers, staff members, parents and
community members in decision-making. This structure was composed of seven
working councils with decision-making power and a Council of Councils. According
to the charter school petition (Fenton Avenue School, 1993), the Council of Councils
was considered to be the final authority. Its duty was to make larger scope decisions,
to help coordinate the work of the seven councils and to mediate when any disputes
arose. Figure 1 presents the original decision-making councils at Fenton Avenue
Charter School.
Figure 1:
Original Governance Council Structure at Fenton Avenue Charter School
Council of Councils
///:
\ \
School-
Commu
nity
Relations
Budget/"
Facili
ties
Health,
Safety
And
Special
Ed.
Human’
Resources
And
Personnel
Curricu
lum/
Instruction
Student
Affairs
Account*^
bility and
Student
Assess
ment
1 Attendance rates for elementary schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District range from
approximately 90% to 97% according to recent data from the L.A.U.S.D. website.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
According to interviews with teachers and administrators cited in the WestEd
study (1998), the number of working councils was found to be unwieldy and was
first reduced to five councils and then to the current four councils (Budget/Facilities
and Safety. Curriculum and Assessment, Human Resources and Personnel, School
Community Relations). The number of councils was reduced for several reasons.
These included: eliminating redundancy, placing certain policy areas under the
jurisdiction of councils making related decisions (e.g. Special Education under the
Curriculum/Instruction Council rather than together with Health and Safety), and
practical considerations such as making it easier to find time to meet. The Council of
Councils has remained as the highest governance authority during the eight years of
the charter. Figure 2 presents the current council structure at Fenton.
Figure 2:
Current Governance Council Structure at Fenton Avenue Charter School
Council of Councils
/ / \ \
Budget/Facilities Curriculum and Human Resources School-Community
And Safety Assessment And Personnel Relations Council
Council Council Council
Grade-level teams have been used at Fenton since its inception as a charter
school. The purpose of these teams, although not explicitly defined in school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
documents, appears to be to facilitate collaboration and provide a forum for
communication between the councils and the teachers. Although the structure of the
grade-level teams has remained the same, the methods of selecting team-leaders as
well as team-leaders’ duties have changed. Previously, the leadership position was
called a grade-level co-chair. The prospective co-chairs were selected by grade-level
colleagues after making a brief presentation and received a stipend of $2,000 per
year. Recently, the Council of Councils decided to upgrade the position of co-chair
to a co-lead teacher position. In addition to grade-level chair responsibilities, the co
lead teachers now have taken on mentoring duties. Along with increased
responsibilities has come a more rigorous application procedure. Instead of being
selected by the grade-level team after making a brief presentation, a prospective lead
teacher now must go through an application procedure that includes showing their
plan book and grade book, submitting a professional portfolio and being observed
teaching by all the members of the Council of Councils, who then make their
selection. Commensurate with the increase in responsibilities of this position has
come an increase in the stipend (from $2,000 to $4,800).
Administration has also undergone some evolution since the beginning of
charter status. Originally the charter school was set up with a School Executive
Director of Operations, a Director of Instruction, a Curriculum Advisor and a Dean
of Student Activities. There are still four administrative positions but some titles and
job descriptions have changed according to interviews with the Director of
Instruction. Originally, the Executive Director was responsible for implementing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
policies decided upon by the Councils. He now plays the role of a Chief Financial
Officer, managing the budget and seeking funding for the school. The Director of
Instruction originally was responsible for supporting the teaching staff and dealing
with all matters related to instruction. She still plays this role. The Curriculum
Advisor originally was responsible for the Title I program, staff development, parent
education, peer coaching, instructional demonstrations, the testing program and after
school and Saturday programs. The Curriculum Advisor position was changed to that
of Assistant Director of Curriculum and Instruction. Responsibilities now include
supervision of all instructional materials, the English language development (ELD)
program, the Title I program, academic intervention programs, compliance issues
and testing. The Dean of Student Activities was originally responsible for the
bilingual program, student discipline, student leadership team, after school
playground and monitoring student attendance and making home visits. This
position is now called an Assistant Director for School-Community Relations and
has the duty of strengthening parent involvement and community outreach.
Structure and Functional Responsibilities: Comparing Fenton’s Teams to
Mohrman’s Model
This part of the chapter analyzes the structural and functional aspects of
teams at Fenton including comparisons to Mohrman's model of team based
organizations. First, the role of the four working councils will be discussed as a
group. Next, the role of the Council of Councils will be analyzed. Finally, the role
of grade-level teams will be presented. The structure and function of the working
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
councils and the Council of Councils is spelled out in the original charter petition
and its renewal (Fenton Avenue School, 1993; Fenton Avenue Charter School,
1998). Information regarding the structure and function of teams was obtained from
interviews with administrators and teachers at Fenton Avenue Charter School, as
well as from the charter school petition.
The Four Working Councils
Structure. The system of councils was designed by the school to insure
widespread participation in governance of the school. The four councils, each
composed of 17 to 25 members, meet one to two times per month at 7:00 a.m. The
meetings follow Robert’s Rules o f Order (Robert & Robert, 1970). Councils are run
by two co-chairs elected by council members. These co-chairs also serve on the
Council of Councils. One of the co-chairs of the School-Community Relations
Council is a parent and one of the co-chairs of the Budget/Facilities and Safety
Council is the Executive Director. Issues brought before the councils are decided by
majority vote.
Every full-time employee at Fenton is required to serve on a council and to
attend all meetings. The four administrators attend all council meetings but only have
voting rights on one council. Each year employees indicate their preference of which
council they wish to serve on and the Council of Councils makes assignments.
Employees are encouraged to change councils every year or two. Part-time
employees and parents are welcome to serve on a council. Although employees and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
parent/community members can attend any council meetings they wish to, they may
only serve as a voting member on one council.
There are several standing subcommittees of the councils. Examples of these
are professional development and multimedia subcommittees of the Curriculum
Council. A special committee composed of the chairs of the Human Resources
Council, the chairs of the Curriculum and Assessment Council, two faculty
representatives and the administrators has the task of assigning teachers to grade-
levels each year. Teachers' wishes and instructional needs are taken into
consideration when assigning teachers. In addition, temporary subcommittees are
created as needed. For example, according to the co-chair of the Human Resources
Council, there was a concern about the employee dress code and a subcommittee was
created to develop a new one. Each council has its own areas of responsibility as set
forth in the original charter application in 1993 and modified in the charter renewal
application in 1998. Agendas and minutes for each council meeting are posted
publicly in the school's attendance office.
Function. Information about the function of the working councils was
obtained from the charter petition as well as from interviews with teachers,
administrators and parents.
The Budget/Facilities and Safety Council develops and oversees the annual
budget. This includes applying for grants and soliciting private and corporate
donations. In addition, the council monitors the maintenance and utilization of
facilities, and coordinates and oversees school safety plans.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
The Curriculum and Assessment Council is charged with identifying and
implementing academic standards, ensuring ongoing coordination across grade-
levels, selecting instructional materials, planning staff development, coordinating
parent education activities, monitoring ongoing implementation of the technology
plan, overseeing the special education program and monitoring the bilingual, Title I
and GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) programs. Grade-level lead teachers
(formerly grade-level chairs) are mandatory members of this council. According to
the Director of Instruction, this council has been very active recently because it
decided to change the school's full bilingual program to an ELD program. It made
this decision for two reasons. Firstly, in the aftermath of Proposition 227, the local
middle school had already switched to an ELD program and Fenton did not believe it
could complete the transition of students from Spanish to English language arts
before sending students on to middle school. Secondly, the state of California had
instituted requirements that all students be tested in English and Fenton did not want
its students to be at a disadvantage.
The Human Resource and Personnel Council recruits and selects personnel,
develops employee contracts, organizes classes and makes teaching assignments,
monitors attendance policies, approves leaves, oversees evaluation and discipline of
all staff, insures legal compliance with all personnel policies and handles grievances.
All four administrators are on the hiring committee, a subcommittee of this council.
The Director of Instruction stated that this council is always among the most active
councils and that it was involved in disciplinary actions against staff as well as in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
hiring decisions. Recently, this council has been active in developing specific staff
discipline and grievance policies that conform to California and federal labor law.
The School-Community Relations Council is composed of an equal number
of school personnel and parents or community members. It recruits volunteers,
functions as a School Site Council and Parent/Teacher/Student Association, monitors
and reviews policies for student and parent activities, advises the family center, and
reviews and revises the Home-School Contract as needed.
Within the Mohrman model, the four working councils function as
integration teams. Integration teams make sure that the work performed throughout
the organization fits together. They may provide links to customers or processes that
cut across the organization or integrate the work of two or more teams within the
organization. An example of a team that provides links to customers at Fenton is the
School-Community Relations Council. Its focus is on meeting the needs of students,
parents and the community at large — the school's customers. An example of a team
that provides links to processes that cut across the organization is the Human
Resource and Personnel Council, which recruits and selects personnel as well as
setting personnel policy for the whole organization. An example of a team that
integrates the work of other teams is the Curriculum and Assessment Council. It has
members from each of the grade-levels and sets standards and insures curricular
alignment in the work of each of the grade-level teams.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
The Council of Councils
Structure. The Council of Councils is composed of 20 voting members who
serve one-year terms. They are as follows: the eight co-chairpersons from the four
working councils, the four administrators (two co-directors and two assistant
directors), one representative each from the teaching, classified and teacher assistant
employee groups, the family center director, three parent representatives and one
business/community representative. The council usually meets once per month at
7:00 a.m. The meetings of the Council of Councils also follow Robert’s Rules o f
Order (Robert & Robert, 1970) and decisions are made by majority vote. Agendas
and minutes are posted in a public place.
Function. According to charter petition documents and interviews with
teachers and administrators at Fenton, the Council of Councils is the highest
authority in the school. It is charged with facilitating communication among the four
councils, ratifying policy decisions of the four councils, mediating disagreements
both between and within the four councils, acting on matters that have been deferred
from the councils, interpreting school policy and advising the Executive Director and
the Director of Instruction. Any member of a working council may ask that the
Council of Councils review a particular decision or policy adopted by a working
council. There appears to be some contradiction between the Council of Councils
functioning as the highest authority in the school and its function as "advising” the
Directors. This seems to be indicative of the school’s governance structure having
characteristics of both a classical management paradigm and that of a participative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
management paradigm. This subject will be dealt with in more detail later in the
chapter.
As can be seen, the Council of Councils performs an integrating function.
Within the Mohrman model, it would be considered a specialized type of integration
team called a management team. Its scope is more global than that of the other four
councils and hierarchically it is on a higher level since it has the ultimate authority
within the organization. An example of the Council of Councils serving as the final
authority within the school was given by an Assistant Director at Fenton. She
described how a teacher brought a new language arts program to the attention of the
Curriculum Council where it was decided to pilot the program. The results of the
pilot program were encouraging. Since this was a major decision for the school, it
was then brought to the Council of Councils for discussion and for a final decision
on adoption.
Grade-Level Teams
Structure. Grade-level teams are composed of all the teachers at each grade-
level. Teachers who are on track (approximately one third of the teachers are on
vacation at any given time due to the year-round schedule) meet as a grade-level
approximately four times per month. Meetings take place during psychomotor time
(physical education) and during banked time (The school adds some time to each
school day so that the students may be released early one day per week to enable
teachers to meet). Grade-level teams are led by co-lead teachers (formerly called
grade-level chairs). The lead teachers are responsible for disseminating information,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
planning meetings, representing the concerns of grade-level colleagues at council
meetings and mentoring new teachers at their grade-level.
Function. The function of grade-level teams is not as clearly defined as that
of the councils. Grade-level teams are not mentioned in the charter petition or
charter renewal documents. The content of grade-level meetings is determined by the
Curriculum and Assessment Council. The meetings usually have an academic focus.
Two frequent subjects are the language arts program and incorporating technology
into the curriculum. Another recent topic of discussion was assessment, including
Stanford 9 preparation. An example of a grade-level discussion regarding assessment
in language arts can be found in the fifth grade where the teachers decided to use a
new assessment procedure to determine reading levels at the beginning of the year
and to decide which students needed to participate in an intervention program.
Grade-level meetings are also used for grade-level lead teachers to share information
from council meetings and to discuss student progress.
At first glance, grade-level teams would appear to play the role of “work
teams” in Mohrman’s model. Work teams, it will be recalled, are at the center of the
model. They perform the basic work of the organization, which is producing goods
or providing some type of service. The prototypical work team is as self-contained as
possible and manages many aspects of its own functioning. In the case of Fenton’s
grade-level teams however, there is some question as to whether the basic work of
the organization is performed in teams or as individuals. In addition, grade-level
teams do not appear to be self-contained nor to manage many aspects of their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
internal functioning. This issue will be dealt with at greater length in the next part of
this chapter and in Chapter 5.
Individual versus Team Roles
The third research question of this study deals with the extent to which teams
are used at Fenton and the relative importance of team versus individual roles at the
school. This part of the chapter will look at this question for administrator and
teacher groups at the school.
Administrators: Working as Individuals or Working in Teams?
In Mohrman's model, a management team is a specialized type of integration
team. It is responsible for coordinating the work of subunits (which could be teams)
that are interdependent. At the top of the organization, the executive management
team is responsible for providing overall direction and managing performance of the
different units within the organization.
Using this definition, although they work closely together, the four
administrators do not appear to form a management team (the closest they come to
this role is to participate in the Council of Councils, which plays a management team
role). They do not meet regularly and do not function as a group. Rather, each has
an individual area of responsibility. There are two co-directors, and two assistant
directors. One co-director serves as Executive Officer. His bailiwick is budget,
facilities and operations. The other is the Director of Instruction. Her
responsibilities include curriculum and instruction, teacher evaluation, professional
development, parent concerns and student placement issues. One Assistant Director
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
deals with Curriculum and Instruction. She supervises all instructional materials, the
ELD program, academic intervention programs, compliance issues and testing. The
other Assistant Director deals with relations between the school and the community.
This includes parent involvement in school activities and outreach to the community
at large.
If the administrators at Fenton do not function as a management team, then
what is their role? To some extent, they play individual integrating roles. In these
roles, they provide support and integration across various parts of the organization.
An example of this role is the Director of Instruction who arranged for demonstration
lessons from an outside contractor in the area of technology for fourth and fifth grade
teachers.
However, the administrators also play classical management roles, which are
overlaid on a participative management structure. These roles are illustrated in
several ways. First, their responsibilities overlap those of the working councils. For
example, both the School-Community Relations Council and an Assistant Director
have the school-community relations portfolio. The council has the responsibility
within the context of an integrating team in a participative management structure and
the assistant director has the responsibility as a manager in a classical management
fiamework. Secondly, sometimes the directors, although ostensibly on the same level
as any other members of the school community, appear to more equal than others.
One teacher, for example, described the executive director as a ‘ ‘benevolent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
dictator”. She stated that no one can overrule decisions “but [the Executive Director]
can say we don’t have the money.”
Sometimes the pressure for administrators to play more of a classical
management role comes from teachers. For instance, the Director of Instruction
indicated in an interview that many teachers prefer a traditional evaluation to
participation in a peer-coaching model of evaluation. Another example of teachers
requesting that an administrator play a classical management role can be seen in the
case of the Human Resources Council, which has delegated the sensitive task of
assigning teachers to classes for the following year to the Director of Instruction.
A third role that the two co-directors (but not the assistant directors) play is
that of visionaries. Teachers and parents stated in interviews that they were the
driving force behind the charter school from the beginning and continue to set the
tone for the school. However, they play this role as individuals or at best as a two-
person team. The four administrators together do not appear to constitute a
management team.
Teachers: Individual versus Team Roles
Teachers perform the core activity of a school. This activity is teaching
(planning and delivering lessons). At Fenton, teachers are members of grade-level
teams. However, as discussed in the previous pan of this chapter, grade-level teams
at Fenton do not fully fit Mohrman’s definition of work teams.
For one thing, many aspects of the internal functioning of grade-level teams
are decided at other levels of the organization. One example of this is that grade-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
level meeting agendas are mostly generated by the Curriculum and Assessment
Council. Another example is that leadership is decided on from outside the grade-
level (the Council of Councils selects the grade-level lead teachers) rather than from
within. A third example is that personnel for the team are selected and assigned by a
school-wide committee. Finally, curriculum is determined school-wide by the
Curriculum and Assessment Committee rather than at the grade-level.
In addition to grade-level teams not having control of their internal
functioning, most of the basic responsibility for the core work of the organization—
teaching-is not that of the grade-level team but rather that of the individual teacher.
This can be seen in both the areas of planning and delivering lessons. Although some
planning for instruction is done by grade-level teams, most is done on an individual
level. Day-to-day lesson planning is usually done in an individual fashion as opposed
to within the context of lesson planning groups such as those that were studied in
Japan as part of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
(Stiglerand Hiebert, 1999).
In addition, grade-level teams are not accountable to the organization as a
unit for the task of lesson delivery, as would be the case for a genuine work team.2
Instead, each teacher has individual responsibility for teaching a class of students (In
fact, each teacher is not even responsible for teaching all subjects since specialists
teach music, art and science lessons in each class).
* At Fenton, teachers are evaluated on the basis o f their individual performance rather than being held
accountable for collective (team) results. There are no team-based rewards or sanctions in place.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
If grade-level teams do not play the role of work teams at Fenton, perhaps
there are other structures that fulfill this role. A group of teachers who team-teach.
for example, could compose a work team. Upon examination of the interview and
archival data, though, this does not appear to be the case. At Fenton, team-teaching is
not a part of the structure of the school, although individual teachers may engage in
limited team teaching on their own initiative. Last year, for example, three teachers
in the fifth grade put all their students together in one group, divided them into three
teaching groups and had them rotate through language arts lessons in the three
classrooms for 30 minutes per day. There were also five teachers in grades one and
two who were engaged in some team-teaching last year. The Director of Instruction
felt that the bilingual education program generated team-teaching opportunities in
the past but since the school has moved away from bilingual education to English
language development, there was less team-teaching taking place currently. So.
although there is some team-teaching taking place among some teachers, it is not a
structure that receives organizational encouragement and is not comprehensive
enough to play a work team role. The bulk of teaching is done by individual teachers
and not as a team effort.
Effects of Teams on Teacher Participants. School Organization and
Performance
From the beginning of its charter, Fenton Avenue School’s vision was for the
entire school community to work together " ‘to create a child-centered environment in
which all partners are empowered by their own sense of ownership and responsibility
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
to the school” (Fenton Avenue School. 1993). Working in teams has become an
integral part of what Fenton stands for. Because of this, it is difficult to separate the
effect that working in teams has on teachers, school organization and performance
from the effect of being part of a school with a collaborative philosophy. A second
possible confounding factor is the fact that Fenton has gone from being a small unit
within a large organization (one school within the Los Angeles Unified School
District) to being an independent operating unit (a charter school). Nonetheless,
teachers, administrators and parents reported during interviews that being part o f the
collaborative governance structure at Fenton has had many effects on the school.
Effects on Teachers
Firstly, being part of councils and grade-level teams has brought teachers
information and knowledge about the big picture of running a school. For instance,
teachers know how to develop and monitor an annual school budget, plan and
schedule staff development, and recruit and select personnel. Teachers reported
during interviews that they are also able to better understand the roles of classified
employees, administrators and parents within the school community than teachers at
other schools (or at Fenton before it became a charter school). This has led to a
broadened perspective of how a school runs and how each part of the school fits into
the larger goals and vision of the entire organization.
Secondly, both teachers and administrators stated that an effect of working in
teams was improved communication as well as richer and more frequent
collaboration and interaction among teachers, administrators, other staff and parents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
This, in turn has had the twofold effect of giving teachers a greater voice in the
running of the school and greater responsibility for its successes and failures. In
addition, the responsibility is now a collective one. As the Director of Instruction
likes to tell teachers, “You are no longer in private practice.” By this she means that
an individual teacher is no longer merely responsible for what goes on within his or
her classroom, but rather, shares a collective responsibility for the school at large.
She gave two examples of the sense of collective responsibility that is found at
Fenton. Firstly, teachers now discipline any child in the school whenever the need
arises rather than just being responsible for disciplining children in their own classes.
Secondly, teachers feel responsible for conserving school resources including paper,
electricity, and even individual sick days.
Finally, teachers feel that their opinions are valued and that there is a
heightened sense of teamwork and collegiality in the school. In general, they feel that
morale is high among teachers and other staff at the school. However, it must be
noted that there is a degree of self-selection that has taken place. Those teachers
who felt comfortable with the changes at Fenton have stayed and those who didn’t,
have left the school. At the current time, eight years after becoming a charter school,
the Director of Instruction indicated that only 11 out of the original 44 teachers still
work at the school.
Effect on School Organization and Performance
On a basic level, the change to a governance structure that includes councils
and grade-level teams has created more venues for participation in the school. As a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
result, there is increased involvement of teachers, non-teaching staff and parents in
decision-making. Because the people directly concerned are engaged in the
governance process (as opposed to distant bureaucrats) they are able to make more
meaningful decisions. For example, because parents are actively involved in
councils, they are able to make their needs known. This has led to the establishment
of a parent center that offers classes in parenting skills and English as a Second
Language.
Increased involvement brought about by the new governance structure has
also led to better training, better equipment and a better maintained school. This is
because teachers, other staff and parents have had the freedom to determine the
priorities of the school. The various councils have allocated resources to upgrade
equipment, provide better quality professional development and maintain the school
in accordance with the wishes of school stakeholders. For example, the Curriculum
and Assessment Council has allocated resources for groups of teachers to attend
conferences outside the school and to bring expertise into the school through
contracting with outside firms and individuals. In the area of technology alone, the
school sends a large group of teachers and administrators to a conference every year.
In addition, an outside firm has been hired to demonstrate technology through
lessons conducted on site that Fenton teachers observe. The Budget/Facilities and
Safety Council has made sure that the school has plentiful supplies and equipment.
It has allocated money for a fresh coat of paint on the buildings, a newly asphalted
playground and attractive landscaping. Technology has been brought into the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
classrooms with many computers at every grade-level. In the fourth and fifth grades
there is a networked computer for every student Classrooms are designed as
“Virtual Learning Systems”. In addition, teachers wear microphones so they can
make themselves heard in every part of the classroom without straining their voices.
Student performance has also improved since Fenton has become a charter
school. Although this improvement cannot be attributed to Fenton's use of teams
with certainty, it is likely that it is an important factor. This is because Fenton's
teams have provided the necessary structure for teachers, administrators and parents
to be involved in identifying instructional needs and implementing curricular
programs and professional development to address these needs.
Achievement has improved as measured by standardized student achievement
test scores and by other measures. The following table presents Stanford
Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, Form T (SAT 9) results from the past three years
for Fenton.
Table 5:
Stanford 9 National Percentile Rank (NPR) Scores by Subject and Grade-
level at Fenton: 1998.1999. and 2000 (CA. Dept, of Education. 1998. 1999.2000)
Subject Grade-level 1998 NPR 1999 NPR 2000 NPR
Reading 2 17 23 27
3 18 19 23
4 15 24 21
5 20 19 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Table 5—Continued
Math 2 34 38 41
3 34 34 37
4 21 29 30
5 29 28 38
Language 2 17 24 30
3 24 27 32
4 24 32 34
5 27 27 39
Spelling 2 21 27 30
3 21 24 30
4 15 22 19
5 24 22 32
As can be seen, the achievement scores have gone up for every grade-level in every
subject area between 1998 and 2000.The WestEd study (1998) also reported that
Fenton went up in relative ranking on both the California Test of Basic Skills
(CTBS) and on the SAT 9 compared to schools with similar demographic
characteristics. It must be noted that it is difficult to measure improvement in
student achievement for both Fenton and other schools since the Los Angeles
Unified School District has used so many different tests over the last eight years
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
(e.g., California Tests of Basic Skills. Aprenda. California Learning Assessment
System, Stanford Achievement Test).
Another piece of evidence to support rising achievement is that Fenton
administrators reported in interviews that their students do better in middle school
than students from neighboring schools. In addition to rising test scores, the WestEd
study (1998) and the author of the present study also noted how well behaved and
orderly the students at Fenton were, both inside the classroom and on school
grounds.
Summary
The analysis of interview data, a team observation and archival data allow a
description of the structure, functional responsibilities and effects of teams at Fenton
Avenue Charter School to emerge. Fenton uses a governance structure consisting of
four working councils and a management council (The Council of Councils). The
four working councils (Budget/Facilities and Safety, Curriculum and Assessment,
Human Resources and Personnel, and School-Community Relations) have
responsibility for all areas of school life. All full-time employees at Fenton
participate in at least one council. The working councils play the role of integration
teams in Mohrman's model of team-based organizations for knowledge work. The
Council of Councils serves as the highest governance authority in the school. It has
representation from all employee groups as well as from parents and community. It
plays the role of a specialized form of integration team called a management team in
the Mohrman model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
Grade-level teams are another team structure that is used at Fenton. All
teachers at a grade-level belong to a team that meets regularly to discuss academic
implementation issues. Although at first glance these grade-level teams appear to be
work teams within the Mohrman model, they in fact do not meet the criteria
necessary to be genuine work teams. Table 6 summarizes the findings about team
governance at Fenton Avenue Charter School.
Table 6:
Summary of Findings on Team Governance
Team Structural
Characteristics
Functional
Resoonsibilities
Mohrman
Classification
Effects of Teams
Council
of
Councils
• 20 voting
members
• Representatives
from all school
groups
• Highest
authority
in school
• Facilitates
communication
• Ratifies and
interprets
policy
Specialized
type of
integration
team called a
management
team
• Broader
perspective
for teachers
• Improved
communica
tion
• More
collabora
tion
• More teacher
input
• Broader teacher
responsibili
ty
• Better
professional
development
• Better
maintained and
equipped
school
• Improved
student
achievement
Working
Councils
• 4 Councils
• 17-25 members
each
• Full-time staff
required to
serve, part-time
staff and
parents
encouraged
• 1-2 meetings
per month
• Budget/Facili
ties and safety
• Curriculum and
Assessment
• Human
Resources and
Personnel
• School-
Community
Relations
Integration
team
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
Table 6—Continued
Grade-
• A ll teachers at • Function not
Sim ilar to
Level
a grade-level clearly defined
work team
Team s
• M eet 4 tim es • Discuss
per month academic issu es
• Led by co-lead • Information
teachers sharing forum
• Discuss student
progress
Administrators and teachers, although they participate in many teams, work
primarily in individual roles. Fenton's four administrators play various roles such as
individual integrating roles, serving on a larger management team (the Council of
Councils), visionary roles and classical management roles. Teachers at Fenton, in
their core activity of teaching, are individually accountable rather than being part of
work teams with collective responsibility and accountability.
Working in teams and being part of a charter school with an emphasis on
collaboration has had numerous effects on teachers and on school organization and
performance. These effects include the following: teachers gaining more
information and knowledge about the functioning of the school, improved
communication and collaboration, greater input as well as broader responsibility for
teachers, a better maintained and equipped school and improved student
achievement.
In the final chapter, the results will be discussed within the context of the
Mohrman model. Implications will be explored for policy makers at the district and
state levels, and practitioners at the school level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Private sector research suggests that the use of a team-based participative
management structure can lead to improvements in quality and productivity. This
research includes studies of both manufacturing and service firms (Lawler, Mohrman
and Ledford. 1992; Mitchell, Lewin and Lawler, 1990; Yeatts and Hyten, 1998). The
present study found that although Fenton Avenue Charter School has not fully
implemented a team based management structure, it does use teams extensively and
has incorporated many participative management elements into its organizational
structure. This can be seen in its use of working councils, an executive council (The
Council of Councils) and grade-level teams (although they do not fully meet
Mohrman’s definition of a team).
The present case study has provided preliminary evidence which suggests
that the partial implementation of a team-based participative management structure
has led to greater involvement of staff and parents which in turn has led to qualitative
organizational improvement. Because those directly concerned have been involved
in decision-making, improvements such as the establishment of a parent center and
the implementation of more powerful curricular and staff development programs
have been made. In addition, student performance has improved since Fenton has
implemented components of a team-based organization. Although it is impossible to
attribute these improvements exclusively to the partial implementation of team-based
organizational structure, it is likely that it has contributed to the improvements. This
is because Fenton’s team structure has provided opportunities for staff and parents to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
identify instructional needs and devise strategies to meet those needs. One might
speculate that if the model were more fully implemented, even greater improvement
might occur.
Suggestions for More Fully Implementing a Team-Based Organizational Model
This part of this chapter will be devoted to a discussion of the current state of
implementation of a team-based organizational model at Fenton and
recommendations for how Fenton could modify its current structure in order to
become a full fledged team-based organization. This will be done by taking the
four basic elements of the Mohrman model—work teams, integration teams,
management teams and improvement teams—and providing suggestions that would
allow Fenton to complete its transformation to a team-based organization.
Work Teams
At the center of Mohrman's model are work teams. The model describes
work teams as performing "the work that constitutes the core transformation process
of the organization" (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 40). This work can either be
producing goods or providing a service.
The closest structures to work teams at Fenton are grade-level teams. Grade-
level teams at Fenton facilitate collaboration between teachers at the same grade-
level and serve as a conduit for sending information between the working councils
and teachers. Grade-level teams meet regularly to discuss academic issues. Their
agendas are determined by the Curriculum and Assessment Council. Grade-level
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
teams are led by co-lead teachers selected by the Council of Councils. However
grade-level teams do not fit Mohrman's model in several ways:
1. The core work of teaching and lesson planning is done by individual
teachers, not as a team.
2. The team is not as self-contained as possible. It doesn't select its own
leader, set its own agenda and priorities, hire and fire team members,
schedule work or control resources.
3. The team is not responsible for a “whole” piece of work. A whole piece
of work in this case would be the responsibility for the entire education of
all students at a given grade level. At Fenton, specialists teach music and
science and an administrator and council deal with parent involvement
and community outreach.
What could Fenton do to transform grade-level teams into true work teams?
What would the teams look like? This section will describe two possible scenarios.
The first scenario keeps the basic idea of an age group or grade-level. However, it
separates the grade-level into three teams. Since Fenton is a year round school with
three tracks, at any given time one-third of all teachers at a grade level are on
vacation. With constantly changing members, it is nearly impossible to work as a
team. Therefore, the scenario envisions teams that are composed of all teachers and
paraprofessionals at a grade level on the same track (The team might also have a
student and/or parent representative). In the lower grades this would result in about
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
four teachers per team. In the upper grades there would be two to three teachers per
team.
What would the responsibilities of grade-level teams be? A given grade-level
team would be collectively responsible for instruction at their grade-level (a whole
piece of work). Team members might split instructional tasks in any number of
ways. For example, one teacher could be responsible for math, a second for
language arts and a third for social and physical science. The grade-level team might
also choose to do some type of ability grouping of students with various teachers
teaching different level groups of the same subject. Another possibility would be to
have flexible size of groups of children depending on the subject being taught. For
example, all team members (including possible teaching assistants and/or support
personnel assigned to the team) might be assigned a reading group in order to make
the adult-student ratio as low as possible. However, in a subject like physical
education, fewer team members might be involved in direct instruction at any given
time. This would free up other team members to perform tasks such as lesson
planning, individual assessment of children, observing another team, planning a
special event, attending a meeting, etc.1
One of the functions of a team in the Mohrman model is managing many
aspects of its own functioning. In a self-management role, each grade-level team
could take care of the following: 1. Hire new members of the team, 2. Schedule
teacher and student time (e.g. grouping students for different subjects and scheduling
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
the times at which subjects are taught). 3. control some of its own resources. This
might include a budget for materials and substitute days to allow team members to
observe other teachers and to attend conferences.
A team could also do part of its own performance management This might
include setting objectives such as improving student achievement in specific areas,
improving student and teacher attendance and improving parent involvement. In
addition, the team could monitor the quality of instruction and develop improvement
strategies where necessary. As a component of performance management, the school
could also set up rewards for grade-level teams who meet mutually agreed upon
goals and develop a system of skill-based pay for individuals who learn skills that
are useful to the team and school.
The team would be responsible as a unit to the school for providing the whole
service of educating all students on that track and grade level in all subjects. This
would include work currently done by specialists and work that Fenton currently
handles through its working councils, such as community outreach and parent
involvement, hiring, some budgeting and some aspects of curriculum and instruction.
Of course, if these responsibilities were pushed down to grade-level teams, more
resources would also be pushed down. This might allow the team to do such things
as reduce class size (by hiring another teacher or sharing a teacher with another
team), hire consultants or improve professional development opportunities for team
members.
1 Robert Slavin mentions variable class size as an alternative to a rigid class size reduction policy in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
A more radical redesign of work teams for Fenton might be to move from
grade- level teams to teams composed of one teacher from each grade level
(kindergarten through fifth grade) responsible for an entire group of students
composed of one class from each grade level (20 students each from kindergarten
through third grade and 24 fourth and fifth grade students for a total of 128 students).
The team of six teachers would then keep the same cohort of students from
kindergarten through fifth grade while adding a new cohort of kindergarten students
to replace the graduating fifth graders each year. Using this configuration, the team
would truly be responsible for a whole service—the responsibility for a group of
students' whole elementary school education. This design would allow many
possibilities for multi-age groupings of children and cross-age activities. Teachers
would have the flexibility to teach various subjects at many levels. The same
suggestions made for grade-level teams in the areas of managing their own
functioning, performance management and rewards could be applied to this
configuration of work team.
Integration Teams
The Mohrman model sees integration functions as primordial in a knowledge
work setting. This is because many issues transcend individual work teams and
involve trade-offs on an organizational level rather than at a work team level. Work
teams are conceived of as having authority to deal only with matters within their
scope. Broader scope issues are dealt with by integration mechanisms. These
an article by Toch and Streisand (1997).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
mechanisms can take the form of teams or individual roles. Integration teams serve
to align the operations of work teams, insure that decisions of one team are
communicated to other teams and that necessary information is traded between
teams.
Fenton's working councils are analogous to integration teams in the
Mohrman model. However, to a large extent they integrate the work of individuals
and not of teams. For example, the Human Resource and Personnel Council develops
employee policies for individual employees and hires employees for the whole
school. Nonetheless, the councils all set standards and policy that helps integrate the
work of all parts of the school. The Curriculum and Assessment Councils sets
common academic standards for the school. The Human Resource and Personnel
Council sets personnel policy. The Budget/Facilities and Safety Council sets
budgetary priorities across the organization. The School-Community Relations
Council sets policy for student and parent activities as well as providing outreach to
parents and community. The only council that is representative in nature in the
Curriculum and Assessment Council, which has grade-level co-lead teachers as
mandatory members.
If Fenton implemented grade-level, single track work teams, as suggested in
the preceding section of this chapter, then the school might design a variety of
integration teams to align the work of the grade-level teams. For instance, if each
track had their own grade-level team, Fenton might make use of a cross-team
integrating team with membership composed of a member of a team from each track.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
The purpose of this team would be to ensure equity for students across tracks,
coordinate use of resources and align grade-level objectives with overall school
goals. Specific examples of work that this team might perform include (a) aligning
curriculum between tracks (perhaps by using the same textbooks and/or developing
pacing plans for the coverage of curriculum in specific subject areas), (b) developing
procedures for sharing resources such as materials and equipment, and (c) arranging
for contracted services (such as demonstration lessons on integrating technology into
the curriculum) across all tracks.
Fenton might use larger representative integration teams in a similar way to
their current working councils. These teams would have representation from each of
the grade- level teams in addition to a member of the management team
(approximately 16-20 members). For example, a team focused on human resources
might establish uniform hiring and discipline policies, health benefits, salary scales,
etc. A representative budget supplies and equipment team might determine which
resources would be administered centrally, which would be allocated to teams, and
how the resources would be divided across teams. The difference between the
current council organization and function at Fenton and that of integration teams in
the Mohrman model is that the integration teams, composed of work team
representatives, would perform work that allows individual work teams to function
compatibly.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
Management Teams
The Mohrman model devolves many traditional management functions to
work teams or integration teams. Other wider-scope management functions are
considered executive management team responsibilities. These are as follows:
1. Setting and communicating organization wide strategy and goals
2. Designing the organization's structure and systems (a team-based
structure)
3. Orchestrating performance management (This includes goal-setting,
defining performance, developing performers, reviewing and rewarding
performance)
4. Modeling team-oriented norms
Fenton uses an executive management team composed of twenty members.
It is a representative group that is responsible for making school wide policy,
mediating disagreements and is the ultimate decision-making authority in the school.
In addition, the school has two directors and two assistant directors who are part of
the twenty-person executive team and also play many management and liaison roles
within the school. The directors and assistant directors appear to play overlapping
roles within both a participative management paradigm and a classical management
paradigm.
In order to operate within the Mohrman model, Fenton would have to replace
its “Council of Councils” with a smaller, and more efficient, executive management
team. The four directors could form this team. The school might even be able to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
reduce the number of directors to two or three if more day-to-day management
responsibilities were pushed down to work teams and integration teams. The roles
that the directors would keep would be that of setting and communicating goals and
strategies for the school, working on constantly redesigning the structures and
systems that allow the school to function smoothly, managing performance of teams
(and the employees that compose them) and establishing norms for learning, decision
making, and customer orientation. More technical tasks that the directors currently
perform could either be delegated to employees such as an administrative assistant,
bookkeeper and plant manager or the school might even consider incorporating these
positions into a multi-functional management team. The Council of Councils could
be transformed into an advisory council to provide input on school-wide goals and
priorities.
Improvement Teams
The Mohrman model considers the process of organizational improvement an
ongoing one within all teams. In addition, the model proposes a type of team with
the specific function of improving the organization. Its sole purpose is to make
improvements in the capability of the organization to deliver products and services
effectively. The team may do this by redesigning processes, improving quality or
redesigning parts of the organization. The output of the team may either be a design
for improvement and/or managing the implementation of an improvement plan.
As pointed out in Chapter 4, Fenton has certainly gone through evolution of
team and governance structures. For example, the working councils were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
consolidated in an attempt to better meet participants' needs and create a more
efficient governance structure. However, it does not appear that Fenton uses
improvement teams regularly to strengthen organizational processes and design.
Some examples of how Fenton could use improvement teams are as follows:
1. To redesign the student assessment system (a goal of the school as stated
in the charter renewal document). This might involve developing an
assessment battery consisting of nationally normed standardized tests,
performance assignments and criterion-referenced tests.
2. To design an employee rewards system that includes team-based bonuses
and skill-based pay for individual employees.
3. To implement a team-based organizational plan like the one that this
chapter proposes. This would include designing and managing the
change process from the way Fenton is currently functioning to a
complete team-based organization.
Policy Implications and Suggestions for Future Research
The present study is a case study of a single elementary charter school, and is
therefore limited in scope. The study found that one particular school has partially
implemented a team-based organizational model. This partial implementation
appears to have contributed to greater teacher involvement as well as higher student
achievement.
These findings suggest two directions for further research. Firstly, it would be
helpful to conduct additional case studies in order to examine the structure, function
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
and effects of teams in other school settings. These settings might include other
elementary charter schools, elementary schools within a regular school district
structure, middle schools and high schools. This would allow a clearer picture to
emerge of how teams are currently being used in various school settings as well as
providing information about the applicability of the Mohrman model to these
settings.
A second direction for future research regarding the applicability of the
Mohrman model would be to design several schools according to team-based
organizational principles, implement the design and conduct action research to
determine the effect of the design on teacher involvement and morale as well as
student achievement.
If future research in public schools were to confirm preliminary data from the
present study and find that a team-based participative management structure results
in greater employee involvement and improved student achievement, this would
have implications for the role of central district offices and the state in managing
schools.
In order for a team-based model to thrive, the logic of the organization must
change from a control-oriented approach characterized by centralized top-down
decision making to a participative one characterized by the integration of individual
and organizational goals. In the field of education, the state, which has constitutional
responsibility for education (Odden, 1995) and district central offices, correspond to
executive management. Therefore, they would need to perform functions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
appropriate to central management in a participative management framework. The
most important function is setting system-wide standards and goals for students and
schools.2 The executive role of states and central district offices needs to be focused
on defining expectations of services to be provided and educational outcomes
(standards). Specific procedures for achieving goals or standards should be left to
schools and teams within schools to develop. Of course, adequate resources to
achieve system-wide goals must be made available to schools.
If the promise of a team-based organizational model is reaffirmed through
future research, significant challenges will also be present at the local school level.
This is because the transition from a command and control organizational pattern to a
team-based design requires significant cultural change. Teachers will need to
develop new skills and new understandings. These will include: 1. interpersonal and
conflict resolution skills, 2. decision making skills such as collecting data, evaluating
alternatives, and determining outcomes, 3. learning skills—both within the field of
teaching and also learning about other related disciplines, and 4. leadership skills
such as meeting management, informal influence and communication. The whole
school would need to be transformed into a constantly evolving, learning
organization3 (Mohrman et al., 1995). Schools might devote some thought to the
extensive professional development effort this would require.
2 This function is a central component o f the national standards movement led by researchers such as
Lauren Resnick and Marc Tucker who started working on developing standards ten years ago (Hoff,
2001).
3 Interestingly, this corresponds to many current researchers' conceptions o f school as a learning
organization or community (Fuilan, 1993; Lieberman & Miller, 1999).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
This study has focused on the promise of a private sector solution to solving
public school problems. Specifically, a model of team-based organization developed
in the private sector was used to examine the current usage of teams in one
elementary school. The study found that a team-based organizational model holds
promise as a way of organizing schools for high productivity. It now remains for the
model to be fully implemented in various school settings to see if its promise will be
fulfilled.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
REFERENCES
Allington, R.L. & Cunningham, P.M. (1996). Schools that work, where all children
read and write. New York: Harper Collins.
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper & Row.
Ascher, C. (1991). Retaining good teachers in urban schools. (ERJC/CUE Digest,
No. 77). New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED341 762)
Becket, D. (1997). Fenton Avenue Charter School, evaluation report. Los Angeles:
University of Southern California, Center on Educational Governance.
Busman, D. (1992). The myth of the teacher resister: The influence of authenticity
and participation on faculty trust. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 349 268)
California Department of Education. (1998). STAR school summary report.
Retrieved August 14,2001 from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star98/indexes/I-19-64733-
0000000.html
California Department of Education. (1999). STAR score summaries report.
Retrieved August 14,2001 from
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star99/indexes/19/64733/OOOOOOO.html
California Department of Education. (2000). STAR score summaries report.
Retrieved August 14,2001 from
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2000f/indexes/all_charter_index.html
California Department of Education. (2000). 1999-2000 Academic Perform ance
Index (API) Growth Report. Retrieved August 14,2001 from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/api2000a/APIG_sch.asp?SchCode=6017016&DistCode=64733
&AlICds= 19647336017016
Clarke, R. & Keating, W. (1995). How public school teachers view their
involvement in the decision making process. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the National Council of States on Inservice Education, Anaheim, CA. (Eric
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391 796)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Clinton, W. (1997). President Clinton’s call to action for american education in the
21s * century. United States Department of Education. Retrieved May 5,2001 from
http://www.ed.gOv/updates/PresEDPlan/part/.html
Cohen, D., McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (1993). Teaching for understanding:
Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crow, G. & Pounder, D. (2000). Interdisciplinary teacher teams: Context, design,
and process. Educational Administration Quarterly. 36(2). 216-254.
Darling-Hammond (1997). The Right to Leam: A Blueprint for Creating Schools
that Work. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Drucker, P.F. (1993). Managing the future: The 1990s and bevond. New York:
Plume.
DuFour, R. (1999). Taking on loneliness. Journal of Staff Development 20 (1). 61-
62.
Dussault, M. (1997). Professional isolation and stress in teachers. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 384)
Fenton Avenue Charter School (1998). Fenton. Climbing New Heights Together:
Charter Renewal Contract. Los Angeles, CA: Fenton Avenue Charter School
Fenton Avenue School (1994). Fenton, climbing new heights together: A charter
school petition. Los Angeles: Author.
Fletcher, S. (1990). The relation of the school environment to teacher efficacy. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Boston. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 551)
Fisher, K. and Fisher, M . (1998) The distributed mind, achieving high perform ance
through the collective intelligence of knowledge work teams. New York: Amacom.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London:
The Falmer Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in vour school.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Galbraith, J. R. (1993). The business unit of the future. In J. R. Galbraith, E.E.
Lawler III, and Associates (Eds.) Organizing for the future: The new logic for
managing complex organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guiton, G., Oakes, J. Gong, J, Hunter Quartz, K., Lipton, M., Balisok, J. (1995).
Teaming: Creating small communities of learners in the middle grades. In J. Oakes
& K. Hunter Quartz (Eds.), New educational communities: Schools and classrooms
where all children can be smart: Vol. 94. National Society for the Study of Education
Handbook. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Hackman, J. and Oldham. G. (1980). Work redesign.. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Hammer, M., and Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation. New York:
Harper Business Press.
Hanson, E.M. (1996). Educational administration and organizational behavior. (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Henderson, D.L. & Henderson, T.W. (1996). Texas teachers, moonlighting, and
morale: 1980-1996. Huntsville, TX: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 398 179).
Hoff, D. J. (2001). New standards' leaves legacy of unmet goals. Education Week.
20 (43), pp. 1,26-27.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous
inquiry and improvement. Austin. TX: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 659)
Institute for Educational Leadership (2001). Leadership for student learning:
Redefining the teacher as leader. Retrieved May 4,2001 from
http://www.iel.org/pubsframeset.html
Lawler, E. (1978). The new plant revolution. Organizational Dynamics. 6.(3). 2-12.
Lawler, E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement
organization. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Lawler, E. (1986). High involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
Lawler, E., Mohrman, S., & Ledford, G. (1992). Employee involvement and total
quality management: Practices and results in fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Learning First Alliance (1998). Every child reading: An action plan. Washington,
DC: Author.
Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1984). Teachers: Their world and their work. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers: Transforming their world and their
work. New York: Teachers College Press.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Los Angeles Unified School District (2001). Ethnic Breakdown of LAUSD Students-
Grades K.-12. Retrieved May 4,2001 from http://search.lausd.kl2.ca.us/cgi-
bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=cbeds3&which=location_code&info=3747
Lumsden, L. (1998). Teacher morale. (ERIC Digest, No. 120). Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 422 601)
Maslow. A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A.H. (1965). Eupsvchian Management. Homewood, IL: Richard Irwin
McGregor, D. (1960, 1985). The human side of enterprise: 25th anniversary printing.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mitchell, J., Lewin, D., & Lawler, E. (1990). Alternative pay system, firm
performance and productivity. In A.S. Blinder (Ed.), Paving for productivity: A look
at the evidence. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Mohrman, S. A. (1994). High-Involvement Management in the Private Sector. In S.
Mohrman & P. Wohlstetter and Associates (Eds.) School-based management:
Organizing for high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mohrman, S., Cohen, S. and Mohrman, A. (1995). Designing team-based
organizations: new forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Muhr. J. (1997). Atlas.ti 4.2: The knowledge workbench. Berlin: Scientific Software
Development.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1999). NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic
Progress Retrieved April, 2001 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
Noll, J. W. (1999). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial educational issues
(10th ed.). Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw Hill.
Odden, A. (1995). Educational leadership for America's schools. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Parks, D.J. (1983). Leadership in times of austerity. Educational Leadership.40(5)
11-13.
Passmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The sociotechnical
systems perspective. New York: Wiley.
Phillips, G.W. (2001). Release of the 2000 national assessment of educational
progress (NAEP) for reading. National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved
April 8,2001 from http://nces.ed.gov/commissioner/remarks 2001/4-6-2001.asp
Pounder, D. (1998). Promises and pitfalls of school collaboration: Synthesizing
dilemmas. In D. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration, promises
and pitfalls (pp. 173-180). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Robelen, E. (2001). Dollars, details stall education bill in senate. Education Week.
20 (33), pp. 26,29.
Robert, H. M. & Robert, S.C. (1970). Robert’s rules o f order. (Rev. ed.). Glenview,
IL: Scott Foresman.
Romer, R. (1996). National standards as starting points. Education Week on the
Web. Retrieved April 8,2001 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=romer.h 15&keywords=Romer#author
Sevilla, J. (1992). Bilingual education: The last 25 years. In P. Anthony & S.
Jacobson (Eds.). Helping at-risk students: Where are the educational and financial
costs? Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Shonk, J. H. (1992). Team-based organizations: Developing a successful team
environment. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Sick, P. & Shapiro, J. (1991). Utilizing participatory evaluation in a public school
setting: An assessment of teacher involvement in decision making. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335 771)
Stigler, J. W. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s
teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Sussman, G.(1979). Autonomy at work: A sociotechnical analysis of participative
management New York: Praeger.
Toch, T. & Streisand, B. (1997, October 13) Does class size matter? U.S. News.
Trist, E. & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the
Longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations. 1.3-38.
United States Department of Education. (2001, April 9). United States Department of
Education News. Retrieved May 5.2001 from http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/04-
2001/04092001 .html
Walton, R.E. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard
Business Review. 63(2). 76-84.
Weame & Kouba (1999). Rational numbers. In E. Silver & P. Kenney (Eds.). Results
from the seventh mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
WestEd (1998). Case study: Fenton Avenue Charter School. Los Angeles: Author
(under contract with Los Angeles Unified School District).
Wohlstetter, P. & Mohrman, S. (1994). Conclusion: New Directions for School-
Based Management. In S. Mohrman, P. Wohlstetter and Associates (Eds.). School-
based management: Organizing for high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wohlstetter, P., Mohrman, S., & Robertson, P. (1997). Successful school-based
management: A lesson for restructuring urban schools. In D. Ravitch & J. Viteritti
(Eds.). New schools for a new centurv: The redesign of urban education. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Yeats, D. & Hyten, C. (1998). High-performing self-managed work team s: A
comparison of theory to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Accountability practices: A comparison between two elementary schools under different governance models

PDF

Administrative evaluations and their impact on school leadership in public and private secondary schools: A comparison study of governance structure

PDF

California charter schools: Including students with disabilities

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

Formal or informal organizational structure: Learning the ropes to get work done

PDF

A comparative case study: Tutoring in reading in two settings

PDF

A study of doctoral student -advisor satisfaction: Considering gender and ethnic grouping at a private research university

PDF

A comparison of public and private governance in new teacher induction practices

PDF

Communication techniques utilized by superintendents with their governing boards that develop trust, unity, and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities

PDF

American Sign Language as a high school language elective: Factors influencing its adoption

PDF

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

PDF

California school dropouts: An analysis of the common characteristics and duration of programs identified as successful in retaining students in school

PDF

A case study of the role of high school booster organizations in fund raising, governance issues, and personnel decisions

PDF

A comparative study of the role of the principal in conventional public schools and in charter schools

PDF

Comprehensive high school restructuring: Utilizing school-based management and curricular reforms to increase student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Fulfilling the mission to serve the underserved: A case study of a private, Catholic, urban college's two -year program

PDF

A central office staffing model to provide for an adequate education

Asset Metadata

Creator Berman, Ira Isaac (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart (committee member), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-188225

Unique identifier UC11328634

Identifier 3065763.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-188225 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3065763.pdf

Dmrecord 188225

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Berman, Ira Isaac

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