University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Charter schools' influence on public school administrators' innovative behaviors

(USC Thesis Other)

Charter schools' influence on public school administrators' innovative behaviors

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CHARTER SCHOOLS’ INFLUENCE ON PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS’ INNOVATIVE BEHAVIORS by David E. Guthrie A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION August 2003 Copyright 2003 David E. Guthrie Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3116708 Copyright 2003 by Guthrie, David E. All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS 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 bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3116708 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089 This dissertation, written by David E. Guthrie under the direction o f his Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School o f Policy, Planning, and Development, in partial fulfillment o f requirements for the degree o f DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Dean DISSERTATION CO' Chairperson Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION To my Wife and Soulmate, Sherry, who has stood by me throughout this lifelong project. To my Family: daughter Allison, Scott, Colette, Colton, Claire, and my son Bryce who were patient and supportive beyond my expectations. To my Parents, Dave and Jan, who gave me the initiative and courage to go ahead. To my Grandparents who acquainted me with the world. And, to my friends, colleagues, and fellow students that have endured my inattentive ways over the past few years. All have contributed to this work of a lifetime. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I appreciate and thank my Dissertation Committee members, Ross Clayton, Ph.D., Chester A. Newland, Ph.D., and Sarah Whitis, DP A, for their effort and dedication that helped me accomplish this challenging and fulfilling research project. Without their skills, this project would never have been completed. I not only benefited from their expertise but gained new life-long friendships in the process of writing this dissertation. Their generosity, encouragement, patience, and professionalism are reflected in this document. I am forever grateful for their contributions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION......................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................... vii ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................. viii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 1 Purpose and Significance of the Research................................................... 9 The Research Questions............................................................................... 13 Methodology................................................................................................ 17 Research Methodology...................................................................... 17 Sources of Evidence......................................................................... 17 Methods of Analysis......................................................................... 18 Research Limitations ................................................................................... 19 Definition of Terms...................................................................................... 21 Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation..................................... 24 CHAPTER II: A CASE STUDY IN CHARTER SCHOOL INNOVATION 26 CHAPTER III: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................... 35 Role of the Charter School Alternative in Public Education....................... 37 Compendium of Charter School Research.................................................... 42 The Theoretical Limits of School Competition........................................... 55 Innovation.................................................................................................... 84 Administrative Innovative Behavior.............................................................I ll CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGY...........................................................................134 Research Context..........................................................................................136 Subject and Participant Characteristics..........................................................139 The Case Study..................................................................................139 Schools Subject to Interview and Survey .........................................139 Demographics, Achievement, and Performance Rankings...............140 School Administrators and Organization Role .................................141 Research Design............................................................................................142 Instrumentation.................................................................................143 Ethical Considerations......................................................................143 Interview Questionnaire.....................................................................146 Survey Questionnaire.........................................................................149 iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Procedures......................................................................................................151 Data Collection .................................................................................152 Data Preparation and Analysis..........................................................152 CHAPTER V: FINDINGS........................................................................................155 Definition of Innovation.................................................................................155 Charter School Competition...........................................................................156 Charter School Influence................................................................................157 Administrator Attributes and Characteristics.................................................164 Missing Elements...........................................................................................168 CHAPTER VI: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ..............169 Overview.......................................................................................................169 Major Findings..............................................................................................171 Conclusions...................................................................................................172 Competition/Innovation Nexus?.......................................................172 A Field Theory of Administrator Innovative Capacity: Value Creation through Collaboration and Reciprocity .......175 The Future of the Administrative Services Credential .....................178 Unchartered School Districts - Why?................................................181 Implications for Administrative Theory and Practice....................................182 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................189 APPENDICES: Appendix A: Interview and Survey Instruments ......................................... 204 Appendix B: Charter School L aw ................................................................ 212 Appendix C: School Districts and Charter Schools Listing......................... 214 Appendix D: Administrative Services Credential Requirements ................ 219 Appendix E: Measure of Competition and Concentration Ranking and Ratios...........................................................234 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES 1 Reframing Organization Change............................................ 124 2 Examples of Effectiveness Measures...................................... 132 3 Influence Ratings by District Type......................................... 158 4 Administrator Background and Preparation to Innovate Alternative Programs in Response to Charter Schools 166 C5 2002/03 School Districts and Charter Schools Listing with Enrollments............................................................... 215 E6 School Market Shares (Students)............................................ 237 E7 Measure of Concentration...................................................... 239 vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES 1 Competition Effect Upon Education Costs........................ 16 2 Distance Learning and Campus Based Instruction Cost Structure................................................................. 29 3 Market Versus Public Value Effectiveness Grid.................. 60 4 Economic Impact from Competition and Innovation 61 5 Education Choice Indifference Map (Curve)....................... 74 6 The Chaordic Cycle.............................................................. 93 7 Adopter Categorization on the Basis of Innovativeness 95 8 Innovation’s Intersection between Lead Producers and Adopters................................................................... 96 9 The Innovation Diffusion Spiral........................................... 97 10 Different Views of Change................................................... 98 11 Charter School Influences: Administrator Responses 159 12 Innovation: from Competition to Collaboration and Reciprocity............................................................... 173 13 Value Chain.......................................................................... 174 14 The Innovation Effect from Competition, Collaboration, and Cooptation................................................................ 185 E l5 School Market Share (Students)........................................... 238 El 6 Measure of Concentration..................................................... 240 vii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT This dissertation examines charter school influences on public school administrators’ innovative behaviors in an attempt to determine whether a charter school’s presence in school districts prompts public school administrators to reevaluate and reinvent their education programs. A case study is presented demonstrating charter school innovation and its influence on public school administrators’ behaviors. The research questions addressed include: 1) How does the presence of a charter school(s) alter and/or affect the public school administrators’ innovative behaviors? 2) What explains the success or failure of charter school innovation’s transference and diffusion in public schools? and 3) What personal and professional attributes and characteristics prepare administrators to adopt charter school innovations? The research methodology is primarily qualitative; it is supplemented with quantitative analyses designed to explore correlations between responses and observed administrative phenomena. Thirty selected district superintendents/assistant superintendents were interviewed; these interviews were supplemented by surveys distributed to Directors of ninety-three charter schools in their districts. Market theory and theories of competition, innovation, and administrative behavior serve as the conceptual backdrop for the research. The study concludes that collaboration and reciprocity are more conducive to innovation transference and diffusion than competition. Competition without collaboration and reciprocity thwarts innovative practices within public schools and diminishes prospects for higher value-added education programs. Recent legislation intended to restrain charter school competition viii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. has constraining effects. One can anticipate that these policy initiatives will stifle innovation. The administrators’ propensity, capacity, and ability to innovate are examined and their implications for the Administrative Services Credential are discussed. Administrators with education and experience attuned to these phenomena are more likely to promote attractive education programs in partnership with charter schools. With or without charter schools, the administrative credential requires alteration to encourage administrators to acquire entrepreneurial and collaborative skills to foster innovation and create quality education programs. Recommendations for future research on charter schools are offered. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter I INTRODUCTION We do not know the effect on values, educational attainment, or operating efficiencies, o f a true market in publicly-supported education in which there are strong incentives for parents to make choices and strong incentives for schools to adapt to those choices [...]. As with all other kinds o f market alternatives to bureaucratic management, only carefully done experiments will tell us what we need to know. (J.Q. Wilson 363) The current movement to restructure education was spawned by the National Commission on Excellence in Education that published its findings in A Nation at Risk. What the Commission found were weaknesses in America’s education system that requires changes if the nation is to compete effectively with other nations (Schlechty, Schools xi). This conclusion is drawn within a societal context that has experienced advances in technology, accelerated economic growth, increased specialization that demands a full range of skills, and a growing and diverse student population straining public education systems to keep up with the pace of change. This education reform movement reminds us of what occurred in the United States during the 1960s after Sputnik was launched ignited a new wave of education reform in support of development of new technologies and innovation. The response from public education has been slowed by the entrenchment of educational pedagogy that has been modeled to respond to the industrial economy of the last two centuries. The “new economy” and “globalization” present challenges to develop more responsive educational systems and leadership able to envision innovative frameworks that will be more attuned and particularized to local community and student needs as well as national and global developments. This challenge requires an emphasis 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on the student learning process, education administration and organizational learning. Systems thinking and an expanded view that welcomes possibilities outside the institutional education domain to promote learning have become necessary. Significant questions have emerged from this evolution regarding what are the proper goals of American education. The ensuing discourse has illuminated perspectives that focus on “democratic equality” by emphasizing citizenship, “social efficiency” by training the future workforce, and “social mobility” by preparing students to compete in the social and cultural order (Labaree 39). For Steiner (1994), questions are raised about public school administrators’ abilities to develop educational programs that respond effectively to these values and perspectives in an increasingly competitive education market. The current education market environment, however, does not inhibit desires to attain educational goals that constitute a “democratic” education. The paradox of democratic education is that it requires the instrument of public education to be available to all; but it also requires education attentive to diversity and students’ individual needs. If “man is the measure of all things” (Protagoras 425), then it can be said that individuality derives from self-reflection in a context of education. To the contrary, the homogeneity that characterizes public education programs creates an antipathy toward the value of individual autonomy and departures from the norms of education instruction as well. The purposes of education reflect the values of society and culture. Education’s conceptual framework has evolved historically through pedagogic instruments delving into the nature of the mind, of truth, knowledge, ethics, aesthetics, and life’s essence. Within these fields resides a system and process of education where means are derived 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from an understanding and application of knowledge. Education modalities enable the individual who is an autonomous learner to launch a journey of discovery. The educational system is designed to instruct for the learner’s purposes and to give order through socialization. This mediating educational system strives to develop the individual’s mental capacity and adaptability when confronting problems in the larger societal domain. The overarching ethos is to develop a system that will promote the welfare of the student. The question is, how does a public education system reconcile the needs of individual students with an efficient delivery system that requires uniformity and is constrained by boundaries that are financial, legal, and social? Historical debate has sought to define the relevance of the educational process to society and culture. Meanwhile, the search by students and parents for an education program that appeals to their preferences has been narrowly defined; expressions of their interests are often confined to an individual choice. The traditional public educational organization was designed around the instructional focal point of a student learner within a classroom setting, working with other students supported by a bureaucratic structure. The differentiation of roles and subject matter, grade levels, and bureaucracy requires coordination. Bureaucracy introduces a rational approach to organization intended to achieve the greatest efficiency. Roles and responsibilities are assigned that will achieve equity and dependability in the system. But equity can be fleeting as you must treat students equally even though they are inherently unequal in their achievements. Parents and students must adapt to this system of education that promises to produce an educated person at the point of matriculation. Along this path, individuals 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. are expected to subordinate their individuality to the prevailing school culture where conformity is valued over independence to create an efficient education delivery system. As these public school systems enlarge and become more complex, attention to individual students has become attenuated and blurred. The primacy of individual students has shifted to maintenance of connections to the wider network of schools, boundary maintenance, exchanges within the internal structure and the external environment it serves. Over time, the collaborative values that have buttressed public education have become incompatible with other competing values of the larger society. Disaffection with public education has caused a proliferation of educational alternatives that compete with existing public institutions. The approach of establishing publicly funded charter schools represents a credible alternative for parents and students who want to express their dissatisfaction with the current public school system through choice while gaining prospectively through a value-added, individual-oriented education. Within this context, the public school administrator must now consider the elements of collaboration as well as competition; both qualities are considered necessary factors to the full development of education programs. The administrator’s angst is that his or her own education and training are becoming inhibitors, incompatible with the current emphasis on choice. Competitive elements and values have begun to intrude giving weight and significance to competitive impulses and responses as other educational venues manifest their presence in the education market. The question is, are public school administrators really equipped to respond to this newly developing market paradigm with its corollary, competition? 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The United States is ranked as the most competitive economy based on its “performance in technology [...] research and development, collaboration between universities and business, and its level of tertiary education” according to the World Economic Forum (98). Since competition is endemic to American society, the educator should provide a curriculum that reflects the culture and provides the means for students to develop skills necessary to assimilate into society. Administrators/educators must overcome barriers to competition from their own education and professional experience that emphasize insular collaboration, teamwork, and nurturing educational organization climates that are framed around the statistical student. In transformation of their schools into competitive educational enterprises, they must of necessity respond to the growing external pressures to perform. The homogeneous setting of the public school, with its relative pedagogic uniformity, must suddenly undergo a renovation into a more heterogeneous and variegated education delivery system that can reinvigorate education programs and welcome innovative practices. A system engendered by competition seeks substantive relief in the form of innovation. Given the premise that innovative effects may result from competition, educational and academic driving forces become a manifestation of the public school administrator’s conception of a curriculum and instructional approach that will best respond to the competitive environment. Ends are defined by the administrative means by which programs achieve goals necessary to compete against other players in the education market. If the choice of the appropriate program is apparent, then the relevance and meaning of the “program” is defined by virtue of its substantive path 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. toward that end. The innovation process necessarily induces new concepts and ideas about what is possible within this context. Innovation in the education community is often recursive. As Evans observed in The Human Side o f School Change, [...] calls for radical reform, and ambitious initiatives for change have been chronic, cyclical, and it seems, ephemeral. Innovative ideas and promising projects have repeatedly failed to move beyond ardent advocacy and local promise to full, broad adoption (xi). Often innovations introduced to schools some years’ ago are reintroduced to a new generation of educators that consider these innovations new and treat them with enthusiasm. But what is found is tenured staff have experienced the innovation before and are less receptive to the innovation which is one of the inhibiting factors to school reform. The paradox is those most able to diffuse innovation are the least likely to adopt the innovation. Innovation need not involve an original idea as some have suggested, but it should have the elements of newness and novelty. Novelty has the potential to evolve through a process of diffusion leading to enduring value for the organization. The paradox is that an innovation, once adopted, risks becoming mundane. Charter schools represent an innovation but are viewed by many in the education community as another faddish reform measure; innovation for the sake of innovation’s sake. Overcoming this stereotype requires a perpetual and continuous process of education and an activist approach from the public school administrator. Innovation can also challenge the prevailing organization system, traditions, and the administrator’s role. 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The instrumental process of education has become an analogue for educational organization change and evolution; it has become “[...] translated into an educational process that has no end beyond itself; it is its own end; and that the educational process is one of continual reorganizing, reconstructing, and transforming” (Steiner 165). The malleability of such a system allows embryonic structural formations to evolve into nimble venues for learning that are decentralized and competitive. This potential for malleability assumes there is value placed on responsiveness, adaptability, and administrative initiative; this may not be the case in practice. California is currently seeking and expanding alternatives within and outside public educational institutions through choice. This initiative draws from examples of other states such as Wisconsin (Epple and Romano, 1998; Levin, 1998) and from countries such as Chile (Gauri, 1998) and Great Britain (Fidler, Russell, and Simkins, 1997). Other venue’s experiments have become implementation models that call for support of private schools, vouchering, and charter school alternatives that operate within a competitive environment. The experiments often are successful because they move education delivery systems toward improvement and increased student achievement. The Federal Education Bill, No Child Left Behind, passed on December 11,2001 also promotes accountability through policies that require testing and greater flexibility in teacher hiring and retention. The Bill targets low-achieving schools by allowing the exercise of parent vouchers and continued expansion of charter schools. This legislation recognizes the role of competition in raising academic standards and the importance of creative education settings, such as charter schools, that are conducive to learning (No Child Left Behind, P.L. 107-110, Executive Summary 1-4). California is poised to take 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. full advantage of this legislation as State education policy has been formulated similarly, creating an education infrastructure and a political climate that will be receptive to these initiatives. The diversity of individual preferences and the decentralized structure of education in California have created education systems that rely on both the public and private sectors to develop educational programs that align with those preferences. The education system has been flexible enough to adapt to the local needs of a community by tailoring the school’s education programs to individual and group interests. Consequently, the school administrator’s task is changing. The expectation is for the administrator to respond to student/parent consumer preferences by designing programs with an organizational architecture that will target their interests and choices. Examples include, arts and music, technical and vocational, athletics, college preparatory, and special education. The incentive for educational program development and construction is real as revenue flows from student attendance. Student attendance and fit of the education program define the education program’s value. This research conducted under these conditions has focused primarily on outputs and the reasons why students have performed better in one setting and not another. School climate and academic setting have been addressed. Choice is a demand function that has limitations when considering the full context of education program selection phenomena, which involve other factors on the supply side related to organizational architecture, administrative behavioral responses, and measures of value for intangibles that are not fully addressed analytically. An emphasis on choice to the exclusion of these considerations has consequences. 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Purpose and Significance of the Research The purpose of this research is to discover and establish a theoretical model describing administrative behaviors in response to charter schools that are conducive to adaptation through innovation. School reform measures create the motivation to improve student performance through innovation(s), but this can only happen through improvements in school administration and the presence of external education settings such as charter schools serving as innovation incubators that are networked (Hansen et al. 74-84). Yet, there is little, if any, research on how competition can assist public school administrators to improve the attractiveness of their schools. This gap can be attributed to an imbalance in research weighted heavily toward consumer choice focused on the demand function and less upon reciprocal administrative activity in the supply function in response to preferences from parents and students. California Charter School Law, “encourages the use of different and innovative teaching methods” and seeks to “provide rigorous competition within the public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools” (Charter Schools Act of 1992, Section 47601). Delving into this goal, some studies have declared no actual demonstrations of the linkage between school district and charter school innovative behavior. Instead, charter school innovation is relegated to constructive ideas in governance structures, accountability, and assessments. These findings were contained in two recent studies, “How are School Districts Responding to Charter Laws and Charter Schools?,” by Eric Rofes, and “Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform: A study of Ten California School Districts,” by Amy Stuart Wells and her UCLA research team 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in 1998. Their conclusion that innovation, which was evidently absent from schools, can only be identified within a narrow definition of innovation. To the contrary, Rogers and Shoemaker have concluded, “it matters little, as far as human behavior is concerned, whether or not an idea is ‘objectively’ new as measured by the lapse of time since its first use or discovery [...]. If the idea seems new and different to the individual, it is innovation” (Rogers and Shoemaker 19). Nor does it require unanimity among organizational members as a precondition for innovation to exist (Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek 10). These studies, with their small survey populations, suggest the need for a more expansive and in-depth study based on public school administrator interviews and charter school surveys before concluding that innovation is wanting and its diffusion in sponsoring school districts is non-existent. As the West Sonoma Union High School District Case Study will demonstrate in the chapter that follows, laboratories for creativity and innovation in instruction, in fact, do exist. It appears these laboratories were beyond the above-mentioned researchers’ boundary of inquiry. Their studies, however, do hint at an opening for another conclusion. For instance, Rofes acknowledges in Finding #11 that, A variety of factors other than the nature and degree of impact seemed to contribute to school district response to charters, including the overall ecology of school choice in the district, student performance, a critical mass of charters in the area, community awareness of charters, and district leadership. Districts that exhibited a high level of responsiveness to charters usually had reform-minded leaders who seized on charters as a strategic tool to step up reforms in their districts. (Rofes 18) 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. And in the UCLA study Finding #15 states, We found little evidence that either choice or competition served as accountability mechanisms or as a way of improving the overall quality of education [...]. Charter school reform has the potential to be about so much more than free-market choice and competition. But in order for it to fulfill that potential, the debate about its future needs to be refocused. (Wells 59) The logical conclusion from the above statements is that, without charter schools or alternative schools, innovation can only find a harbor in public schools. It is counterintuitive to expect that public schools will be able to generate sustainable public education programs through regimented curricula and a value system emphasizing stability over reliability unless one presumes a static and unchangeable ecosystem. In the broader public education context, alternative education that includes charter schools serves as a vehicle for individuals opting out of incompatible homogeneous settings. Alternative education approaches make it possible for independent judgments in market oriented education venues that can become innovative education conveyors. The significant growth of charter schools is an indication that innovation and new ideas, that seem to languish in large public school systems, flourish in small, intimate settings focused on meeting the educational needs of parents and students. “Voting with their feet” (Tiebout, 1956) is a real phenomenon that is forcing school systems to reorient their thinking about alternative education and charter schools. Such thinking is innovative in and of itself as administrators and teachers, unfam iliar with competition in the delivery of education services, must now see charters as a referent and a yardstick for their own performance and value to the public at large. Such introspection would be nonexistent were it not for the rigidity and value placed on stability in the 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. current public education environment. There is need for a full and complete airing of the merits of what charter schools can offer to underperforming school systems by their infusion of quality instruction to enhance school programs. To restructure public schools requires leadership that is attuned to these nuances and has the ability to leverage the potential of charter schools. This study intends to discover what charter schools within districts offer their sponsoring school districts and vice versa. A dynamic equilibrium of creativity and innovation can be achieved only when leaders foster reciprocity, collaboration, and adaptation to ideas. Both charters and districts can gain from implementing innovative instructional strategies that respond to student achievement aspirations in their respective education programs. Absence of a constructive environment fostered by leaders creates a zero-sum game in which one gains at the expense of the other. Obviously, an effective communication system is key to the implementation and diffusion of ideas. Charter schools must be looked upon not only as an outlet for consumer preferences but as part of the heterogeneous offerings of the total public school system. Most school districts are offering special programs and organizing schools within schools: special education, bilingual education, resource specialists, GATE, and independent study to name a few. All of these options are needed to provide the means to retain students who would otherwise seek alternatives to satisfy their search for knowledge. Those districts without these alternatives find that charter schools become outlets for consumer preferences taking with them the dollars that would have been deposited in the public school system. 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The intent of this study is to discover how the prevailing view of charter schools as competitive distractions can be changed to a view of charter schools as innovative settings that will foster and nurture creativity. How else can public school systems reach significant populations that represent those who may not want to continue on to college or have aspirations beyond what their public schools have to offer? More importantly, how can education systems create environments that are conducive to life-long learning? Are competition and incentives from charter schools necessary precursors to public school administrators’ innovative behaviors? To answer these questions and others will facilitate an improved understanding about the instrumental nature of charter schools by the public school administrator. The value of charter schools to public school systems may be able to be increased through collaboration that will leverage innovation. The Research Questions The purpose of this research is to determine if the public school administrators’ behaviors change in response to working with charter schools. School reform measures, such as charter schools, can create the impetus for improvements in student performance, but this can only happen by changing behaviors of school administrators. It is a process of correcting “performance gaps”: [...] discrepancies between what the organization could do by virtue of a goal related opportunity in its environment and what it actually does in terms of exploiting the opportunity. The performance gap may be characterized by new marketing opportunities brought about by changes among consumers, or by loss of market (share) because of new competition. (Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek 2) Presence of charter schools requires accommodations. Public school administrators are now required to develop strategies to deal with the charters’growing 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. influence. This reality dictates that innovations and adaptive mechanisms must be put in place if they continue to value student retention and enlargement of public school enrollments. How school administrators’ behaviors change is qualitatively and quantitatively explored by seeking answers to the following research questions: How does the presence o f a charter school(s) alter and/or affect the public school administrators * innovative behaviors? What explains the success or failure o f charter school innovation’ s transference and diffusion in public schools? What personal and professional attributes and characteristics prepare administrators to adopt charter school innovations? These questions invite consideration of whether or not public school administrators recognize education program qualities that attract students. Can administrators devise innovative strategies that counter declining enrollment and support of their schools? Further, the research instruments delve into how the public school administrators’ behaviors toward student achievement and instructional programs change before and after the establishment of charter schools. The importance is to identify innovative instructional strategies that were employed to overcome barriers to innovation (ambivalence, the need to control, regulation dependence, and resistance to change) and to nurture and facilitate innovation through communication, demonstration by results, and incentive structures for change. An intriguing area of concern regarding the long-term viability of public education is Administrative Credential requirements. Credential requirements may not adequately prepare administrators to respond to the presence of charter school 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. competition. Consequently, a new set of standards may be required to shift the emphasis to training in market theory, innovation, and strategies to enhance public education program attractiveness to parents and students. Further, the quest for answers to the research questions may illuminate whether • Administrator behavioral responses to charter school innovation are more pronounced in school districts with lower enrollments. • Those school districts with a low score on the Hirfendahl-Hirschmann Index (Stigler 261-263) respond by devoting more attention to education program alternatives than those with a high score (the Index is an evaluation tool from antitrust and corporate merger analysis that will be adapted to determine the market share of selected school districts in California by squaring each market share and summing the shares). For schools, market share is the proportion of total enrollment that a school or district serves. • Public school systems perform better when charter schools are in their districts. Changes to school systems’ internal structures that emphasize private benefit ostensibly enhance performance and social benefit within and outside their organizational boundaries as a result of designing alternatives (innovative curricula) and special programs, i.e., the arts, attracting parents and students. Do such moves expand education opportunities and education quality? Public school systems must realize that their competitive advantage depends on their levels of investment in knowledge capital, the most intangible quality they possess. Knowledge capital is the non-monetized value of a school to a community. 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■ The quality of public schools is increased and the drift away from the public schools reversed (Gemello and Osman, 1984). The challenge of collective choice involves how to aggregate individual preferences and how to allow for different levels of preferences without violating the equity principles of public education (Smrekar and Goldring, 1999). It is clear that those public schools of lower quality and value will continue to lose students to their charter school competitors. • Charter school competition and level of concentration change administrative behaviors in ways that increase consumer benefits through resource allocations to support alternative education program offerings without increasing marginal costs as shown graphically below: P Qi Q 2 Education Figure 1. Competition effect upon education costs. This inquiry into and exploration of the competition phenomenon and innovation nexus will, hopefully, produce insights into how the charter school’s presence and its interplay with districts influence the public school administrator’s innovative behavior as envisioned in the original charter law and its application in practice. 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Methodology Research Methodology: The methods employed in this study are primarily qualitative, but they are supplemented with quantitative analysis designed to search for correlations between the data and observed administrative phenomena. The research relies heavily on thirty public school district superintendent and assistant superintendent interviews conducted during on-site meetings and/or through telephone conversations. Charter school program directors’ and principals’ responses were gathered from survey mailers. The interview and survey instruments (Appendix A) were field tested with selected superintendents, charter school principals, and peer professionals during summer 2001. Also, a case study was conducted that provided evidence of innovation influences on administrator behaviors. Sources of Evidence: 1. The primary unit of analysis consists of designated California public school districts with charter schools. Thirty public elementary, high school, and unified school districts were selected purposively. The researcher attempted to select school districts with a balanced array of high and low enrollments, geographic dispersion throughout the State of California, and grade levels. An inquiry was conducted about the perceptions of administrators from sponsoring school districts and those of charter school program directors and principals within their respective districts. The study includes a comparative analysis of school districts’ competitive characteristics such as the number of alternative schools within the district, socio-economic data, and API Index 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. data. The State of California Department of Education’s web site, <http://www.cde.ca.gov>, became the primary source for demographic and student enrollment databases for both public and private school enrollments. 2. Elite interviews were conducted with thirty district superintendents and assistant superintendents along with charter school surveys mailed to ninety- three charter school program directors and principals. The surveys included questions designed to discover their perceptions about the sponsoring districts’ responses to the charter schools and their public school district administrators’ adaptive and innovative linkages and capacities. These interviews and surveys were conducted from September 2001 through February 2003. 3. The study uses measures of concentration for education systems in the sponsoring school district counties that were calculated from a Herfendahl- Hirschmann Index based on the total student population in those areas (public, private, charter, and home teaching). The research sought to determine effects of competition on the California education community and demand levels for alternatives, including charter schools, within Kindergarten through grade 12 public school systems. Methods of Analysis: The interview responses from the selected California school district superintendents, administrators, program directors, and principals of charter schools were analyzed to determine whether or what changes in administrators’ innovative behaviors result from the presence of charter schools. Further, the study sought to determine 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. whether competition creates the impetus to innovate in these alternative education settings. The study explores whether reciprocity and sharing enhance the prospect of innovation diffusion. As Fisher and Fisher state, “creativity and innovation are both greatly facilitated by social interaction and collaboration” (101). Absent this reciprocity and sharing, innovation between the sponsoring school district and charter school(s) may be stifled. Research Limitations Thirty school districts and ninety-three charter schools from the 2003 California School Directory were contacted. The school district selection process goal was to select a diverse and representative cross section of charter schools. The intent was to gauge the significance of size, number of charter schools, and competitive characteristics within the district. The number of school districts selected represents over 3% of the State’s total, but that 3% sponsors over 20% of the charter schools listed in the 2003 California School Directory. This limited but significant sample was drawn with a desire to attain research efficiency while keeping to the timeline for project completion. The interviews and surveys were sufficient to gain an understanding of competitive influences and to draw conclusions about innovations occurring between the sponsoring school district and charter schools within their jurisdictions. It is important to understand that the respondents from the school districts and charter schools differ in their perspectives, particularly when discussing competition, innovation, adaptations, and diffusion. These subjects can be sensitive political and emotional issues that relate to staff performance and accountability. The surveys and interviews represent an attempt to obtain truthful responses, recognizing that respondents 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. may have expressed biases undetected by the battery of questions structured to filter those biases. Efforts were made to gain forthright answers and to make careful assessments of responses to the interview and survey questions. The dissertation’s topic and the researcher’s role are always suspect as some respondents may have felt that their responses might be compromised. Adequate preparation, unintrusive interview techniques, and survey instruments, hopefully, allayed their fears. The underlying assumption is that the respondents answered truthfully. Finally, qualitative research methods are used in striving for generalizability by understanding observed states of behavior and by identifying general patterns that emerge from the study. As Rudestam and Newton say, “it is contextual” (37). Given the diversity and individuality of school districts and their charter schools, it is difficult to extend conclusions from one setting to another. As a consequence, the answers to the questions are qualified given the context of the district, the abilities of the leadership, and the effectiveness of their communication related to innovation in a competitive environment. What is observed is that charter schools exist for a reason. The common thread appears to be a desire to reach those students who are unable to adapt to the existing public education setting and provide an alternative that will convey relevant and cogent knowledge that will prepare them beyond academics. In turn, education’s value becomes elevated and supportable and causes public school administrators to search for answers as to how to reach every student within their domain and to create access to all who want to learn. 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Definition of Terms The study contains terms that require definition to clarify the meanings relevant to this research. The evolution of alternative education programs, and charter schools in particular, has resulted in a host of terms. Charter School: A public school providing instruction in any of grades K-12. A charter school is usually created or organized by a group of teachers, parents and community leaders or a community-based organization, and is usually authorized by an existing local public school board or county board of education. Specific goals and operating procedures for the charter school are detailed in an agreement (or “charter”) between the authorizing board and charter organizers (California Department of Education). Chartering Agency: A school district, county board of education, or State Board of Education that grants and sponsors the charter school (E.C. 47613). Collaboration: Sponsoring school district and charter school working in a “purposeful relationship in which all parties strategically choose to cooperate in order to accomplish a shared outcome. Because of its voluntary nature, the successful collaboration depends on one or more collaborative leader’s ability to build and maintain these relationships” (Rubin 17). For Thomson “collaboration is a process in which autonomous actors interact through formal and informal negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their relationships and ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together; it is a process involving shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions” (Thomson 4). More specifically, collaboration is the sponsoring school 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. district and charter school working jointly and cooperatively to construct education system improvements through innovation. Competition: The contest among education providers to satisfy consumer preferences in the education market. The producers respond by providing the lowest possible cost of education through efficient operations, and the consumer chooses the best choice among alternatives by calculating the greatest return and satisfaction possible with the highest value enumerated from the exchange. Competition attempts to increase school enrollments through responsiveness, improvements in school performance, and innovation (Henig, 1994). Conversion Charter Schools: Those charters that convert an existing school of a district or county office of education to charter status. Depending on the nature of the charter, these schools may operate as independent from or as an integral (dependent) part of the district or county office of education (2001 School Services of California glossary) Dependent Charter Schools: Charter schools that are designed to operate as an integral part of an existing public school or public school district (2001 School Services of California glossary). Direct Charter Schools: Charter schools granted by a county board of education for programs that are within the jurisdiction of a county office of education (e.g., community school or court school programs) (2001 School Services of California glossary). Districtwide Charter Schools: All schools within a school district are converted to charter status (2001 School Services of California glossary). 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Education Choice: A reform measure to allow parents and students the freedom to choose among schools or education settings within an education market. The traditional form of choice takes the form of inter- or intra-district transfers. Initiatives, such as vouchers and charter schools, over the past decade have broadened the choice selection opportunities for parents and students (Chubb and Moe, 1990). Education Reform: A movement to change school systems and their education programs to improve student academic performance (Chubb and Moe, 1990). Home Schooling: An independent school separate from a school system where parents or guardians conduct instruction either at home or other instructional settings (2001 School Services of California glossary). Independent Charter Schools: Charter schools that are designed to operate outside of the organizational structure of any school district or county office of education (2001 School Services of California glossary). Innovation: The alteration or substitution of what is established by the introduction of new and novel instructional methods and school organization structures and systems designed to improve student performance (Fidler, Russell, and Simkins, 1997). Local Education Agency (LEA) : Applies to a sponsoring agency to which, by mutual agreement, the State Board of Education designates supervisorial oversight (E.C. 47613(c)). Magnet Schools: Alternative schools that are set up with special programs and often granted additional funds and equipment in order to attract students from throughout a school district. Magnets offer choices to small student populations that leave the 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. traditional education system intact. They are used particularly as an instrument for racial and ethnic desegregation (Chubb and Moe, 1990) Market Driven Schools: A market-driven school is characterized by a close connection between organizational performance and the continuing flow of resources. Since the resource and reward structures are linked to perceptions of performance, teachers and principals become accountable for the perceived performance of the organization. The school may become more responsive to the external environment and to meeting its stated objectives. Competition is central to the idea of the market-driven school that is intended to ensure efficiency and quality (Kearney and Arnold, 1994). Reciprocity: Mutual exchange of innovative ideas and education practices between sponsoring school districts and their charter schools that are considered valuable. Site Based Management: A school system governance model that decentralizes large bureaucratic decision making to the local school. The purpose is to develop a collaborative school culture and responsiveness to parents and students that will strengthen and support student learning (McKenzie, 1991). Vouchers: A system in which government provides funding directly to students in the form of credits to pay for education in public and private schools of their choosing (Chubb and Moe, 1990). Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation What motivates parents and students to seek these educational alternatives invites research into questions about the innovative responses of public school administrators’ to community and individuals’ preferences and demands. Answers may provide insights into how public schools can retain and expand enrollments through organizational and 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. public school system alterations that are sufficiently market sensitive and competitive to retain student populations, expand program offerings, and sustain effective educational programs. The research may discover that new and different administrative skills and talents are necessary to manage school districts in contemporary competitive environments. The remainder of the dissertation is organized to answer the research questions. The elements of competition, innovation, and behavioral responses, both theoretical and practical, serve as the focus of the methodology, data collection, analysis, and conclusions of the study. This research is supported by a body of theory and practice contained in the Literature Review presented in Chapter Three. The study invites consideration of findings that have implications for future theory and practice. In the next chapter, a charter school innovation example is examined. It demonstrates the effects of competition and an innovative response by the West Sonoma Comity Union High School District’s Superintendent who embarked on an experiment in organizational learning that is instructive and contributes to the advancement of education administration practice. 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter II A CASE STUDY IN CHARTER SCHOOL INNOVATION The West Sonoma County Union High School District and its ten feeder elementary school districts had begun to experience declining enrollments beginning in 1997 due to demographic shifts from low birth rates, socioeconomic factors, and a competitive environment that includes private, home schooling, and charter school programs attracting students away from the public school system. As the West Sonoma student population diminished, so did public school district budgets, and this created pressure to maintain quality education programs. Student dropout rates declined significantly during this period, but West Sonoma’s public schools had difficulty reaching students who lacked interest in school and those living in remote areas distant from schools. Enriched education programs were absent due to resource limitations. Besides pedagogical and physical barriers, parent involvement decreased in large measure due to work schedule conflicts and other time commitments outside the classroom. To counter these problems, West Sonoma now provides opportunities for students and parents to share in a flexible and accessible learning environment linked by computer technology. The District hopes that this will end the move away from its local public schools. The West Sonoma County Union High School District has begun a program to counter decline by entering into a partnership with a foundation, 0ne20ne, to establish a distance learning charter school that will reach students who would not necessarily attend the District’s schools. It is a program to leverage distance learning centers that are computer based with District curriculum resources to generate broader program offerings. 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This initiative extends the reach of the education program beyond the District’s boundaries, develops organizational synergies, and revitalizes education programs to attract students to public schools in West Sonoma County. The 0ne20ne Charter education program experiment is beginning to take shape with a distance learning component that relies on the Internet and remote access from home or learning centers reserved for students where teacher, face-to-face, contact is possible. Distance learning, in this setting, does not eliminate the role of the teacher. Rather it alters and changes the method of instruction and the way the curriculum is conveyed. Distance learning, or education, has been defined as the acquisition of knowledge and skills through mediated information and instruction. Distance learning was first introduced by correspondence courses and has been transformed through the advent of computer technology and the Internet. These new modes of communication provide a seemingly boundless reservoir of factual information and knowledge that textbooks are unable to match. Two divergent views have emerged about distance learning. The first view highlights the value of enlarged access to education. The second view expresses concern that distance education cannot stimulate or replace teacher/student face-to-face communication. The philosophical underpinning that the student is autonomous and empowered to leam is matched with the teacher’s approach to learning as an autonomous process underscoring that transactional learning, whether near or far, is an individual undertaking. Modeled after Special Education Programs where Individual Education Plans (IEPs) are used to develop individual student programs, distance education also can individualize, mold, and fit an education program to be appropriate for students who are not responsive to or able to attend the traditional classroom setting. This innovative 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. education modality involves not only education content but also education delivery through an interactive process between the teacher and student. Aside from the benefits to each student there were considerations of how West Sonoma could improve its education delivery system overall. Distance learning is focused more on the effectiveness of learning rather than the efficiency of learning emphasized by the traditional industrial paradigm. The eclectic nature of distance learning stimulates teacher creativity and new curricula to match 21st century global village imperatives. A clearer vision is developing that maintains the integrity of the educational transaction while bringing distance education into the educational mainstream. The question is, can distance learning be perceived as compatible with the larger educational community? In the 2002/03 school year, over 6.2 million students were enrolled in California’s public schools (2003 California School Directory). Also, a significant number of age eligible people did not attend public schools. A growing population of students attends private schools, relies on home teaching, or attends charter schools that have added to the variety of programs available to parents and students. To maintain a public education program requires a large investment in human resources and capital facilities. The economic costs are far outweighed by the opportunities that distance learning can bring to those alienated from public education, are distant from schools, or are without the resources available in other public schools, private school, home, or charter schools. Distance learning represents an enhancement to the District’s education programs that are losing students and are potentially diminishing in their value. Implementing distance 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. learning has created value-added settings in an effort to attract rather than repel prospective students and parents. Rumble conducted a study in England that compared the cost of conventional settings and distance learning and found that distance learning was less expensive over the long run than the conventional approach practiced on school campuses. While the cost to start a distance learning program is expensive, marginal cost decreases per student as the program evolves and grows: Cost Per Student Campus Based Distance Learning Number of Students Figure 2. Distance Learning and Campus Based Instruction Cost Structure. Greville Rumble, The Planning and Management o f Distance Education, 63-85. This graph supports the distance education strategy and suggests that, before the establishment of a distance education system, accurate student demographic profiles are necessary. If only a few students participate, conventional teaching methods may be preferable to distance learning. The strong desire of students and parents to design their own education programs, however, creates an impetus to make programs available within public school systems that will align with the education community at large. Organizations such as the One20ne serve as the intermediaries for establishing 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. successful charter schools without threatening the viability of the sponsoring school district. The 0ne20ne Foundation is part of a growing network of educational foundations that support alternative education. The 0ne20ne Texas Learning Foundation also operates the Honors Academy; a Texas statewide charter. The Texas academy has approximately 1200 students and is growing rapidly. The affiliated California Foundation is currently managing 9 charters. These charters are operating as statewide schools with a combined enrollment of nearly 6,200 students. The 0ne20ne development mirrors the exponential growth in charter schools in California enabled by Senate Bill 434. The growth opportunities from this partnership are viewed as positive. On November 13,1999, the West Sonoma County Union High School District entered into an agreement with the 0ne20ne Foundation to develop a charter school based on 0ne20ne’s distance learning models. While the school is organized and operates in compliance with state and federal law, it also operates within the framework prescribed in the agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, West Sonoma County High School District retains its role of monitoring compliance with the Education Code and also provides additional administrative and instructional services, such as reviewing records pertaining to student safety, conducting site visits to the charter school, and acting as a resource in the charter school compliance process. 0ne20ne, on the other hand, assumes all responsibility for the organization and operation of the charter school, including hiring of instructors and teachers, development of curriculum, and administration of the school. In addition, 0ne20ne has developed its policies and guidelines for student enrollment, special education, oversight fees, technical support, 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. program management, and other school operations in accordance with the District’s educational goals. In short, the District performs oversight functions while 0ne20ne manages the day-to-day operations of the charter school. This structure allows the charter school to focus its attention on the needs of its students without jeopardizing its accountability. The District and One20ne designed the West Sonoma Charter School with an instructional framework flexible enough to meet the varying needs of the students it serves. The main emphasis of the charter school, and its strength, is its development and use of individual curricula and learning plans for each student. Although the curricula are standards driven, each student progresses through the program at his or her own pace, while participating in a variety of settings, ranging from in-group settings, home settings, or some combination of both. Teachers in turn use a variety of methods for instruction, including face-to-face instruction, independent learning programs, computer-based instruction, on-line instruction, and specific, content-based course work. Students may also concurrently attend local colleges when appropriate. Most importantly, the system prepares students in ways that facilitate reentry into traditional schools. These innovative frameworks help students who are, for a variety of reasons, disengaged from the traditional school setting, either through personal circumstances, remote distance from “brick and mortar” schools, or inability to have their skills and/or needs properly addressed in the current public school system. The West Sonoma charter school includes three types of distance learning methods for delivering instruction and curricula designed to facilitate learning for students with different learning abilities and personal circumstances. All curricula and 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. instruction methods welcome parent interaction in the learning process. First, the charter school provides print-based learning resembling the paper-and-pencil and textbook models used in traditional school settings, but it also includes contact with instructional staff via telecommunications. In the print-based setting, the teacher and parents work with the student to develop basic skills while also expanding student learning opportunities through the use of community libraries, museums, or other local resources. Second, students may learn through a print-based, computer enhanced setting in which course work includes both textbook materials and computer disks with supplemental instructional material. This method, which is geared for middle and high school students, emphasizes problem-based learning opportunities designed to teach students to classify, compare, analyze, evaluate, and present information. Third, distance learning supports some students who may have special learning styles requiring accommodations in the home and around their family lifestyle. And, fourth, students may participate through combinations of print-based plus Internet and on-line learning instructional methods. This approach combines age-appropriate learning through the Internet with a printed curriculum and additional electronic learning resources, so that students move from a dependence on books to a reliance on other learning resources. In all instances, 0ne20ne provides each student with equipment fitted to the learning method and student learning style, including computers. By working with a variety of learning tools, students become more “engaged in the learning process and [will] foster workplace skills” (0ne20ne 7). How does the quality of this education compare to traditional settings? Frequently, distance learning programs are criticized because they are perceived to lack content, standards, and accountability of students and teachers. 0ne20ne preempted this 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. criticism by incorporating high academic standards into all of the charter school’s instructional and education methodologies. The school’s declared objective is for all distance learning students to perform at or above grade level. For example, the students must develop strong reading and mathematical skills while demonstrating the ability to evaluate and solve problems through critical thinking techniques. Students are required to take a variety of standardized tests, such as the SAT and California’s STAR 9, as assessment and evaluation tools. Finally, the instructional staff is held accountable for the performance of their students. One20ne believes that, by exciting its students through its facilitative learning processes, the charter school creates the environment for the students to achieve the highest academic standards possible. Models such as this one and those from Australian, Swedish, and Canadian school systems demonstrate innovations that the State could adopt within its frameworks for the California public school system. Also, strong working examples are found in colleges and universities which provide an array of distance learning program offerings that could bridge to K-12 education linked to the existing public school infrastructure. The distance learning experiment taking place in West Sonoma Union High School District illustrates that school districts can choose creative approaches to solving their problems with student attendance, achievement, and parent involvement. The West Sonoma Charter has all the elements that characterize other quality educational programs: parent involvement, parental choice, high academic standards, curricula flexible enough to meet students’ needs, and creative and productive environments for learning. Other school districts facing similar problems to those confronted by West Sonoma may find it instructive to examine the 0ne20ne program as an example of an approach to escape the 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. current educational pedagogical paradigm while also working within regulatory constraints. The next chapter includes background material that considers the evolution of charter schools and the research literature that serves to establish a framework for understanding the linkages among the charter school’s competitive role, innovation, and impact on public school administrators’ behaviors. The literature review is intended to provide a theoretical base for assessing whether or not charter schools’ competition is a precursor to innovation in public schools? Or are there other latent factors involved that expand the prospects for innovation adoption beyond competition alone? 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter III LITERATURE REVIEW Education, as a learning function, has been segmented into public and private education structures that have clouded the definition of a “public good.” A public good is nonrival, nonexcludable, and indivisible (Stevens 60). Some education delivery systems throughout the United States have evolved over time into amorphous entities that sometimes lack clearly defined boundaries. Accordingly, competition and public demand for alternative education settings such as charter schools have proliferated. Public education has introduced greater heterogeneity by creating individualized education programs that become variegated attractors to parents and students. The decentralized nature of this phenomenon invites the potential for innovative impulses in response. The California Charter Schools Act of 1992 codifies this intent by stating that charter schools will “[...] provide vigorous competition within the public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools” (Charter Schools Act of 1992, Section 47601(g)). The law presumes that the charter school presence alone will somehow stimulate innovation based on the experience of the market as it works in the private sector. Competition’s application to the public arena, and to public schools in particular, presents a theoretical testing ground to determine if its introduction in the form of charter schools influences the education market. But, has the charter school demonstrated that it can alter the public school administrators’ innovative behavior in practice? Public school systems, where competition is limited in the absence of the charter school alternative, sometimes exhibit complacency and atrophied education systems. 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One current view is that introducing charter schools in competition with public schools may somehow reinvigorate the education system through innovation. Innovation is considered a function of competition and, as such, may challenge school administrators’ abilities to frame educational programs that are attractive and responsive. To establish a foundation for understanding what motivates parents’ and students’ education program alternative selection and public school administrators’ innovative behavioral responses to these choices, whether or not they are adequately prepared both personally and professionally, requires access to theory embedded in the public administration, economics, and education literature. The review below of theoretical literature pertaining to charter schools, competition, innovation, and administrative behavior is not simply a regurgitation of the corpus but an analysis of what is relevant to this study. The literature review builds from existing bodies of work and makes connections to form a foundation for the study. The theoretical work provides a point of reference from which distinctions are made and contributions to knowledge from the study are introduced. The review seeks to provide a coherent introduction to arguments that support the analyses and conclusions of the study. This foundation facilitates conclusions that are condensed from the vast body of literature about competition and innovation as they pertain to education and its administration. The hermeneutic process employed narrows the field by binding the past with the present while building a foundation for a prospective contribution to this body of literature. The purpose of this dissertation is to contribute to understanding of public school administrators’ reactions to charter schools in their jurisdictions and to discover how they alter their behaviors in response to charter schools’ existence. The researcher’s task is to 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. illuminate through this literature review the nexus between competition and innovation phenomena as they operate in the public education administration context. The researcher also seeks to discover phenomena operating in the environment that may explain innovation and its diffusion in terms other than competition alone. Role of the Charter School Alternative in Public Education In the early 1970s, Ray Budde, a retired University of Massachusetts educator, began circulating an idea which later became a book titled Education by Charter: Restructuring School Districts, 1988. This book became the basis for a movement to reform public school systems. Albert Shanker, leader of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), lent credibility to what became known as the charter concept by proposing at AFT’s convention in July 1988, that “local school boards and unions jointly develop a procedure that would enable teams of teachers and others to submit and implement proposals to set up their own autonomous public schools within their school buildings” (Budde 73). The concept began with empowering teachers in departments and programs to develop delimited innovative instructional settings; it later expanded to include whole schools rivaling the existing school system. Charters were suddenly viewed as the catalysts for change within defective and under performing school systems. The U.S. Department of Education First Year Report, May, 1997, found the primary reasons for charter schools are: ■ to advance an educational vision ■ to have more autonomy over organizational, personnel, or governance matters ■ to serve a special population ■ for financial reasons ■ to engender parent involvement and ownership, and ■ to attract students and parents (U.S. DoE Web Site, Chapter IV, 1) 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Other motivations for charter school creation include: charter schools are not encumbered by statutes and regulations that normally apply to school districts while they are operating as adjunct organizations to the sponsoring school district. Freed from regulations and bureaucracy, charters theoretically become autonomous and accountable venues for efficient education and outlets for choice; provide opportunities for teachers to exercise new pedagogy to improve student learning, and foster competition that will, in turn, generate models for innovative instruction. In essence, the charter school is a school released from some state regulations in exchange for performance-based accountability through innovative instructional techniques and practices (RPP International, 1997). These ideas for new approaches to education evolved from demonstration projects that included alternative schools, site-based management, magnet schools, public school choice, privatization, and community-parent empowerment experiments in the contemporary education reform movement emphasizing educational settings within existing public school systems. An analysis of laws across the U.S. indicates that seven basic policy criteria support charter schools: ■ Charter development: who may propose a charter, how charters are granted, the number of charter schools allowed, and related issues. ■ School status: how the school is legally defined and related governance, operations, and liability issues. ■ Fiscal: the level and types of funding provided and the amount of fiscal independence and autonomy. ■ Students: how schools are to address admissions, non-discrimination, racial/ethnic balance, discipline, and special education. ■ Staffing and Labor Relations: whether the school may act as an employer, which labor-relations’ laws apply, and other staff rights and privileges. ■ Instruction: the degree of control a charter school has over the development of its instructional goals and practices. 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■ Accountability: whether the charter serves under a performance-based contract, how assessment methods are selected, and charter revocation and renewal issues. (RPP International, 1999) Minnesota became the first state to enact legislation authorizing charter schools in 1991. California followed the next year. Other state initiatives followed, and 38 states were participating by 2002. Charter schools operating in California’s 58 counties in rural, suburban, and urban communities totaled 460 in 2003 (2003 California School Directory). In California, the law requires that, before a charter is granted, a public process must be followed. Charter schools are public schools that provide alternative instruction approved by the Governing Board of Education through petition. Parents, teachers, or community members who seek a grant of authority to operate schools independent of school district governance can initiate the petition. Specific instructional goals and objectives are stated in the petition; these should align with the intent of State law. The legislative intent is that “charter schools become an integral part of the education system” and “their establishment should be encouraged” so long as they are “consistent with sound educational practice” (E.C. 47605(b)). Charter schools, while still public schools, are both accountable to the governing board of the local school district in which the chartered school resides and to the Board of Education created as part of the school itself. The school must identify and obtain its own source of revenue to cover its costs of operation and facilities management. Then, the school receives funding from the State based on enrollment. Tuition is prohibited, although extra curricular fees can be collected. Unlike the voucher system, public dollars are directed to the school and not to the parents (California Charter School Act of 1992). 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The thrust of the charter movement, however, remains unclear. Is it strictly a matter of a choice alternative, a mechanism for public school systems to retain a population that would otherwise become disaffected without the charter, and/or an entity designed for innovation? According to California’s Charter School Law, January 1,2000: It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure, as a method to accomplish all of the following: (a) Improve pupil learning. (b) Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving. (c) Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods. (d) Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the school site. (e) Provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities that are available within the public school system. (f) Hold the schools established under this part accountable for meeting measurable pupil outcomes, and provide the schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems, and (g) Provide vigorous competition within the public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools (Education Code Sections 47600-47604.5). The legal framework for Charter schools speaks to charter school designs intended to facilitate flexibility and education program designs aligned to the motivations of sponsors who want to exercise innovative impulses that will provide distinctive educational venues outside the homogeneous public school system. For instance, community based and administrative charter school sponsors differ in their expectations. A survey of charters revealed that, when administrators developed charters within their 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. districts, alternatives were already in existence; whereas, community based initiatives were more likely to create new schools (RPP International, 1997). From this finding, one can conclude that administrators are motivated primarily to build charters into the existing school system framework while communities may seek more autonomous settings. It is questionable whether the administrative model is more creative than the community based independent school, since under that model accountability is rule-based performance as opposed to performance based. Without innovative administrative interventions, ambivalence arises. The school system may need inducements and incentives to monitor academic progress of community based charters. Boards of education are typically more focused on financial accountability and less on academic accountability. Consequently, a conducive environment may not exist for administrative oversight in this arena. In the past, charter schools have been viewed as disconnected from public school systems. This is an indication that the public school system finds it difficult to be accountable unto itself for student achievement. One provision of the law states that school districts cannot use declining enrollment as a reason to deny or revoke a charter. The incentive to protect enrollment from charter school competition becomes a significant incentive to move school districts to alter education programs to attract more students. How school districts adapt these innovative methods to their own instructional programs requires expertise and consideration of the potential benefits of having charter schools in their own education programs. Entering this dimension, administrators’ qualities may dictate their school districts’ receptiveness to charter school innovations beyond the boundaries of their organizations and within the realm of their choice 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. environments. Unfortunately, their prior education and administrative training may not be conducive to their fostering of innovation and may impede these administrators’ potential to increase student populations. The next section of this chapter looks at current research on charter schools and touches on the elements of innovation, performance criteria, relationships with their sponsoring districts, and charter school roles as competitive instruments in public education. The preponderance of charter school research has been weighted toward determining whether or not such schools can make a difference in student achievement. Other essential features of charter schools outside the classroom, such as their governance, have also been recognized as making positive contributions to the education delivery system by stimulating innovative models for sponsoring districts to emulate. Emulation linked to competition, however, becomes an uncertain and unlikely proposition as will be seen as the next chapter unfolds. Compendium of Charter School Research Since its inception, charter school innovation has been subject to an extensive array of in-depth studies by Federal and State Departments of Education, research institutes such as Rand and SRI International, public interest groups represented by the Charter School Development Center and the Center for Education Reform, labor associations such as American Federation of Teachers and the Canadian Teachers Federation, and local initiatives for charter compliance and renewal. All this research has delved into fundamental questions as to whether or not charters are making a difference in public education and their compliance with the intent and spirit of state legislation and subsequent charter agreements. 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Research into questions related to charter schools began as soon as Minnesota passed its 1991 legislation. Every state that has adopted charter schools as an alternative to the public school system since Minnesota’s legislation has conducted research into charter schools and their role in public education through their respective Departments of Education and/or relied on research institutes and universities. Unfortunately, some researchers in exploring charter school questions have had their conclusions used for ideological purposes rather than being viewed as systematic, in-depth studies about the charter school phenomenon that can build theory and produce a definitive analysis about the charter schools’ innovative role in public education. Those in favor or against charter schools have published differing views about charters that serve to confuse the issue. Examples of such arguments by these camps are in evidence in the Center for Education Reform’s (CER’s) Common Criticisms from Opponents and Proof They are Unfounded which is an Appendix attached to their What the Research Reveals about Charter Schools published on their web page. Common criticisms such as “choice is bad for democracy, charter schools segregate, more accountability is needed, competition has no impact, innovation is lacking, and there is no evidence they work” are analyzed and refuted by research references published in their compendium (CER Compendium 20-23). To the contrary, the Canadian Teachers Federation published the document, Ten Charter School Myths, circa 1997, listing assertions, in the form of myths, supporting charter schools. The myths include: 1. There is a crisis in public education 2. The charter school movement “invented” choice 3. Charter schools make choice equally available to all 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4. Market forces improve the quality of education 5. Charter schools improve curriculum, instruction and achievement 6. Charter schools promote equity 7. The results of charter schools internationally have been favorable 8. Charter schools will break bureaucratic “gridlock” and reduce costs 9. Teachers - at least in the U.S. - support charter schools 10. Charter schools are an innovative reform (CTF Position Paper 1-8) The extreme positions in these arguments about charter schools leave room for one to consider not only the factors pertaining to charters that contribute to education progress but also their features that are marginal and do not contribute to public education improvements. Research should not be used primarily to affirm or refute but as a vehicle to discover what is working or not to improve student academic achievement. It is interesting to note from what follows that charter school research over the past decade has been prolific, and its subject matter is as varied as are opinions about charter schools. Narrowing the field of inquiry in this study to competition’s effects upon educational innovation reflects theory-based research developed by a variety of institutions and researchers who have demonstrated a common interest in furthering knowledge about education improvement and progress. Research at the Federal level has focused primarily on the interstate qualities of charter schools while state research tends to have a narrower focus on conformance to legislative intent and accountability for elevating student learning and achievement through restructuring and reform. The methods of research employed range from comprehensive surveys to discrete research topics and case studies designed to discover the charter school’s role in education. What follows is a narrative that outlines relevant research and the nature of its content. This research survey is not intended to present a 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. comprehensive review of this body of research but rather to identify research results most relevant to this study. A significant body of research can be found in the Center for Education Reform’s web site. Lori A. Mulholland, Senior Research Specialist from the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University compiled a charter school research projects list in Charter Schools: The Research in 1996. And, in What the Research Reveals about Charter Schools, September 2001, Mulholland includes over 65 studies and their summaries. Research is growing commensurately with the number of charter schools. What follows are excerpts from this body of work that serve as the basis of this research project. Research at the Federal level began in 1995 by the General Accounting Office (GAO) involved (1) education programs offered, (2) influences of charter school autonomy, (3) accountability, and (4) federal program administration. Concurrently, the Education Commission of the States (ECS) sponsored research into student assessment and achievement, student demographics, funding, business and community partnerships, and technical assistance. The following year, ECS introduced research that examined ethnic and racial characteristics and student achievement that has been a continuing research focus. The Hudson institute funded a project in 1996 that focused on the policy implications of charter schools. In the same year, the Rand Corporation studied charter school laws. The most significant in depth study of this time was by Mark Buechler of the Indiana Education Policy Center, Indiana University, who released a report that described trends in charter school legislation activated by subsequent state adoptions. His work established a research framework that was designed to retrieve student data, 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. gauge parental involvement, discover barriers, and identify the effects of charter schools on other school systems. This study was followed by an in-depth longitudinal study by the Department of Education delving into these same topics. In 1997, the U.S. Department of Education embarked on a comprehensive study with the help of RPP International, a California policy research center, and the University of Minnesota. The study, which spanned four years, is known as the “National Study of Charter Schools.” The study employed sampling, student achievement data comparisons between charter school and schools of sponsoring districts, case studies, and intensive research focusing on policy implementation. Significant findings include: • Charter school developers say that charters afford them an opportunity to pursue educational goals that they felt they could accomplish more effectively with fewer restrictions and stable financial support. • Most charter schools are small, but they serve the great racial and economic diversity of students that make up public education. • States play a primary role in defining the possibilities of charter schools, and states vary greatly in their approaches. • New charter schools face challenges encountered by fledgling small businesses, including start-up costs, creating time for planning, cash flow constraints, and attracting students and staff. Charter schools that were pre-existing schools face different challenges; many have realized autonomy from state regulations but some continue to struggle to resolve local political and administrative situations (various state restrictions still exist in many cases and may be increasing in some states) (RPP International, 1997) Continuing this theme in April 1998, Erick Rofes of Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) published the first documented empirical research about the effects of charter school laws and their impact on 25 sponsoring districts nationwide and their charter schools. The study examined “[...] ways in which school districts were responding or not responding, and assessed the overall effects of this new reform initiative” (Rofes 1). The report set the tone for what was to follow; its published 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. findings and policy recommendations for legislative change that were intended to improve the relationship between school districts and charter schools. The consequence has been that as legislation has changed charter schools, autonomy has diminished and sponsoring school district and state accountability requirements have expanded. The benefits derived from charter schools began to be outweighed by needs for control and the exercise of power. The prospect that charter schools would create the impetus for change was now brought in to question. These studies and others that emanated from universities and research institutes attempted to discover why charter schools appeal and how their performance reflects innovative efforts at the state level. As a matter of public policy, it became necessary to evaluate whether or not these initiatives were accomplishing their promise and adhering to legislative intent that varies with each state. Accountability and performance issues became more pronounced as charter-schools became a more significant factor in public education. From the outset in California when State Senator Gary Hart introduced the charter school legislation adopted in 1992, policy evaluation and assessment has been incorporated. In 1994, Eric Premack and Linda Diamond, from the Charter Schools Development Center (CSDC), a California clearinghouse and a resource for charter schools, set the tone for California by issuing a Discussion Paper that framed the California research protocol. The 1992 California legislation invited not only research into compliance but consideration of issues beyond the legislation’s intent in education and instruction, legal and governance structures of the schools, funding entitlements, 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. support services, operational relationships with the sponsoring districts, and staffing. The belief is that unresolved issues such as: [...] funding, resistance by organized labor, district and administrative reluctance to relinquish control, lack of capacity to adjust to charter schools’ unique needs, and lack of clearly defined educational visions have all served to impede the development of charter schools. (Premack 3) The very existence of charter schools invited scrutiny about their accomplishments and failures and heightened interest in public education in general. In the California context, there are some notable research projects that have revealed operational characteristics of charter schools and identified idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies between education theory, legislative intent and charter school education practices. In December 1998, UCLA sponsored Amy Wells and her team of investigators to publish a study about charter schools titled, Beyond the Rhetoric o f Charter School Reform: A Study o f Ten California School Districts. This research focused on 10 school districts and examined whether or not the benefits claimed by charter school advocates exist in practice. From this small research sample these researchers conclude that charter schools, on balance, do not advance or improve education quality. Further, the consequences from the inherent conflict in the relationship between school districts and their charters will create neither an efficient nor effective education delivery system for students. In fact, they argue the ideology of individual choice undermines the tenets of public education in general. The stridency in the report’s conclusions has since been modulated by a more reasonable analysis of the charter school experience as this field of research has evolved and expanded over time. 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A recent study by Rand Corporation, What Do We Know About Vouchers and Charter Schools? Separating the Rhetoric from the Reality, 2001, focused on the areas of choice, access, integration, and civic socialization. The Rand research found that charter schools have a role in public education, but the significance of their impact depends on program size. Size makes a difference. The larger the system, the less impact on student achievement. This conclusion was affirmed by Slovecek, et al., in a CSULA study, California Charter Schools Serving Low-SES Students: An Analysis o f the Academic Performance Index, March 11,2002. The study revealed that charter schools with targeted programs for needy students demonstrated that those students had marginally greater educational and academic achievements than their public school counterparts. At the administrative level, the California State Auditor conducted an audit of four selected school districts to determine if there was adequate charter school oversight and accountability. The report concludes, “the oversight of charter schools at all levels could be stronger to ensure schools’ accountability” (CBSA Audit 1). Monitoring by the sponsoring school districts is weak and inadequate to assure accountability for student academic achievement and fiscal integrity. Further, the report suggests the Department of Education should play a larger oversight role by dedicating resources to establish an early warning system similar to the one in place for school districts for fiscal accountability. The report concludes that although recent legislation attempts to enforce accountability, “without the chartering entities and Department of Education increasing their commitment to monitoring, these new laws may not be as effective as they could be” (1). This last statement discloses there is evidence of school district ambivalence toward their charter schools and lack of sufficient incentives to enforce what is required 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. by law and their charters. The current environment dictates that there will be further research into the question of charter school performance and on the charters’ relationship with their school districts. Questions about student achievement, fiscal accountability, and innovation will persist until there are specific guidelines, measures, and defined roles in the chain of accountability. A comprehensive and definitive review of these issues is in the offing by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). The California evaluation of its own program began in 1996 with the passage of AB 2135 that required the LAO to conduct an “interim evaluation of the effectiveness of the charter school approach” (CLAO 3). AB 544 and AB 2471 require the LAO to commence the evaluation of the impact of the charter school innovation on California public school performance. The quest for knowledge about charter school influence and effectiveness continues with the California Legislative Analyst’s Office research project that will [...] provide the Legislature and Governor with [...] a neutral evaluation of the effectiveness of the charter school approach authorized under the Charter Schools Act of 1992 [...].” On or before July 1,2003 the report must include recommendations to the Legislature and Governor “[...] to modify, expand, or terminate the charter school approach, based on the evaluation” (6). The purpose of this study is the determination of whether or not the intent of the 1992 legislation establishing charter schools in California has been realized. A critical factor in the evaluation is an assessment of whether or not the charter school approach has resulted in an “increase innovation and creativity” (10) which is the primary focus of this dissertation. At the local level, charter schools are conducting ongoing research projects as to their own success through a self-evaluation process contained in their charter documents. 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The self-evaluation includes examining compliance with the charter’s fifteen required elements and determining if the intent of the charter within the sponsoring school district has been fulfilled. As part of every school charter renewal process, charter schools must demonstrate that there are marginal improvements to student learning with innovations as operational byproducts. The fifteen required charter elements establish the context for the ongoing research protocol that is part of the charter renewal process. It is incumbent upon the charter school to show it has performed as stated in the charter agreement with the school district. Some elements such as “providing a retirement system” do not require research, only a declared intent to do so. Other elements such as “measurable pupil outcomes” require longitudinal data analysis important to the charter’s continuing program and renewal. An added goal of this research is to answer the sponsoring school district’s question, is the charter school improving student learning? Over the past decade, this question has been answered better by some charter schools than by others. An excellent research example is the August 1998 publication, The Findings and Implications o f Increased Flexibility and Accountability: An Evaluation o f Charter Schools in Los Angeles Unified School District (A Cross Site Report) conducted by WestEd (Izu, et al.), a non-profit research institute for education policy issues, which focused on charter school accountability and autonomy and how the school district and charter schools can improve their working relations. It is certain, by way of this example, that research will continue both locally and in the larger scheme as long as charter schools serve a public education and public policy purpose. 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In the broader context, research efforts are expanding nationally and internationally. The number of multifaceted charter school education programs that exist present opportunities to explore every aspect of student education and organizational development they have to offer. A significant body of research has begun to define more clearly the charter school’s future role in public education. Unfolding the charter school research record over the past decade reveals it is not without bias and reflects opinions from particular interests that sometimes cloud the research results. A recent example is the Brookings Institution’s 2002 Brown Center Report on American Education. The report concludes from test results in grades 4, 8, and 10 from 10 states with over 30 charters in each state that charter school student achievement levels are not marginally better than their public school counterparts. The Center for Education Reform (CER) was quick to respond on their web site by suggesting the study’s research methods were flawed and its conclusions refuted by previous research in Arizona, the CSULA study, and by the Mackinac Center on Public Policy. In a study, Do Charter Schools Measure Up? The Charter School Experiment After 10 Years, July 2002 the American Federation of Teachers concludes that the promise of charter schools envisioned by Albert Shanker has not been realized. Their criteria for charter schools are: [...] innovative schools could be a boon to public education, could provide good options for children if the schools were held accountable for student achievement, and would offer teachers new professional opportunities. The AFT insisted that the schools be nonselective, meet high standards, and protect the rights of teachers as employees. We are disappointed to report that charter schools often fail on all three criteria and that they have not lived up to their claims of their advocates or the hopes of the American Federation of Teachers. (AFT Study 5) 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The report goes on to say that charter schools lack diversity, unfairly compensate teachers, lack economies of scale experienced in sponsoring school districts, have comparable student achievement to public schools and are not exemplary. Accountability is lacking and competition is not a significant driver for school system change and innovation. Specifically, Charter schools were supposed to experiment with new curricula and classroom practices, but they have proven no more innovative than other public schools. Rather than bringing new ideas to education, the charters sometimes import existing programs from schools outside the district in which they operate. The innovations charter schools do make are in governance and usually are not transferable to the public school district [...]. The justification for charter schools has moved from one that is based on education and innovation to one that is based on choice and competition. Yet charter schools provide a narrower range of services to a more homogeneous student body, and “competition” from charter schools has not brought about significant educational change in other public schools. (6) Such an indictment needs further analysis; specifically, the assertion that charter school competition does not foster innovation. What AFT fails to recognize is that competition is the impetus to education improvement and innovation; its diffusion, however, depends on other factors that are only hinted at by their conclusions. This study supports a view that innovation does in fact exist, but there is a need for greater cooperation and collaboration between charter schools and sponsoring school districts for innovation transfer. Despite these onerous criticisms, it is apparent that charter schools will impact the education system; they present an alternative and preferred choice if public schools fail to meet parent and student expectations. The exit option becomes ever present and affects competition. Competition in these terms can either establish a zero-sum game where one 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. system wins at the expense of the other or spurs change through interdependence and co evolution. Most studies have concluded that charter school success is not measured solely by student academic achievement. Other factors, such as governance and parent participation, are part of their attraction as valuable education venues attendant to individual student needs. What charter schools have in common are parents who want their children happy, successful, secure, and safe in schools. Schools that supply these values increase enrollment. The search for an education setting that will nurture life long learning is bound to succeed whether that education is provided by charter schools, private schools, home study, or even public schools with strong leadership oriented toward parental and student values. Designing education systems around these values, however, requires greater sensitivity toward student success factors, transparency of program quality, and innovation stimulated by the introduction of competition. This study and others in the wings reflect a research continuum about charter schools and their impact on public education. It is expected that further studies will arise as the charter school experiment in innovative education continues to evolve. Since charter schools were introduced 10 years ago, they have presented a possibility for change and created an environment that appears more conducive to educational, organizational, and administrative innovation. The public education community recognizes, with some reluctance, the charter school challenge to school districts. It now is a matter of allowing the process of creativity to unfold and to leverage innovation so it can develop and permeate through school systems. 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The current thinking is that these barriers can be overcome through competition. The fact is that charter school innovations already exist. How successful charter school innovations are translated to their sponsoring school districts is a fundamental question that requires inquiry into the qualitative aspects of innovation: transference, adaptation, and diffusion. Three notable studies were published in 2000, Does Charter School Competition Improve Traditional Public Schools? by Teske, Schneider, Buckley, and Clark, California Charter Schools: Forcing Competition and Innovation in Public Schools, by Gove and Meier, and Taylor’s Competition in Education, have dealt with this question and have concluded that the stimuli needed to move innovation from charter schools to public schools are incentives and public policy changes focused on results. Current public policy reliance on competition to change public schools is not sufficient. Competition, derived from market theory, may create the impetus for innovation in public education; but, as will be noted in the next chapter, it has limitations. The paradox is that competition may in some instances serve as a barrier and be incompatible with successful diffusion of innovations in public school institutions that must also take into consideration the values of equity, transparency, cooperation, and democratic principles. The Theoretical Limits of School Competition Competition’s role as the precursor to innovation stems from experience in markets that takes its underpinning in economic theory. The history of competition is as long as the history of man. Social exchanges stem from differentials in products and services that are worth creating by the producer and are valued, desirable, and pursued by the consumer. The extension of competition to public institutions and public education in particular is a recent development. Competition’s applicability stems from the fact that, 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in markets, competition creates efficiency through a rational process of maximizing resources and economic return. The return from transactions between the producer and consumer is measured in price. But price is finite. It is limited when values, attached to the transaction, are intangible, as is the case for services provided by public educational institutions. The price and value of democracy and equity are not captured by efficiency measures nor easily determined. The competition phenomenon that generates marginal value through innovation in private markets is more complicated and tenuous when applied in public markets. To understand the reasons why competition is assumed to generate innovation in public education we must reach beyond the education literature to the body of research and theory that resides in economics and public administration. Competition’s transference to public education, with innovation as its byproduct, was spurred on by the fact that student achievement in public education was perceived to be in decline since the 1950s. Students from impoverished schools seemed to perform least well. A crisis ensued and solutions had to be found; these solutions were sought outside conventional education thought in other domains addressing human nature and organizational behavior in hopes of illuminating ideas that could improve student and school performance. The following discussion both explains why competition is viewed as a significant instrument for education reform and why its application has been limited in practice. Milton Friedman first introduced the concept of competition as an impulse for change in discussing vouchers in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. Vouchers would serve as the medium of exchange for parents and students who would bid for their school of choice. The market mechanism would effectively separate economic activities from 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. political considerations that are discriminant and irrelevant to productivity. For Friedman, the voucher would increase competition and correct, through innovation, the imperfections of the education market that are replete with “market frictions and rigidities” and “underinvestment in human capital” (M. Friedman 104). The consequences for parents and students who are unable to afford private, vocational, and professional schools would be real as Friedman goes on to say: Existing imperfections in the capital market tend to restrict the more expensive vocational and professional training to individuals whose parents or benefactors can finance the training required. They make such individuals a “non-competing” group sheltered from competition by the unavailability of the necessary capital to many able individuals. The result is to perpetuate inequalities in wealth and status. The development of arrangements (vouchering) [...] would make capital more widely available and would thereby do much to make equality of opportunity a reality, to diminish inequalities of income and wealth, and to promote the full use of our human resources. And it would do so not by impeding competition, destroying incentive, and dealing with symptoms, as would be results from the outright redistribution of income, but by strengthening competition, making incentives effective, and eliminating the causes of inequality. (107) Bolstered by these arguments, public demands to improve public education have been a feature in the American debate since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983. These demands were further articulated by Chubb and Moe in Politics, Markets, and America’ s Schools, 1990, who determined education reform is best achieved through competition. Competition is seen as a means to overcome the defects that are inherent in education institutions in terms of education being a public good: nonrival (monopolistic) and nonexclusive (public over private benefit). It is assumed public education will focus more on the ends of student achievement than the means of education when competition is introduced to the system. 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pure competition, however, requires three conditions: 1. Exchange where the marginal rate of substitution in consumption between two offerings should be the same for all buyers; 2. Production that requires the marginal rate of substitution in production between factors of production is the same, and, 3. The overall condition that requires the common marginal rate of substitution in consumption among offerings should equal the marginal rate of transformation between them. (Head 15-16) Competition as a market mechanism is a means to achieve efficiency. The concept of enhancing school system education delivery system efficiency implies there will be greater student achievement. Competition is viewed as the antidote to government sanctioned monopoly, and structural reforms are required to change the public school system and increase student achievement. This viewpoint is based on the premise that by stimulating competition in both the public and private sectors, a higher level of efficiency will be achieved. As a consequence, competition will establish a new equilibrium by shifting demand to higher achieving school systems that create attraction through innovation (Pindyck and Rubinfeld 591-592). The expectation is that the market mechanism will enhance production quality because in a market, with many buyers and sellers exercising choice, producers are forced to increase productivity in order to retain consumers as well as to effect cost- minimizing behavior. This market paradigm presumes that competition will inevitably reduce the cost of public education if it operates as a market. This presumption assumes that parents have the resources to bid their choice through a medium of exchange in the form of mobility and vouchers. Choice also requires access to all information; this transparency leads to an informed choice about the various school systems available. 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The power of the market model with its stress on efficiency and infatuation with econometrics has created a tendency to apply quantitative techniques to an economic condition while conveniently factoring the unquantifiable out of the analysis in order to calculate net return from economic transactions. These more nebulous factors are attached to consumer’s education choices, but they are outside the bounds of quantification by definition and that makes for an imperfect market without equilibrium. The ambiguous nature of consumer behavior in the education market is not readily quantifiable. Consequently, the realm of school choice must expand beyond these confines to other levels of analysis. These considerations extend beyond the realm of market failure to “public-failure” as articulated by Barry Bozeman: Public failure occurs if core public values are skirted because of flaws in policy-making processes. If there is insufficient means of ensuring articulation and effective communication of core values, or if processes for aggregating values lead to distortions, then public failure is likely. (Bozeman 151) According to Bozeman, public education exhibits characteristics of both market failure, where there are unrealized efficiencies through ineffective and inequitable resource allocation, and public failure where a clear and effective means is lacking to arrive at a set of articulated values that attend to a particularized set of standards for student achievement. These imperfections in the private and public domains are not conducive to precision, nor do they permit an idealized market for education. Choice without a full supply of educational offerings confines valuation of choice to what exists; not to what is possible. Bozeman plots service values on a “Public-Value Grid” to draw comparisons among public values. The grid shows, at one extreme, Internet commercialization that 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exhibits both Public Success (PS) and Market Success (MS). Education in elementary and secondary schools falls within the Public Failure (PF) and Market Failure (MF) quadrant: p ♦ Elementary and Secondary Education ♦ \ Municipal Public Works A X T } F ♦ Tobacco sales (1950) ♦ T obacco sales (1999) Ml1 Environmental Regulation ♦ ♦ Higher Education Polio inoculation ♦ p IV lo " " A Internet commercialization ♦ s Figure 3. Market versus public value effectiveness grid. Barry Bozeman, “Public-Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do,” PAR, 62(2), March/April 2002, 156. The implication of this model is that, for education to move to the success quadrant, unquantifiable public values that rest beyond market efficiency must be included. Innovation brings an added dimension and can generate momentum to such movement. 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. An example of an education innovation and a market model that may correct the inherent flaws of an imperfect market and monopolistic practices of public schools can be found in “minischools”: alternative schools within schools or charter schools (Spicer and Hill 108). As noted earlier, public school reform measures presented to national and state legislatures have been designed to foster competition, increase efficiency, and reduce appropriations (Chubb and Moe 219). Also, reform is intended to preserve while adapting the system to change and garnering improvements through innovation along the way. As shown by the following graph, the marginal private and social benefits from this phenomenon shift to the right. The public policy intent, however, is to achieve higher quality education (Q1>Q2) at a lower cost (P1>P2) through competition: $ mpb msb PI P2 Q2 Q1 Q 1 Q2 Education Figure 4. Economic impact from competition and innovation. The implicit assumption supporting these measures is that the current conditions in public education result from the absence of competition, or sufficient competition, in 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the education market. The level of sufficient competition implies an imperfect definition of competition. The market paradigm implies that there is exchange between individuals who seek value and mutual satisfaction from a relationship. California’s education function does not fulfill the perfect competition model, nor will instruments, like charter schools and vouchers, establish perfect competition. Competition’s existence in the mind of the consumer presents the implicit assumption that the individual, based on present and bounded knowledge, selects the better choice among those available at the time of choice. The calculus of reasoning in selecting the best choice among alternatives is calculated to gamer the greatest return and satisfaction possible with the highest value enumerated from the exchange. The logic of choice requires this selection process; to choose otherwise would not maximize value and would be irrational. The sequence of an individual’s choice in a competitive scenario does not necessarily follow for other individuals who may not use the same criteria to calculate the highest value. Preferences may change the selection mosaic. The nature of competition varies with the content of decision-making and choice. Choice from the public school administrators’ point of view involves a quest for program interest aligned with this valuation and program selection exercise. Until recently, most school choice research has focused on student performance comparisons and quality of educational institutions with quality measured by test scores and average per pupil expenditures on education. The scope of research has been expanded to include additional research parameters that involve other preference elements that more fully explain choice (Hoxby 2000). 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One such element is the Tiebout principle of local finance that can be applied to school selection preferences by parents and students. According to Tiebout’s model, mobile consumers search for and find the communities that best satisfy their preferences for local public goods. “The solution (to institutional rigidities) is the best that can be obtained given preferences and resource endowments” (Tiebout 424). From an economic point of view “in equilibrium, the people in any one community have identical demands, and communities are homogeneous. This voluntary sorting process is not only efficient but also reduces the need for interference by higher levels of government in the production of local public goods” (Stevens 333). The circumstances that arise for those who are able to vote (exercise choice and preference) with their feet and move to different school systems may lead to efficient choices but not necessarily equitable ones. The Tiebout mechanism is the reciprocal to market efficiency in a competitive market. Nominal values are misleading as other intangible factors lead to broader definitions of quality. Revealed preferences by parents and students as to which school districts they want to attend are in large measure dictated by the perceived intangible quality schools engender. Parent and student preferences and selections appear to have shifted to private education, charter schools, and voucher systems promoting competition and alternatives to the public education school system in the community. The implications for these choices are that resources normally spent in the local public school system are now diverted to alternatives even though choice may mean tuition for parents and additional tax burdens (H. Levin, Educational, 1998). The Tiebout hypothesis further implies that preferences for a specific school setting will be predicated on the perceived qualities that school has to offer to support the 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. student’s education as well as its costs. This phenomenon is known as “access value” where consumers base their investment decisions on the perceived benefits derived from consuming a public good (Bohm 181). This phenomenon presumes that the direction of preference is comprehended by the school administration that seeks to know the inherent standards of consumer judgment and value. As schools come to live on their reputations, parent and student enrollment decisions become the principal method of accountability. Public school administrators faced with the prospect that private altemative(s) are preferable to the consumer must create a “niche” for their schools in a competitive education market. Unfortunately, public school systems are often unprepared to respond. The insularity of public school systems can become a barrier to change and innovation that requires adapting behaviors to a dynamic environment. The bureaucratic systems that characterize public schools can be adapted provided there is awareness by the staff of the potential threat posed from alternative education settings. Research into this dynamic has revealed that politically unstable institutions perform relatively poorly as single entities but will perform well given the creation of multiple entities within their jurisdiction (Kollman, Miller, and Page, 1997). The implication for public schools is that having more alternative schools within a jurisdiction may foster greater performance through competition. Losing students, who are a source of funding, to other alternative schools would appear to require a response from the school administrator; and, consequently, educational program alternatives are developed beyond what a single institution might offer. This dynamic will ostensibly influence the pedagogical practices of schools and potentially alter existing organization structures and processes to enhance performance. 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Competition enables a comprehensive framework for upward, downward, and lateral accountability. If parents are free to move among schools, demand is a good indicator of a school’s appeal and quality. School districts can monitor patterns of demand to identify schools needing improvement and highly successful approaches that should be replicated. Parents, free to move from less to more adequate schools, can operate as consumers searching among available alternatives rather than as captive clients who must struggle to improve the schools to which they are assigned (Epple and Romano 56). Lateral accountability among educators is maintained through natural processes. Some consider a choice system as entirely self-governing, analogous to the “invisible hand” (Chubb and Moe 34-35). Others have argued that the school system’s central offices must continue to make independent assessments of school quality and outcomes, intervene to improve substandard schools, and allow schools to develop improvement plans to gain quality and value (Hanushek, 1994; Berliner and Biddle, 1995). The improvement imperative, however, requires a more decentralized and intimate operational context. Competition was a logical outcome of the site-based, decentralized management movement of the 1970s. As schools devolve and develop their individual identities, parents will have an opportunity to exercise their choices. Choice lets parents act individually rather than through complex processes of group interest accommodation to overcome the narrow public school offerings within a community. Parental choice may be the most accurate and efficient downward accountability mechanism for schools. The exit option creates incentives for schools to adapt to parents and students and the 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. preference market (Hirschman 15-16). The real issues are whether preferences can be measured, and do they provide the real impetus to choice? The conditions and reasons that make schools attractive are real but for the most part unverifiable. These values must be reconciled with the school choice and preference nexus. Among economic models, the rational model allows the development of theories that define optimal behavior. As Heymann and Bloom suggest, “by combining the theory of rational choice with concepts of ideal competitive markets, it is possible to derive optimal market equilibrium models” (Heymann and Bloom 11). It can be said that public support of education is incompatible with individuals who behave in such a way as to maximize their own self-interest. Self-interested behavior creates friction within a system that is driven to seek Pareto optimality; i.e., the condition where goods and services cannot be reallocated to make someone better off without making someone else worse off. This formulation follows the classic economic line of thinking in terms of Adam Smith’s conclusion that individuals, guided by the “invisible hand” and without intention, will use their self-interest to allocate and spend resources efficiently (Adam Smith 423). Hayek observes that market characteristics such as self-interested behavior presumes a uniform measure of action by the consumer that can be expected when similar circumstances arise. Action by individuals is transitive as we assume individuals will act upon their preferences uniformly with uniformly transmitted information. The predictable is predicated on reliable and repeatable analysis that is based on mathematically imputed values that describe market phenomena. Verifiability and 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. consistent data are thus necessary ingredients to the classic market analysis (Butos and Koppl 16). Hayek further states in Individualism and Economic Order, that: [...] the genesis of economics and the “invisible hand” has “come nearer than any other social science to an answer to that central question of all social sciences; how the combination of fragments of knowledge existing in different minds can bring about results which, if they were to be brought about deliberately, would require a knowledge on the part of the directing mind which no single person can possess. To show that in this sense the spontaneous actions of individuals will under conditions which can be understood as if it were made according to a single plan although nobody has planned it, seems to me indeed an answer to the problem which has sometimes been metaphorically described as that of the ‘social mind’. (54) One can conclude, where incentives exist, transactions occur that will achieve goals derived efficiently from self-interest; if not, transaction costs will be too high and thus inefficient and subtracted from consumer preference. Private optimality, however, is not necessarily compatible with the optimal public school system as their differing incentive structures are incompatible. The problem with concluding that public school systems are inefficient is that this assumes that efficiency can be measured within a paradigm. Public school systems can be efficient so long as the intangibles on which schools are evaluated by parents and students are included. Equilibrium is derived from articulated values that percolate into a system where consumers seek the optimum settings for their student’s education provided they recognize what they are seeking and have all the information available at the point when choice is executed. As Holcombe states, “[...] given transactions and information costs, things that appear inefficient at first actually may be efficient when all costs are considered” (Holcombe 187). Further, when all costs are considered, it invites analysis into alternative incentives that arise from choice. How else can we explain the 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. gravitation toward alternative education settings that compete against public education? It is contrary to the idea that assumes the situation for government is Coasian where “the parties can bargain without cost and to their mutual advantage, the resulting outcome will be efficient, regardless of how the transaction is specified” (Pindyck and Rubinfeld 667). It is questionable that the Coasian ideal applies to public education programs that exhibit inefficiencies with services maintained regardless of the nominal costs involved. The inefficiency stems from governmental distortions of the market and deadweight loss through subsidies and allocations that affects prices. Another inefficiency derives from bureaucratic processes through layering that create transaction friction. The focus on budget maximization rather than profit maximization does not lend itself to efficient valuation processes. Niskanen has used “process inefficiency” to describe the phenomenon that produces a product or service at maximum costs as the incentives for production rest more in the ends than in the means to goal achievement (Niskanen 57-58). Another significant inefficiency, and one that particularly affects public education, is rent seeking behavior. Government has granted public education with special considerations and powers over groups that are tantamount to monopoly power. From an economic point of view, such behavior is inherently inefficient as it precludes alternatives within the market of education. Teacher’s unions, district rules and regulations, and limited program offerings inhibit the full exercise of efficient and ideal market conditions. This is not an optimum condition as monopolistic practices nudge competitors from the market, and a new equilibrium evolves among the remaining school program competitors within a given education market. The education optimality 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. expressed as the Pareto optimum is illusory, transitive, and temporal. Conditions are in flux as preference movements by parents and students are exercised within the education market. What is optimal is determined by the individual and varies with each individual and with different education programs. The Pareto optimality between the schools and individuals is marked by wider divergences expanding the realm of optimality indifference curves within the field of the “utility possibility function” (Head 16). The precise determination of where the optimum utility is for both the student/parent and the school may be far afield. We can surmise that in a perfect market the market variables of supply and demand find equilibrium in pricing. If parents and students were given the ability to bid on their education with all available resources, we could envision achieving Pareto optimality. But this is not the case for public education. Government’s prominence and presence in public education distorts market conditions in providing a “public” education. Consequently, monopoly is the condition of the market with others on the fringe vying for market share through distinctive alternative education programs. Parents who elect to enroll in public schools may not be aware of other offerings since information in this context is asymmetric. Social imperatives would support maintaining monopoly conditions under the guise and support of democratic theory. Current policy dictates that education is a public good. Buchanan (1969) and Friedman (1962) would disagree. The pricing mechanism of a private good is not compatible with the value of social welfare functions. The argument is between two means to arrive at a singular end, that of maximizing student achievement. The reliance 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on government to sustain a public welfare function ironically may require government interventions beyond market mechanisms based on choice. A new equilibrium through choice can be pursued, but it may not be fully satisfied. If government action is to be measured by Pareto optimality, it is counterintuitive to expect optimality to occur by shifting preferences to others in the market. Equilibrium is illusive as change in conditions or knowledge alters the framework from which indifferences are derived. The point of equilibrium is unstable as it presupposes a static condition ultimately altered by change. We are left with the question, what market mechanism could be implemented to satisfy the apparent incompatibility of both paradigms: change and equilibrium? The obstacles to optimality rest with preferences and values that temper goal attainment. The effort to achieve optimality is incremental, and the effects are marginal improvements. The factors that impel the consumer to act on preferences can have impact if vehicles are available to effect preference selection of what is most valued. The process is dynamic and not static although the present referent of equilibrium is fleeting. Changing conditions serve to redefine offerings and emotive tendencies of the consumer. As Pareto observed, equilibrium “results from the opposition between men’s tastes and the obstacles to satisfy them” (Pareto 106). The obstacles appear to prevent maximizing tastes with resulting sub-optimization and dissatisfaction. Resource limits also prevent the full exercise of rational choice. Equilibrium as a consequence is a matter of satisficing behavior conditioned on circumstance, context, and consequence. The development of an educational program aligned with these vagaries is highly contingent. The reason for this contingency has to do with a marketing focus on private preferences derived from the education product. Social factors and marginal values, 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. however, can no longer be expressed efficiently without pricing the education transaction through an exchange that considers intangibles as well. This is not to say that an educational preference setting metric is not possible. But to not consider the intangibles that are significant attractors to an education program will delimit possibilities and the discovery of truth about consumer values. Public school organizations, along with their private sector counterparts, seek efficiencies by reducing transaction costs so that other resources can be allocated to respond to the competition according to principles articulated by Williamson in The Economic Institutions o f Capitalism, 1985. Schools that create internal efficiency will be better equipped to respond to their competitive environment through effective decentralized program development. Program development means creating utility and value for the education product that will entice the consumer. Teaching techniques, classroom environment, faculty teams, student initiatives, parental support, test scores, etc., have only approximated valuation of education programs and have not provided a comprehensive, overall assessment of an organization’s efforts. As Hanushek states, [...] differences in quality do not seem to reflect variations in expenditures, class sizes, or other commonly measured attributes of schools and teachers. Instead, they appear to result from differences in teacher “skills” that defy detailed description, but that possibly can be observed directly. This interpretation of research findings has clear implications for school policy. (Economics 278) The difficulty faced by the public school administrator is to determine the inherent valuation criteria employed by parents and students when they select alternative programs. It is instructive to consider Herbert Simon’s observation in Administrative Behavior, 1997 that decision-makers only have an approximate estimation of the 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. consumer’s preferences and even weaker instruments to assess what they are. This “bounded rationality” forces the administrator to frame the education program according to what is known which is limited. It is not possible to assume an omniscient administrator. He or she can only “satisfice” unable to maximize product or service optimality and attractiveness. The administrator can only infer what those preferences are. The inferences are drawn from criteria beyond the quantifiable and include evaluation of intangible qualities. Simon tended to be dismissive of unquantifiable ingredients and intuition but acknowledges their reality suggesting we should await judgment until there is a program to evaluate their relative magnitude of importance to the consumer (Administrative 118-131). The conundrum for the public school administrator is how do we measure those elements most important to the consumer? The answer can only be based upon assessments that take into account the measurable along with immeasurable criteria that come into existence. These assessments are not solely based on test scores. Reliance on test scores to measure a program is delimited and ineffective because it only captures that which is measurable. For the administrator, there is a realm that rests beyond the measurable limits of rationality; it includes a valuation of what is desired by the consumer which is necessary before a decision point is reached and a choice is executed in response to those consumer preferences. Utility, value, and preferences toward education are ephemeral. The theory of value requires that we accept that values held by individuals can be objectively determined. Values are an affirmation of what is held by the individual to be important emotively or cognitively and will satisfy the need for goal attainment and perceived 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. satisfaction from obtaining the goal derivative and consequences (Kaplan 387-397). The process is to achieve a goal through a means of valuation of known inputs and registering an end product that is readily observed. Kaplan calls this ontology “reconstructed logic” (8). As Kaplan states, The basic error in the fact-value dualism lies in the supposition that sooner or later every value judgment must come to rest upon an absolute end, one which is valued unconditionally, without ifs, ands, or buts. Factual considerations relate only to such conditions, and when these have been let go, we are left afloat in a sea of subjectivity. That the absolute values are groundless does indeed imply that rationality precludes them; but the conclusion that they underlie all value judgments, which therefore cannot be objective, only begs the question. (394) Further, the conduct of inquiry impels us to consider how we obtain the values we are to observe: There is a price to be paid; actions have their conditions and consequences, and these inescapably reach beyond what ever end we might have in view as an end. The whole set of values is involved in the appraisal of any one of them, much as the whole of our knowledge is at stake in the test of any particular hypothesis. Relevance, whether of facts or of values, cannot be prejudged but ascertained in the course of inquiry. One of the most common mistakes in the application of behavioral science to policy is the supposition that ends can be isolated and used for the appraisal of means without themselves being subject to appraisal by the other ends with which they are implicated—the mistake involved in the standard of “efficiency” too narrowly conceived. (395-6) From Kaplan’s observations, one can conclude that the logic of value is not static but rather a continuous process wi thi n a context of exploration that is conditional upon the coalescence of the valuation elements as they enter the consumer’s consideration. Valuation complicates and is beyond current choice metrics. And, so it follows, that an analysis based on efficiency alone will not be a fully effective inquiry. That is, to explore significant issues of valuation beyond quantitative measures based on monetary value 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. requires a more inclusive consideration of the unquantifiable elements to decision making that are part of categorical imperatives constructed by consumers and producers alike. Such a valuation process relies on the “indifference curve” where value attainment is represented as a combination of values juxtaposed to one another where it is possible for individuals to select within the bounds of their resources. For example, the values of school location and special program offerings shown in the following graph: Location Value Curve Offerings Figure 5. Education choice indifference map (curve). Robert S. Pindyck and Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Microeconomics, 4th Edition, 66. A rational assessment would determine at what point on the indifference curve the value curve intersects to achieve optimum value to the individual given the resource constraints. This is the terminal point that is tangent to the value curve and represents the highest level of satisfaction allowable (64-67). One can conclude that the relative value of students living closer to the school that those farther away would lead to different weightings and placements along the curve. Competition has expanded the opportunities for parents and students to select among these alternatives creating a new administrative calculus to discover the indifference and value curve preference point(s) that would serve 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as education program design components; some of which rest beyond the indifference curve boundary. Research into student performance has primarily focused on outputs and the reasons why students have performed better in one setting and not another with an emphasis on school climate. But the factors that relate to organizational architecture, behavior, output, and measure of value for intangibles are not fully addressed analytically. When parents and students choose a school, test scores are only one part of the mix of offerings that determine value. “The theory of rational choice implies that any individual who has free choice will always select the alternative that provides the largest benefit, that is, utility or value” (Heymann and Bloom 7). When school systems become more decentralized and diversified, the relevant cost for selecting an optimal choice alternative is not only the cost of education but also the opportunity costs as well; there are costs of opportunities that are not selected from among alternative school choices. Quantification of those choices becomes difficult. The risk to the administrator is that money, as the sole measurement unit, can distort values and decision-making by the purchaser. Money measurement would ignore the non-monetary, psychic cost/benefits that may be associated with a choice. How to quantify the intangibles presents challenges to the administrator who must attempt to frame individual preference(s) within a choice gradient. The point is that an equilibrium is a static condition that is subject to change as conditions change. Subjective preferences and the information that individuals use to judge the correct decision to satisfy their needs determine utility. The utility calculation, based on these criteria is, as Pareto describes, “valuation in use” (Pareto 110). And that 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. valuation is individualized. The administrators’ task is to determine how that utility can be satisfied through an assessment and can be measured, studied, and evaluated empirically. This task is critical to understanding what is attractive to the consumer. This activity prompts the search for innovations and practices to improve performance. It is important to distinguish that which is quantifiable; i.e., test scores, and those ambiguous elements such as school climate that are unquantifiable, in the decision making process. Either way, the means by which we come to understand consumer choice derived from competition should include objective and subjective analyses to determine whether these conditions exist and to what degree they exist in the education market overall. The exercise of valuation and acquisition of those elements that constitute a determination of utility are discrete both from the selection process and program availability under the current education system. While individuals may want a given program that will fit the consumer’s utility profile, the option may not be available to the consumer; thus, availability becomes a constraint on choice. Through competition the administrator is challenged to define a program around those expectations and must frame the current consumer referent to conform to that which is wanted. The possibility limit is bounded by the individual’s perceptions and knowledge he or she possesses when preference setting. It is not a static condition but a dynamic process with indifference curves and tangents poised to move along the lines of opportunity arising from new information. Discretion rests within these bounds of individual knowledge. The consumer’s preference is reciprocal to the education service provider who must tailor the program to those preferences. This reciprocity cannot be accomplished en-macro as is evident in most public school settings. Rather, a 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. consumer’s preference must become an individualized educational preference modeled after the special education program. This is “boutique education” designed to fit those individual preferences. Such an analysis goes beyond the realm of objective criteria and formulae. The essence of choice rests both within the measurable arena of objective economics and tangentially in the subjective arena. The subjective arena is primarily internal to the decision-making process; objectivity is an external process more readily apparent and measurable particularly in monetary valuation processes. Buchanan describes this condition as: Subjectivist economics amounts to an explicit denial of the objectivity that informs economic choice. The acting subject, the chooser, selects certain preferred alternatives according to his own criteria, and in the absence of external change he attains economic equilibrium. This personalized or Crusoe equilibrium is, however, wholly different from that which describes the interactions among many actors, many choosers. In the latter case, the actions of all others become necessary data for the choices of the single decision-maker. Equilibrium is described not in terms of objectively-determined “conditions” or relationships among specific magnitudes, e.g., prices and costs, but in terms of the realization of mutually-reinforcing and consistent expectations. (Buchanan, Cost 25) This Crusoe equilibrium takes into account the consumer as one who selects among alternatives according to his/her own set of criteria. This presumes a static state as equilibrium is achieved without changes to the current referent on which the decision was made. Rather than being measured by monetary exchange, assumed preference alternatives can be subjective criteria that when taken together constitute the “choice.” No discussion about competition and economic decision-making would be complete without considering the entire choice context. 77 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Challenge and complexity are associated with responding to parental and student choices in a competitive environment. Uncertainty elevates risk and the possibility that, even with the best efforts of the education program, parents may choose to go elsewhere. Consequently, the focus must be directed away from the vagaries and limitations of the school choice exercise and more emphasis must be placed on the product of choice derived from innovative administrati ve thinking and practices. Competition is dynamic and has many variables. Therefore, it is not suited to static analysis. The dynamism is augmented by the free flow of information that gives rise to an exchange system that is both rational and coherent. The market reveals the alternatives available for selection by the consumer (Pindyck and Rubinfeld 85-88). From this register, the individual’s preferences are realized and selection is made as the opportunities and the possibilities are envisioned. In most cases it is the cheapest and best selection that combine to determine value. The cheapest can be extrinsically measured in monetary terms. But the best and most valued is obscure. Competition, which involves continuous change conveyed through changing information, is incomplete and imperfect without considering the intrinsic valuation phenomenon. Competition presumes perfect markets that will guide efficient outcomes. Those outcomes are irrelevant to the context of student achievement, individualized and aggregated into relevant populations. Competition is relevant only to those existing entities that choose to compete. The measures of competition exist within a field of the measurable. Those entities trying to attract students must tap into the unquantifiable appeals that go beyond test scores and other proximate measures of student performance. The referent is appealing and mirrors the other side of the school choice reality. It is not 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for public education to determine whether an individual is prepared to compete, but institutional arrangements can allow responsiveness to the changing preferences of individuals who are likely to act on the valuation process. The task of the public school administrator is to create value added education programs designed to fit those consumer preferences. The future of the education boutique is compatible with the individualized programs established for special education students. As Hayek says, “the function of competition is here precisely to teach us who will serve us well. [...] we can expect to provide the most satisfactory solution for whatever particular problems the (consumer) may face” (97). A public policy that attempts to correct monopolistic practices of a quasi public good must operationalize a competitive condition that may not achieve Pareto optimality; i.e., improving conditions for some in society without making others worse off. The initiative to correct a market condition must not be at the expense of overall utility and social functions; otherwise, such efforts will create disequilibrium and distort education markets. This paradox renders the education delivery system inefficient as the qualities of production (education, as defined by the consumer) possess differing utility and value to the consumer that are, for the most part, immeasurable. Consequently, the consumer’s preferences and producer offerings become convoluted as public education policy may not mesh well with the context of localized market conditions. Without a reliable and uniform exchange system defined by deliberative public policies distortions to the market will be amplified into a wider division between marginal private and social benefits. The market paradigm implies that an exchange exists between individuals who seek value and mutual satisfaction from the relationship. Equilibrium is derived within 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the context of the exchange albeit the micro decision-making by the individual consumer does not necessarily extend to the macro environment. In fact, the optimal choice made in one context that optimizes choice may not be applicable to another district’s context. School districts are confronted today with the complexities of a market economy as an alternative to the public school sector monopolistic practices of the past that created inherent inefficiencies and diseconomies. School choice policy development supporting these alternatives as derived from public choice and utility theories will challenge the public school administrator to construct an educational program that will respond effectively to outside market forces rather than solely to the interests of the public school institution (Andrews, 1966; Bowring, 1986). Traditionally, the public school systems’ intra- and inter-district transfer policies have served as choice alternatives. Unlike vouchering, these programs do not divert valuable resources or threaten the maintenance level of public school systems. Students may apply to attend other schools in their district or schools outside their local school district. Money follows the student without the potential to shift dollars to other choice alternatives such as private and charter schools. Public school administrators, for the most part, serve a captive client base as residents in the surrounding community must send their children to the designated public school unless they have alternatives such as private schools. Parents, however, remain obligated to pay taxes that fund public schools. The promotion of parental choice by reducing the captive student population is thought to impel public schools to improve through competition. The expectation is that the market mechanism will enhance quality because in a market of many buyers and sellers exercising choice, sellers are forced to 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. increase productivity in order to retain buyers as well as to effect cost-minimizing behavior. The analogue presumes that competition will inevitably reduce the cost of public education if it operates as a market. This further assumes that parents have the resources to bid their choice through a medium of exchange in the form of mobility and vouchers. A caution must be raised, however, that the public interest may not be served by a push toward perfect competition that will limit access and disregard the needs of all the population. While homogeneous sorting may exist for the school of preference, the impact on those school systems left behind have great implications. The answer to the question as to why parents choose a school may be overshadowed by the circumstances as to why they have left a school. Public policy must deal with both positive and negative externalities, as each individual preference will both have benefits and costs to others as well (Ostrom, 1990). Public schools, operating in a competitive environment, can only operate in reference to one another and accordingly initiate strategies that will seed accommodation and equilibrium where there is no incentive to change and education program qualities are known. Maximizing competitive advantage is exercised only within a narrow band of possible actions. The “Nash equilibrium” applies as “each player is doing the best it can given the actions of others. Given decisions of its competitors, each firm (school) is satisfied that it has made the best decision possible, and has no incentive to change” (Pindyck and Rubinfeld 443). A conclusion can be drawn that equilibrium serves to thwart change and innovation. This dynamic illustrates why public schools prefer accommodation to competition that entails risks to organizational stability and integrity. 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Competitive advantage is only temporary, and the advantage becomes less so when other schools adapt to the advantage or incorporate the advantage, and thus acquire a comparative advantage. The transparency of public schools works against their having a competitive advantage as school systems operate in a public service system. When school systems vie for enrollments, the Nash equilibrium of accommodation moves to another level. When a competitor knows the output of another competitor, a competitive advantage can be developed through innovation. Within this zone of equilibrium the possibility for change arises; if a competitor is more pliable and more responsive to the environment, it captures more market share. Once that advantage is introduced to the education market, however, it is subject to regression back to the Nash equilibrium as schools adopt the advantages into their systems (Myerson, 1070). James Moore, in The Death o f Competition, 1996 observes that we are wedded to the belief that competition is fundamentally a market mechanism. However, competition is altered by consideration of the environment as it influences reactive behavior organized through “co-evolution” (11-12). What is suggested is that the negative effects of competition can be overcome through engagement and linkages in the form of cooperation and collaboration with innovations that show prospects for improving organization design and development. Competition in this context becomes constructive so long as the public administrator is equipped to adapt. A temptation in the market model is for economists to conclude that monopoly is bothersome to the public welfare; the conclusion is supported by the belief that it will lead to a misallocation of resources. But others, such as Joseph Schumpeter argue in his History o f Economic Analysis, 1954 that, “economic growth and technical progress are 82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. brought about not through free competition but through larger organizations that decrease the negative effects of competition” (158). Accordingly, the genesis of monopoly rests in the organization entity’s need to protect itself from the risks associated with the introduction of change. Paradoxically, successful innovation proves more effective when divorced from pricing that measures the extent of monopoly and serves as the sole determinant of consumer demand. Innovation in education, marked by the distinctiveness and proliferation of programs that appeal to multifarious tastes of all individuals, is growing. Qualitative differences among rival education programs will likely prevail over public school homogeneity. The constraint of homogeneity paradoxically encourages a competitor’s advantage. Preferences weighted in favor of a competitor will spur change albeit, temporarily. Competition from charter schools will often have unintended consequences by engendering both alienation and ambivalence on the part of their sponsoring school district. Competition is often viewed as counter productive and an interference with the education process. This is contrary to the intent of charter school legislation and may stifle improvements to the total public school system overall. In summary, a widely held assumption is that competition alone will force change and create innovation. But innovation from competition does not operate in a vacuum. Innovation that is valuable is diffusable. Charter schools that innovate and create innovations will be more valued in public education if those innovations can be linked with public school systems. Innovation and how it may be thwarted or find its way into the fabric of public schools is the subject of the next chapter. 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Innovation “Organizations do not exist in a static world” (Katz and Kahn 75). This section introduces innovation as a phenomenon that presents unique challenges to public school administrators, particularly from charter schools. The complexity of converting the ambient invention into a diffusable form in school organizations and culture requires mastery and appreciation of the risks as well as the rewards that innovations offer to schools. Innovation is not only the subject of diffusion but is a process that requires guidance and an intelligence to apply the innovation from one organizational entity to another. This section begins by defining innovation, its characteristics, connectivity, qualities for stickiness or rejection, and zonal properties between organizations that are conducive to transmission. Innovation can be defined as the alteration or substitution of what is established by the introduction of new and novel instructional methods, and school organization structures and systems designed to improve student performance (Fidler, Russell, and Simkins, 1997). Innovation as a concept introduces that which is new and novel to the organization effecting change and anticipating improved processes. Innovation’s diffusion is determined by relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Tidd, Bessand, and Pavitt 183-5). The degree of innovation can extend from incremental applications to a full transformation of the organization that is tempered by internal constraints and external factors that determine whether or not innovation is a success or failure. Innovation is not to be confused with invention. Rogers in Diffusion o f Innovations describes the distinction as follows: 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Invention is the process by which a new idea is discovered or created, while adoption is a decision to make full use of an innovation. Thus adoption of an innovation is the process of using an existing idea, which may have been previously invented by someone. This heuristic difference between invention and innovation, however, is not so clear-cut once we acknowledge that an innovation is not necessarily a fixed entity as it diffuses within a social system. “Re-invention” seems like an appropriate word to describe the degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by the user in the process of its adoption and implementation. (174-5) In the case of charter schools, innovation is often confused with an invention that will develop into models for innovation and practice in public school systems. Invention is latent until it turns into an innovation through the adoption process that is the objective of invention. Without the innovation process, invention is simply a curiosity with unrealized potential. From the outset of Minnesota’s establishment of charter schools, there has been a push to demonstrate creative and innovative ways to educate students outside the boundaries of the domain of the larger school system. Since then, new constructive innovations have expanded into the arena of governance and administration that have served to enhance the value of the charter school and contributed to the success of public education. California is viewed by many as a particularly active setting for innovation. The following California charter schools innovation listing was obtained from the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development publication (Corwin), Freedom and Innovation in California’ s Charter Schools, 1995. It lists the many programs currently operating in charter schools that have contributed and improved education and administrative practices: • Parent involvement • Cross-age teaching • Using parents as instructors 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • Alternative assessments • Using technology and individualized projects • Including parents in school governance and site-based management • Providing students with opportunities to provide community service and forming community partnerships • Multi-age grouping and mainstreaming • Flexible academic calendars • Targeting at-risk youth, especially bi-lingual students • Increasing professional development opportunities for teachers • Class size reduction • Using non-certified staff • Small group problem solving • Distance learning centers and internet access • Individualized learning aligned with student learning styles (5-6) And the list continues to grow as the number of charter schools increases the opportunity to exercise the full expression of creativity and modeling that can readily be adapted provided the conditions for innovation diffusion are present in school districts. Charter schools’ contributions, unfortunately, have not been fully recognized by school districts. The explanation for this behavior is complex but generally fits conditions that are not compatible for innovation transference and adoption. There is not only a lack of recognition of charter schools’ value to other school programs but a diminution brought about from lack of incentives, accountability, and statutory requirements. These conditions limit the possibility for innovation diffusion when it must rely on the public school administrators’ leadership capability to overcome diffusion barriers and to guide the innovation process in his/her discrete school systems. The current circumstance is no different than that experienced in firms who must deal with competition in the market place. The assimilation of invention as innovation into the school district from the charter school must follow a set of principles that must be present in order to achieve re-invention through transference, adoption, and diffusion. 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Invention can be characterized as limited. But it is in its application to other entities, in theory, that it will be leveraged to increase value to the entity that successfully adopts the invention to its operation. To understand the innovation phenomenon as it applies to the charter schools we must engage the literature that defines its character. The innovation literature is vast and comprehensive. “Innovation as an idea can be organized around its components” (Tidd, Bessant, and Pavitt 306). And theorists have been intrigued by how this phenomenon evolves and transforms organizations but eventually depreciates in value from deterioration and/or replacement by the introduction of other innovations. What follows is a discussion of the likelihood of innovation success by diffusion and the organizational barriers that may arise and thwart diffusion. These components interact and must be fitted to each organization. Taken independently, diffusion is forestalled. An integrated approach considering all innovation components is necessary. In their seminal work, The Management o f Innovation, 1961 Bums and Stalker observed that within a mechanistic or bureaucratic system innovation must be molded to its structure and be “appropriate to stable conditions” (119). An organic system is one that is malleable and adaptable to changing conditions (121) and more conducive to innovation diffusion. Further, Warren Bennis envisioned the decline of bureaucracy in Changing Organizations, 1966. According to Bennis, organizations that would embrace more democratic impulses would open organization systems and create adaptive structures. His observation was prescient for charter schools. The importance of Bennis’ insight for innovation is that smaller organizations are better able to nurture and exploit innovations that will allow adaptation to the dynamics 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of change. This adaptability allows organizations to maintain their internal system that is the “human side of enterprise.” Innovation rejuvenates and counters the trend toward bureaucratic rigidity. Bennis envisioned that the organization framework must be flattened and the work force differentiated by skill rather than position. Symbols of position are suddenly replaced by merit and value added expertise that will create “organic adaptive” organizations. These organizations will allow the expression of im agination and creativity that become the primary motivators of the future workforce. Such an organization fosters the “spirit of inquiry” that puts process before product. “The chief obstacle of effective knowledge utilization is resistance to change” (208). Revitalization must overcome that resistance. Separate organizational domains frame innovation’s character differently. Their taxonomy attempts to bridge organizational development from of scientific management to a behavioral mode that is contingent and environmentally sensitive. Innovation and the diffusion process must be altered and fitted to the organizational architecture in either case. This requires the public school administrator to evaluate the innovation’s prospect for success in terms of the organization’s proclivities either as a mechanistic or organic organizational form. The bifurcation of organizations into these separate paradigms, however, misleads us to understand that organizations operate both mechanistically and organically. Rather than determine how innovation fits into each domain, innovation and its diffusion become a matter of degree within the context of the organization. This is dictated by environmental and organization factors that influence the rejection, receptiveness, and acceptance rate of the innovation. 88 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This view of organization and its role in innovation can be traced to Havelock in Planning for Innovation, 1969. This is a comprehensive study about innovation and how the innovation phenomenon works within and outside an organization unit. The study’s application of the “systems” concept to innovation and organizational development finds its genesis in the works of Warren Bennis (.Bureaucracy, 1966) who has described a system as the interdependence of working components that influence one another. The schema is based on the relationship of the objective components in the environment and a given organizational setting. The organic analogue allows us to visualize homeostasis as a subjective process linkage between the two. The organization responds through adaptive mechanisms that seek system integrity and boundary maintenance to ensure that the system is functioning, responsive, and vital. Absent this process, the organization’s character and distinctiveness dissolves. The dynamic imperative of innovation requires that the school administrator acquire an awareness of its functional application to the schools in question. How an innovation is adapted is inherently individual and contextual for each organization. The common thread is that innovation requires an intelligence to evaluate whether or not it is adaptable to the organization at the outset. Implementation within the confines of the school organization is an awakening exercise - one that requires a certain administrative acumen when the school’s bureaucracy intervenes to define the character of an innovation’s diffusion. Successful diffusion requires ideation that is an interative process that requires a sequence for evaluating potential innovations that could transfer successfully to the organization. The ideation process sequence is: 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1. Documenting the problem 2. Formulating the problem 3. Prioritize directions for innovation 4. Develop concepts and theory for testing in practice 5. Develop a plan for implementation and evaluation of results (II1) McAteer in Ideation: The Front End o f Innovation stresses that beyond the ideation process is the ability to generate ideas through techniques that rely on teamwork that will nurture an innovation environment. Fluency (brainstorming, brain writing, mind mapping, and storyboarding), Excursion (intuitive, nonsequential, and metaphorical), Pattern Breakers (what ifs, concept building, use of metaphor), and Shake-up Exercises (social risk taking, scenario building, and game playing) are techniques that will overcome barriers to innovation and enhance the prospect for buy-in by organization members (McAteer 1 -2). This is evidenced by Sapolsky’s experience with the Polaris missile research and development, a project considered an innovation success in government. Sapolsky’s conclusion about the innovation process in government involves consideration of more than simply the development of an innovation product; it requires acquaintance with process and implementation strategies within the organization context. As he says: What is needed [...] is a standard that considers all goals of interest as equal. The appropriate standard would be one that defines success in terms of the satisfaction of those affected by governmental programs and organizations. (Sapolsky 231) Also, “there needs to be available people who are knowledgeable in effective management of technology and also have the self-confidence to apply their skills which are likely to be in short supply” (253-4). This is the imperative for successful innovation 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. development and implementation in government and schools. This also may explain why most innovations are unsuccessful. The nature of organizations that must rely on a cohesive structure actuated by culture does not necessarily make them receptive to innovation. In many instances, an innovation can be considered an intrusion and a disruption to the organizational fabric and consequently be rejected. Although as Klein has observed, “successful innovation occurs only after initial resistances have been worked through” (120). The monopolistic characteristics of public school systems do not engender innovative impulses, nor are those impulses necessarily valued. Thus, this view perpetuates anti-competitive behavior. Ultimately, the resistance or acceptance of change depends on the individual characteristics of organization members. These articulated characteristics must be: • Directly related to the person’s perception of what constitutes a problem. • Directly related to the person’s perceptions of the degree of change that is needed. • Directly correlated to the absence of commitment on the part of the individual. • Directly related to the person’s ability to structure and organize the change process. • Directly related to the person’s perception of the desirability of the change. • Directly related to the circumstances that initiated the change. • Directly related to a person’s perceptions of his or her ability to control the change process. • Directly related to the structure of external support systems surrounding the change. (Blush, 2000) Barriers to innovation, such as bureaucracy, can be ameliorated through an analysis of organizational architecture and processes that may be receptive and conducive to innovation. Innovation requires communication, technology, and creative ways around rules and authority. The forces that bind organizations seem to unravel when innovation 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. unfolds. Established organizational relationships and linkages become subject to catalytic processes from the imposition of innovation and must be realigned. Innovation transcends the bounds of an organization that is by nature a static enterprise. The integrity of the organization must be maintained; the organization processes require stability and predictability in order for them to act purposefully and meaningfully. In other words, act rationally. That is why bureaucracy is so crucial. However, bureaucracy’s tendency toward rigidity ironically invites the introduction of innovation. The paradox is that a bureaucracy that strenuously tries to maintain stasis creates chaos and the need to change in the face of environmental factors beyond its control. And, suddenly, this impulse becomes an opportunity for organizations to reinvent themselves. As Peters in Thriving on Chaos says, “constant change by everyone requires a dramatic increase in the capacity to accept disruption.” And under conditions of constant change innovation becomes the “[...] sole path to survival” (336). The recognition that an organization must respond occurs when stasis threatens its very existence. Once organizations perceive the need to change, survival becomes paramount. Organizations subject to constant change create opportunities to seek and adopt innovations that are transforming. These innovations allow the organization to become more vital than before. Wheatley in her book, Leadership and the New Science, observes that the organization awareness process is referential: In response to environmental disturbances that signal the need for change, the system changes in a way that remains consistent with itself in that environment. The system is autopoietic, focusing its activities on what is required to maintain its own integrity and self-renewal. As it changes, it does so by referring to itself; whatever future form it takes will be consistent with its already established identity. Changes do not occur randomly, in any direction. They always are consistent with what has 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. gone before, with the history and identity of the system. This consistency is so strong that if a biological system is forced to retreat in its evolution, it does so along the same pathway. (94) Blush maps this process that is cyclical and “chaordic”. It begins by stress to the system and the perceived need to change. Then it progresses to disruptions to the organization that cause chaos. Its equilibrium becomes disequilibrium that seeks a new equilibrium through reintegration. Once the cycle is complete, equilibrium is achieved, but it is contingent on future changes. Stressor of Change ^ New homeostatic balance \ Existing state (homeostatic balance) Disruption Change Effectiveness (resilience) Reintegration \ / Adaptive, Problem-Solving CHAOS Figure 6. The Chaordic Cycle. Gordon Blush, “Psychological Dynamics o f the Change Process: Strategies for Coping with and Facilitating Change,” CJPA Meeting Presentation, February 2000. The drive for innovation and reinvention arises from chaotic circumstances. Through the above cycle a new order fitted to current circumstances is derived. A rational organization and leadership will respond. A leadership that is ambivalent, however, will find itself mired in perpetual chaos. To the contrary, an enlightened 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. leadership will chart a course that will leverage chaos and innovation into a plenum for action and reinvention. Jonathan Walters in Understanding Innovation, after a review of hundreds of programs, identified examples that demonstrated successful innovation practices and concluded there are six primary drivers for innovation: 1. Frustration with the status quo 2. A response to crisis 3. A new emphasis on prevention 4. A new emphasis on results 5. Adaptation of technology 6. A moral imperative (11) These drivers will ultimately change the character of the organization. This suggests that change must be shepherded through school systems that may not value such change or see the benefits at the outset. Innovation in and of itself does not necessarily mean improvement as innovation is defined ultimately by the organization that adopts it. Spar invites us to consider that change and innovation are indeed “[...] the keys to governance, full of possibilities for new structures and more efficient forms. Or maybe not” (Spar 383). It becomes obvious that without administrator initiative, innovation becomes the bane of existence and a conundrum unanswered. And without innovation there is certainty: diminishing value. The process of innovation and value creation is the subject of many authors. One of these authors is Rogers whose interest is the innovation life cycle and why innovation adoption is treated differently by different adopters over time. The classical model for innovation presented by Rogers in the following graph displays the process as cyclical: 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. # of Adoptions Innovators Early Adopters Early Majority Late Majority Laggards Time Figure 7. Adopter categorization on the basis of innovativeness. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion o f Innovations, 4th Edition, 262. Innovation creation is depicted as a linear, continuous function that evolves from the innovative impulse by innovators to adopters downstream who exhibit certain characteristics and values at each stage of adoption. Rogers describes them as, first, the Innovator who is interested in new ideas and “launching the new idea in the system by importing the innovation from outside of the system’s boundaries” (263-4). Second, the Early Adopter who “[...] decreases uncertainty about a new idea by adopting it, and then conveying a subjective evaluation of the innovation to near-peers through interpersonal networks” (264). The third type is the Early Majority who “[...] follow with deliberate willingness in adopting innovations, but seldom lead” (264-65). Fourthly, the skeptical Late Majority where the “[...] weight of the system norms must definitely favor an innovation [...]. The pressure of peers is necessary to motivate adoption,” and “the uncertainty about a new idea must be removed [...]” (265). Finally, Laggards are last to adopt an innovation. Certainty and low risk characterize the laggard’s temperament. But 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the overriding predicament facing the laggard is the organization system; that venue for innovation adoption and diffusion. The organizational barrier, bureaucracy, is activated by, as Rogers describes it, “system-blame” which becomes the overriding concern of the laggard regardless of the innovation’s merits (265-6). The predicament posed for laggards is that in a dynamic environment, where change is a constant condition, laggards are unable to respond effectively to the current conditions or crisis often brought about by change. The laggard’s overriding value placed on system’s integrity tends to discount initiatives that would leverage innovation’s value to the organization’s viability. Peters and Austin alter Roger’s diagram by the separation of producers and users (customers) and their role in innovation creation and adoption: Producers Intersection Users (Customers) (Site o f Most Innovation) Laggard Average “Lead” or Innovative Average Late Producers Producers Producers/Adopters Adopters Adopters Figure 8. Innovation’s intersection between Lead Producers and Adopters. Thomas J. Peters and Nancy Austin, A Passion For Excellence: The Leadership Difference, 115. It is the intersection of the Lead Producers and Adopters where the most active innovation occurs. The impetus is to drive innovations rather than be subject to them. The conclusion is that organizations and their administrators should lead rather than lag 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. behind innovation events. Concurrently, other innovations are germinating that could jettison the laggard’s intransigence into a potential hazard: irrelevance. Peters and Austin in their book, A Passion for Excellence, describe in the chapter, “The Mythology of Innovation, or a Skunkworks Tale,” how from the messy world of experimentation and innovation there is a precondition to innovation and its diffusion, “the need to create a climate that induces all the above to occur, a climate that nurtures and makes heroes of experimenters and champions” (116). Without champions innovation becomes a benign exercise of the experimenter and invention without the full expression of its value to potential users. Within their Model of the Innovation Process the end task of management is to create a climate that will “induce experiments, champions (adopters), and skunks (innovators)” (117) continuously. Innovation is not a static function. Rather, it operates in a spiral form and represents more closely the dynamic of experimentation and organizational change. Adoption Time Figure 9. The innovation diffusion spiral. Activities include responding, relating, creating, and transforming. A recursive treatment of what has been introduced is now different; not sequential, but developmental. The circulative nature of the process implies the prospect that innovation 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. can take on many forms contemporaneously fitted to the organization: rejected, modified, reconfigured, and diffused over time. These cycles are triggered, as Tushman and O’Reilly have observed, by discontinuities. To summarize their innovation model, conditions arise unpredictably causing a period of ferment where varied innovative practices are stimulated. Then, there is a shift from variation to a selected process innovation that is diffusible. Diffusion exists within the realm of a continuous improvement process that ideally advances the innovation. This advance in turn triggers a process of renewal and enjoins the cycle once again by seeking further improvements or substitutions (Tushman and O’Reilly 160-5). Ingstrup and Crookall show a graphic presentation of the gap between management’s and employees’ perspective about change initiatives. As the change process unfolds from inception, there is a “manager’s self deception” that there will be change followed by improvement. The employees are more skeptical about success: Improvement Performance Startpoint Deterioration Management Employee Time Figure 10. Different Views of Change. Ole Ingstrup and Paul Crookall, The Pillars o f Public Management: Secrets o f Sustained Success, 187. 98 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. When reality sets in there appears to be convergence of the pathway toward improvement over time. At the end of the process, the law of conservation takes effect where the consensus builds for change and buy-in to the process. Innovation is diffuse by this point. Applying these concepts, the public school administrator can overcome stasis by initiating change relying on factors related to successful innovation that have been identified by a number of authors who have focused on innovation’s role in organizational development. According to Tidd, Bessant, and Pavitt there are certain elements necessary for an innovative organization. Not all of these elements are required to induce innovation in the organization but they provide a framework for an innovative organization. Each of these elements are listed from their compilation and paraphrased with accompanying citations (306-7). Vision, leadership and the will to innovate. This embodies an ability to formulate a vision of a future for the organization and demonstrate purpose and direction toward a common goal. Organization members invest in what is reliable and help determine what is possible (Kay, 1995; Nayak and Ketteringham, 1986; Kanter, 1983). Appropriate structure. Innovation is contingent upon an organizational structure that rests between rigidity mid organic structures that verge on chaos. The public school administrator must be cognizant of the structure and develop efficient linkages that will foster innovation by lessening transaction costs and straightening the lines of communication. The incentive is to develop an exchange network that will foster creativity and induce innovation (Pfeffer, 1994; Peters, 1987; Mintzberg, 1979; Perrow, 1961; J. Thompson, 1967; Woodward, 1980; Bums and Stalker, 1961). 99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Key individuals. Organizational members are the instruments of change, creativity, and innovation. Their roles can be altered to make innovation possible provided they are equipped to see the possibilities from change and change their behaviors accordingly to energize the process. Selecting those individuals that will foster innovation is key for the public school leader. Not all individuals are endowed with such skills. An educational and training program can nurture the innate abilities of individuals to innovate. The key is tapping the resources of individuals willing to exercise initiative to create innovative environments and champion innovation within the organization (Bess, 1995; Rubenstein, 1994; Rothwell, 1992; Allen, 1977; Tichy and Devanna, 1986). Effective team work. Organizational members working together for a common purpose is key to any successful innovation diffusion. Internal innovation networks have a structure all their own; they must exhibit a cohesiveness of purpose and a results orientation. This may mean that members must link with others to achieve results even though their functions may differ. The key is to merge the human resources and talent to develop synergy and enhanced performance (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Kharbanda and Stallworthy, 1990; Francis and Young, 1988; Bixby, 1987). Continuing and stretching individual development. Organizations that develop a sensitivity toward innovation through education and training have a greater likelihood for innovation and diffusion. The core competencies required are a function of both organizational capacities and expectations within the school system. Training programs without follow through or practice, however, will succumb to ambivalence if they are not relevant to the current conditions of the organization (Jarvis and Prais, 1995; Prais, 1995; Pedler, et. al., 1991; Senker, 1985). 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Extensive communication. Extensive communication requires a breadth and reach of ideas that can be effectively translated into innovation and facilitate its diffusion. The communication networks involved need to be strategically aligned to the organization’s members and their associations. Affirmation, in the form of feedback, will allow the organization to adjust and modify innovations. The public school administrators’ focus should be to design the most efficient channels for results oriented innovation. Selecting the right pathway is key to success (Francis, 1987; DeMeyer, 1985; Allen, 1977). High involvement in innovation. There must be a cultural value placed on continuous improvement, regeneration of organizational process and adding value to the organization’s clients. Process engineering introduced by Deming to Japan in the 1950’s demonstrated that by focusing on internal processes at every level one gained a qualitative edge over competitors. Active, committed engagement of employees in this effort is necessary to increase product or output (Bessant and Caffyn, 1996; Robinson, 1991; Imai, 1987; Deming, 1986). Customer focus. This requires an extensive awareness of client requirements and the organization’s ability to respond to their needs expressed as demand. Demand in turn orients the direction of response by the organizational members. Evaluation and assessment tools are required to calibrate the magnitude of demand for change. Ultimately, the client’s satisfaction level and participation may mask deficiencies in the organization, but the opportunity costs may be too high to exercise the exit option; for instance, a school district without a charter school. What is left is dissatisfaction and unrealized potential for an effective response. This assumes that the organization has the capacity for an effective response (Rothwell, 1992; Oakland, 1989). 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Creative climate. The organizational leadership must realistically evaluate its capacity to adapt to change and diffuse innovations. This evaluation entails identifying components and interrelationships that will promote innovative impulses from the staff. Leadership, staff skill levels, and involvement in the innovative process can be buttressed by an organization architecture conducive to innovation. A high value on quality control and value added service will also add capacity (Evans, 1996; Ekvall, 1990; Rickards, 1988). Learning organizations. Organizational processes should be regenerative in response to changes affecting the organization’s performance. Action is required in a constructive framework within which staff can alter their behavior in response to changes in the environment. Ideally, it is a perpetual process of learning in which an involved staff, equipped to generate ideas and innovations, will continuously create marginally improved organizational processes and products. To overcome resistance to change requires an organization to learn that it is in the best interest of organization survival to exercise intelligence in organizing responses and adaptive mechanisms. In order for a school organization to employ learning, it must incorporate the following components: knowledge acquisition, information interpretation, information distribution, and organizational memory (Starkey, 1996; Leonard-Barton, 1995: Garvin, 1993: Senge, 1990; Nonaka, 1991; Argyris and Schon, 1970). The organizational learning element appears to be the most conducive to organizational change and receptiveness to innovation on a sustained basis. It allows ideas to flow and be digested within the organizational system that will overcome what Senge terms as “symptoms” or barriers to diffusion. These symptoms include “[.. .] 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. isolation, competitiveness, and distrust experienced by so many working groups toward one another [ . . {Dance 418). Other ambient symptoms that get in the way of diffusion are reinventing the wheel, the not invented here syndrome, failed attempts of followers, and arrogance. Less visible symptoms are evidenced by: [...] the absence of vigorous internal learning communities, the lack of confidence among innovators that the ideas will elicit curiosity and broader testing, and the pervasive paucity of genuine curiosity among organization’s members about what one another is learning. (419) Any of these symptoms can thwart change, but the problem is exacerbated if other symptoms are present. Recognizing the symptoms is the first step to a cure through organizational learning that facilitates diffusion. The inevitable friction between stasis and change, and the organization’s response to that friction defines its adaptive character. It must be understood that the organization either attains the resources and intelligence to adjust to change and innovation or risks entropy. To counter this inertia and the risk of dissolution requires systems that can change and grow. The dynamic response to change by organizations is an “iterative process” that adjusts to the intervention of technology without risking its organizational integrity. This preservation principle is designed to maintain the distinctiveness and character of the organizational system (Fidler, Russell, and Simkins 27). Learning-based change is necessarily incremental and requires time to integrate the elements of change into the system. The interaction of the organization with its environment invites considering the feasibility and anticipating the consequences of change to achieve a dynamic equilibrium. The innovation life cycle begins with the introduction of the new and novel and ends with diffusion and stability. Once stable, the 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. change will emerge again prompting innovation so the organization must perpetually adapt to survive. B. Guy Peters reminds us, “although this cycle of reform is good for those of us interested in the process of change, it is less beneficial to those involved in the process” (ix). Sensitivity about staff attitudes toward innovation is key. Those who will be asked to change and develop the innovation and diffuse it will soon learn it can be an arduous process. Diffusion means transforming a culture and its imbedded relationships. Realignment of connections and tinkering with an organization’s fabric risk its unraveling if the administrator does not practice due diligence and planning. The organization faces the most pressure to change when competitive circumstances challenge rigid bureaucratic systems. The paradox is that when dealing with bureaucratic systems, change must be molded to an existing structure in order to accomplish integration of the innovation into the organizational system. The adaptive mechanisms that are embodied in culture, roles, structure, and communication networks must be altered to overcome barriers to innovation and lessen transaction costs to promote efficiency while enhancing program effectiveness. Adaptation is dependent on, “[...] the organizational capacity to diffuse innovative practices. If this capacity is lacking, a ‘diffusion gap’ develops, which limits broader implementation [...]” (Senge, Dance 424). Capacity is determined by coaching, permeability of organizational boundaries, information infrastructure, and a learning culture that “encourages mutuality, collaboration, curiosity, and reflection across both internal and external boundaries and effective learning infrastructure” (424-425). The organization’s capacity for innovation diffusion can be examined using Kurt t’s “force field analysis” which identifies conditions that exist that resist or drive 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. change in organizations. There are “unfreezing, changing, and refreezing” stages in the process (228-229). Schein in Organizational Culture and Leadership described unfreezing as “(1) presence of evidence of a problem, (2) connection of this problem with the organization’s purpose causing anxiety and/or guilt, and (3) a possible solution which is not so unsettling as to cause denial of the problem” (298-299). Fidler, Bessant, and Pavitt interpret this process as “[...] unless the present state is sufficiently unfrozen, change will not take place successfully” (67). This is analogous to Gladwell’s “tipping point” manifested in a state of equilibrium which gives rise to disequilibrium and conditions that are conducive to innovation adoption and diffusion. The innovation and its benefits become apparent to the organization’s collective conscious and, suddenly, “the unexpected becomes the expected, where radical change is more than a possibility. It is, contrary to our expectations, a certainty” (13-14). The tipping point is not only an epiphany but triggers an organization process evolution which Schlechty describes in the following, When the changes called for by a program or project are too far outside the traditions of the system, especially if they introduce a radically different means of doing the job or require a fundamental reorientation to the environment or to customers and clients, they have moved from the arena of procedural and technical changes to the arena of structural and cultural change: an arena with which educators, and leaders generally, have had less experience and about which there is less guidance from the research community. (Shaking 163) The reason for this gap in knowledge and experience has been the emphasis placed on the product of innovation rather than focusing on the process by which it is introduced and diffused. 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Invention is transformed into innovation when organizations are called upon to introduce the invention to the organization. And the innovation process is an exchange function between organizations linked by communication and intelligence about potential diffusion of an innovation to the organization. Diffusion is defined as “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (Rogers 35). As Gladwell observes, “innovations don’t just slide effortlessly from one group to the next. There is a chasm (emphasis added) between them” (198). The chasm is the gap between an invention as an object and its subjective form as an innovation with the potential for diffusion. Several authors have described this chasm differently. In 1938, Chester Barnard in The Functions o f the Executive, termed this as the ’’ zone of indifference” (168) where the prospects for change are either accepted, rejected, or neutrally treated by the organization members. The zone’s width for innovation adoption is dependent “upon the degree to which the inducements exceed the burdens of sacrifices which determine the individual’s adhesion to the organization” (169). The zone serves as a lens for viewing an innovation and gives meaning to its potential application and fit to the organization framework. The barriers of cost, time, resources, and willingness to embrace change are factored into this diffusion equation. Thompson observes that the chasm is really an alteration of the boundaries. A manifestation of interdependence arises whenever an innovation is introduced. This requires reciprocity through communication and coherent decision efforts by both parties. Coordination, standardization, and planning become vital ingredients to successful innovation diffusion. For Thompson “organization structure must reflect 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. interdependence of the organization and its environment, as well as its technology” (64- 65). Thompson’s propositions 9.10, 910a, and 9.11 (129) condition us to consider the point that indifference to an innovation must be converted to an active engagement overcoming ambivalence as the potential for chaos exists from accelerated innovation and change. As the risk of success becomes higher, discretion is narrowed to considerations of stability. Proposition 9.12 states, “when organizations commit future control over resources in exchange for present solutions to contingencies, they create limitations on their abilities to adapt to future change of technologies or task environments” (130). This condition necessitates a power shift and becomes a burden on existing authority to craft new structures adapted to the new reality surrounding the zone. But a constraint exists from the assent or disagreement of organization members. This constraint is considered in Simon’s Administrative Behavior, 1997, when he describes a “zone of acceptance” (10). The authority of leaders over the direction of change in an organization depends on organizational members’ acceptance or rejection of their authority which “[...] beyond a certain point [...] disobedience will follow. The magnitude of the zone of acceptance depends upon the sanctions which a person with authority has available to enforce commands” (10). It is the responsibility of the authority figure to create inducements for change. An effective method is to create planning around groups tasked to perform. Thus, the complexity of the plan conforms to the level of complexity of the innovation. The individual’s “realization that a particular behavior is a part of his role under the plan must be a sufficient stimulus to bring about the behavior in question” 107 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (178). It is a function of the administrator to broaden the choices to enable a rational outcome that advances innovation and the return to the individual from participation. Assent over sanctions is increasingly preferable. But if that assent is not forthcoming, an increasing level of inducement is warranted if the innovation is valuable enough. In the “zone of equilibrium” innovation acceptance enters into the domain of the steady state where its adoption requires a constant exchange between organization entities. In biological terms, it is a state of dynamic homeostasis which, [...] involves the maintenance of tissue constancies by establishing a constant physical environment - by reducing the variability and disturbing effects of external stimulation. Thus the organism does not simply restore the prior equilibrium. A new, more complex and more comprehensive equilibrium is established. (Stagner 5) When applied to organization dynamics, Katz and Kahn have observed that the, [...] importation of energy to arrest entropy operates to maintain some constancy in energy exchange, so that open systems which survive are characterized by a steady state. A steady state is not motionless or a true equilibrium. There is a continuous inflow of energy from the external environment and a continuous export of the products of the system, but the character of the system, the ratio of the energy exchanges and the relations between parts, remains the same. (23) Adaptability that is organic requires that within this zone of equilibrium there is a co-alignment that, according to Thompson, is the “basic function of administration.” Coalignment is in his words, “not merely of people (in coalitions) but of institutionalized action - of technology and task environment into a viable domain, and of organizational design and structure appropriate to it” (157). Thompson poses a paradox of administration: If the basic function of administration involves shooting at a moving target of co-alignment, in which the several components of the target are themselves moving, then we can expect the central characteristic of the 108 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. administrative process to be a search for flexibility. Yet our theme throughout has been one of reduction of uncertainty and its conversion into relative certainty. (148) This paradox is overcome by innovations that enliven the process of transformation and expand possibilities to improve organizational performance and organizational learning. The synthesis of co-alignment and organizational learning derives a “zone of pliability.” The “zone of pliability” can be characterized by its elasticity, suppleness, flexibility, resiliency, and volatility. This zone is the realm of transformation; it is fitted to each organization. Not all invention is acceptable. Innovation and its evolution through diffusion is ultimately determined by organizational contingencies of capacity, resources, and worldview. The charter school’s invention as an instrument for innovation can either become a clear demonstration of value and a contributor to the sponsoring district’s education program or simply insignificant. The zone of pliability is the space where there is the potential deployment of invention into operational purposes through collaboration and reciprocity. The school administrator employs a rational analysis of the innovation’s value to the organization and then marshals the resources to make the transition possible. As Thompson says, “these conditions vary not only from one organization to another, but for a particular organization as (1) its task environment changes, (2) innovations modify technologies, or (3) the organization changes its domain and hence its task environment” (74). This goes beyond a simple equilibrium to a dynamic equilibrium where innovation resides nurtured by a learning organization. Thompson further states that: 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [...] organization survival requires adaptive as well as directive action in those areas where the organization maintains discretion. Since each of the necessary streams of institutional action moves at its own rate, the timing of both adaptive and directive action is a crucial administrative matter. As environments change, the administrative process must deal not just with which domain, but how and how fast to change the design, structure, or technology of the organization. (Thompson 148) The organization boundary is determined by an organization’s capacity to adapt to change in the environment and the intelligence of the administrator to translate innovation into action. The decentralized nature of charter schools makes it imperative that school administrators consider and encourage innovation from charter schools that can be leveraged to the school’s benefit expanding the organization’s boundary. The more the administrator controls the process the more he/she is able to reduce uncertainty from external forces of change. The active deployment of charter schools provides an opportunity for public school systems to activate innovation. The innovation infrastructure, however, must include an intelligence system that will identify benefits as well as costs attached to the innovation. The intelligence system assumes that internal processes can analyze and determine an innovation’s impact on organizational development. Information requires distribution channels where the interpretation of information can be digested, disseminated, and distributed among organization members for operation. “Innovation is hard to institutionalize. It often needs to bend the rules of its own creation. [...] Sustaining innovation is particularly tricky since it flows out of creative disequilibrium” (Kelly 114). Maintaining the balance between organization integrity and the potential 110 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. disruption from innovation and change requires unique administrator skills that are by nature adaptive. Charter schools present a challenge to the public school’s adaptability as never before and require an enlightened administrator who sees the opportunities as well as the risks inherent in innovation and then acts upon them accordingly. As Tushman and O’Reilly concluded, “managerial competencies that stimulate both innovation and efficiency are an important ingredient in differentiating between organizational success and failure over long periods” (14). This is authentic leadership that must develop to overcome the barriers to innovation and change. How this evolves is the subject of the next section. Administrative Innovative Behavior “ Innovation requires organizational learning” (Senge, Fifth 6) Organizational learning requires transformational leadership that finds its genesis in The Study o f Administration (1887), written by Woodrow Wilson. He described the future role of the public administrator through civil service reform by saying, “[...] we must go to adjust executive functions more fitly and to prescribe better methods of executive organization and action. [...] it is opening the way for making it businesslike” (27). As Paul P. Van Riper describes it: Wilson came to believe that the final stage in the evolution of modem American democracy was the development of a professional administrative arm which could then make the nation’s democracy responsive and efficient (emphasis added)[...]. What was needed was better methods plus organization. (3) 111 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These better methods arise from a constant search for improved methods of performance. Wilson’s view about administration and reform is apropos to the charter school reform movement. As Burt-Way observes, (Wilson) believed not only in the notion that the state grows and changes, but that each stage advances the society and the state to a higher level of accomplishment. Thus, any practice that slows growth or hampers development is anachronistic and must be reformed. (56-57) This entreaty is reminiscent of Chester Newland’s statement that, “in many ways public administration is bom out of reform movements” (1997). The charter school represents the end of a long series of public administration reforms that are worth revisiting, and their significance to public administration theory and practice is that they have defined the character of administrative behavior. The character of the public administrator was first articulated by Frank J. Goodnow who made a distinction between politics which “has to do with the guiding or influencing of governmental policy” and, administration “has to do with the execution of that policy” or “will of the state” (Goodnow 25-26). Goodnow reveals the qualities of public administration as distinct from politics that is accountable to democratic principles. Such a distinction finds its moorings in the separation of powers, but administration still required a theoretical framework for actualization that would buffer itself from the political fray. As is the tradition of public administration, the substance of its value system was found in Taylor’s scientific management fused with Weber’s rationality in the form of bureaucracy. Frederick W. Taylor’s search for the “one best way” led him to discover that a mechanistic and process focused operation could achieve efficiency and increase 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. productivity in business operations. Management’s responsibility was to conduct an ongoing search for the most efficient processes and then mold the work force to the requirements of the process to achieve reliability and consistency. The one best way is really a search for innovation, in this context, and organizational improvement. This work environment is specialized with distinct roles and responsibilities (Taylor 29-32). One is reminded that these ideas further Adam Smith’s observations about the division of labor (Smith Chapter I). Those ideas also merged into the rational principles of bureaucracy articulated by Weber. Weber’s Bureaucracy is a rational analysis of an organization operating rationally and intelligently. The administrator in the bureaucracy operates in a dimension and context that is confined and insular. The operational boundary is a structure that is planned. Organization activity is standardized and predictable to minimize risk to efficient operation. Weber’s principles are outlined as follows: I. There is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules, that is, by laws or administrative regulations. II. The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered system of super- and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones. III. The management of the modem office is based upon written documents (“the files”), which are preserved in their original or draft form. IV. Office management, at least all specialized office management - and such management is distinctly modem - usually presupposes thorough and expert training. V. When the office is fully developed, official activity demands the full working capacity of the official, irrespective of the fact that his obligatory time in the bureau may be firmly delimited. VI. The management of the office follows general rules, which are more or less stable, more or less exhaustive, and which can be learned. (Weber 51-52) 113 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These principles have served as the basis for subsequent dialogue between theorists who discuss bureaucracy with its merits and deficiencies particularly as they affect human beings. In what is known as the structural school we find such thinkers as Henri Fayol who introduced the idea of “span of control” and the importance of “espirit de corps” (52-65). Elliott Jaques, In Praise o f Hierarchy, defends the need for hierarchy when he says, Properly structured, hierarchy can release energy and creativity, rationalize productivity, and actually improve morale. Moreover, I think most managers know this intuitively and have only lacked a workable structure and a decent intellectual justification for what they have always known could work and work well. (245) Mintzberg’s organization structure model includes the strategic apex, middle line, operating core, support staff, and technostructure that delineate authority and organizational functions within a hierarchy of importance to the organization (Five 232- 244). Finally, structural theory was expanded with Gulick’s mnemonic, POSDCORB, which stands for “planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting” (94). It is interesting that Gulick cautions that “technical efficiency”, which is derived from the ideal bureaucratic form, may not be possible when “[...] work divisions which are non-homogeneous in work, in technology, or in purpose will encounter the danger of friction and inefficiency; and that a unit based on a given specialization cannot be given technical direction by a layman” (91). Bureaucracy is intended to minimize irrationality. The depersonalized nature of bureaucracy, however, does not allow the full exercise of discretion by the administrator confronted by forces outside this domain or ambiguities attendant to human relations. 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Inherent rigidity is recognized as bureaucracy’s most apparent flaw; many have observed it stresses structure over the dynamics of human interaction in organizations. Gulick interjects the human element and attempts to empower the executive within the bureaucracy as the actor able to move and mold the organization toward a vision and goals. To do the one best way now requires considerations beyond the bureaucratic structure. To do so is to rely on the human resources of the organization that do not necessarily operate efficiently or rationally. Selznick observes that bureaucratic structures “[...] never succeed in conquering the nonrational dimensions of organizational behavior” (Selznick, Foundations 127). Mary Parker Follett’s contribution to organization behavior was the pragmatic recognition that “the giving of orders” by the executive requires one to recognize there is a “law of the situation” that is contingent upon the context of decision making. Also, Follett believed that employees should be involved in that decision making, “to have credit of any innovation which the workers very much desire” (156-162). This theory of human relations was a clear repudiation of the depersonalized nature of leadership under scientific management and bureaucratic theory. This introduced the idea that the “one best way” was now organized differently to achieve another operating level of efficiency through human relations. Barnard suggests that incentives or “inducements” can serve as vehicles for employees to cooperate and bind their contributions to improvements to the organization countering the negative effects attached to perceived threats from change (142-149). The internal mechanics of organization with its dynamic of human behavior interact to strive for purpose and meaning. The “one best way” in the 115 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. scientific/bureaucratic and behavioral paradigms works best in the insular world of the organization. However, such purposes cannot exist without taking into account the interaction of the organization with its environment where the flow of ideas and innovations develop. The systems and organic views of organization by such theorists as Bums and Stalker (1961), Thompson (1967), Katz and Kahn (1978), and Wheatley (1994), and Scott (1981) must prevail if the organization is to survive. As Scott says, The need for innovation arises when adaptation to a change is outside the scope of existing programs designed for the purpose of keeping the system in balance. New programs have to be evolved in order for the system to maintain internal harmony. New programs are created by trial and error search for feasible action alternatives to cope with a given change. But innovation is subject to the limitations and possibilities inherent in the quantity and variety of information present in a system at a particular time. (Scott 267) From the perspective of the executive, the boundary spanning behavior required to tap into this setting requires systems thinking and consideration of the “one best way” beyond the bounds of one’s experience in a static bureaucratic setting. A bureaucratic environment that values rules and regulations sometimes militates against innovation and creativity. Paraphrasing Herbert Simon, in Administrative Behavior, 1947 there are certain barriers to innovation that the administrator must take into account: Turnover can produce change in an organization’s culture. Individuals must adapt to the prevailing values of the organization system. Expectations and collective history combine to buttress the level of predictability from interaction of organizational members. Acculturation creates efficiency in operation and processes that facilitates the introduction of innovation. Staff turnover disrupts the process and diminishes the expectations of positive outcomes. 116 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stability is a hallmark of bureaucratic organizations. Embedded cultures do not move to adopt innovations easily. The stifling effect from rigidity creates friction and transaction costs decreasing the likelihood that innovations will be adopted. Wilson noted in Bureaucracy that ’’absent the market that would impose a fitness test on any organizational change, a changed public bureaucracy can persist in doing the wrong thing” (227). Innovation for schools requires that the administrator have an entrepreneurial frame of mind and a willingness to take risks. The level of risks is a function of his/her own assessment of the supporting cast within the school district and their willingness to embrace innovation in practice. Sustaining Distinctiveness is costly, and implementing innovation requires motivation, resource commitment, and a strategic orientation of the organization that is difficult in public education organizations. Staff training to adapt the innovations to their instructional motif not only requires change but the dedication and leadership of the Public School Administrator behind the effort. This is necessary, as successful adaptation to innovation requires affirmation in the existing culture. Herbert Simon went on to say, In whichever direction the ideas flow through the organization, it is clear that nothing will happen unless they do flow. Normally, the learning associated with a new product must be highly diffused through the organization - many people have to learn many things - and such lateral diffusion and transfer is far from automatic or easy. It must overcome motivation obstacles and it must cross-cognitive boundaries. (235) These barriers and boundaries are the hurdles Public Choice (Tiebout, 1956; Moe, 1990; Chubb and Moe, 1990), Total Quality Management (TQM) (Deming, 1986; Bonstigl, 1992: Monk, 1993; Hackman and Wageman, 1995), with its methods to 117 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. improve quality processes in production of products and services, and New Public Management (Allison, 1980; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Frederickson, 1997), that seeks to merge private and public into a generic management through incentives, sought to overcome. These initiatives filled the vacuum occupied by the public perception of poor governmental performance, lack of responsiveness to its citizenry, and deliberate efforts by a lethargic public administration leadership to forestall innovation and renewal practices. In large measure, the political elite abandoned support for the governmental status quo and looked elsewhere for theoretical methods and practices that could infuse change. The change they sought was greater efficiency by expedient means. While the ends of government, “[...] accountability, fairness, effectiveness, remain as important as before” (B. Guy Peters 201). Another reform movement began to take shape forming a new paradigm with reliance on market theory. The implications for innovation in the public school system has had unintended consequences, however. Ostrom in The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration suggests, “[...] the sense of crisis that has pervaded the field of public administration over the last generation has been evoked by the insufficiency of the paradigm inherent in the traditional theory of public administration” (15). One might add that the paradigm of the market is insufficient to initiate changes in public administrators’ innovative behaviors because the value system of governance goes beyond the emphasis on choice, customer, and efficiency to considerations of democratic principles, citizenship, and effectiveness. It is apparent that the market paradigm has limitations as was described in previous chapter on competition. In 1953, Dahl and Lindblom contemplated, in Bozeman’s terms, that “economics centered on choice and allocation is a central problem for the public 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. administration discipline.” Bozeman went on to say, “providing a complement to market-failure theory, the public-failure model underscores the need to consider public values, irrespective of market efficiency [...] the market is efficient because it fails to ensure public values” (157). Ostrom further supports the notion that an awareness of the flaws, [...] is but a step along the way toward developing a critical self- consciousness of both the opportunities and constraints inherent in the human condition [...]. When we use the method of normative inquiry [...] we learn how methodological individualism can be used to create cognitive links among observers and the observed in studying the nature and constitution of order in human societies. (168) Such an inquiry invites an analysis of theory and its consequences when practiced. This is no less apparent when focusing on innovation and competition. Several writers looking into the subject of this nexus have concluded that competition is not sufficient to induce innovation or its diffusion among schools. Charter schools are the most visible instrument of the market paradigm in the education market. Berliner and Biddle have suggested in The Manufactured Crisis that competition is hurting rather than helping students and public education generally. The application of competition in public school systems is having unintended consequences that are translating into underperformance (246). Henig comments that, [...] the call for restructuring along a market-based choice model may pull us in exactly the wrong direction. The problem is not choice per se, but the particular approach to choice that poses it as an alternative to public governance rather than as a tool of public governance. (149) Henig goes on to describe the lessons of the experience with the market paradigm in public education and innovation creation as mixed at best (149-169). Good and Braden conclude the crisis in public education is really a crisis of theory and the 119 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. misapplication of reform initiatives that get in the way of the primary purpose of student learning (27-51). Finally, Sarason asserts that charter schools are a flawed reform that is based on a private theory of reinvention (112). DeLeon and Denhardt are even more forceful in their criticism, [...] reinvention’s faith in self-interest as a motivating force for public action is misplaced: it denigrates the role of collaborative action, produces an impoverished vision of the public interest, tends to exclude some persons from the public arena, and reduces trust among citizens and between them and their government (93) These criticisms invite consideration of a new transcendent leadership model that will make it possible for the public administrator to function effectively and embrace innovative education practices more willingly than through competition alone. Robertson and Seneviratne suggest that some private initiatives work in public sector entities albeit conditioned by the context and change agent as leader of the process (555). Daft and Lengel in Fusion Leadership present a model that fuses the interests of the individual and organization through mindfulness, vision, heart, communication, courage, and integrity to solve problems and conditioning for the introduction of innovation. The result is “focused joint actions of individuals and the organization in concert with changes in the environment” (199). Fusion leadership embodies the idea that relationships create identity and distinctive qualities that mold the innovation to the cultural imperative. Without these relationships, innovation is without the prospect of diffusion. Evans has emphasized timing, incrementalism, and a binary leadership style that allow ideas to flow up and down the organization (242). This enables organizations to 120 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. become more permeable and receptive to innovation. Sergiovanni sees that leadership in this context is really an expression of “civic virtue” which places an “[...] emphasis on reciprocal responsibilities - a critical ingredient in community building” (181). That community is best expressed in culture (Schein, 1992). Rosabeth Moss Kanter in the article, “Creating the Culture for Innovation,” observes that the likelihood for innovation is greater for organizations that are conditioned to expect change. Laggard cultures find it difficult to innovate from “conventional wisdom” and are hesitant and risk averse (84-85). Pfeffer’s entreaty is when building a culture of innovation, simply “avoid conventional management wisdom” (95). And, Pottruck suggests that to overcome conventional wisdom the administrator must animate “beliefs and values that give meaning, purpose and direction” (121). These characteristics of the innovative administrator and organization as Tushman and O’Reilly have noted are best describe as “ambidextrous”. Organizations can sustain their competitive advantage by operating in multiple modes simultaneously - managing for short-term efficiency by emphasizing stability and control, as well as for long-term innovation by taking risks and learning by doing. Organizations that operate this way may be thought of as ambidextrous - hosting multiple, internally inconsistent architectures, competencies, and cultures, with built-in capabilities for efficiency, consistency, and reliability on the one hand and experimentation, improvisation, and luck on the other. (167) This balance also characterizes transformational leadership when “one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality [...] their purposes [...] become fused” (Bums 101). 121 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. All of these theorists have contributed to the evolution of public administration reform that has served as the theory basis for charter schools as a means to improve not only student performance but administrative of performance as well. The charter school as an instrument for innovation requires administrative acumen and a demeanor that can foster charter school innovation’s likelihood for success in the public school system. Administrative training and experience dictate to what degree the administrator values innovation and can institute this value in the school organization and social structure. It is important to recognize that adapting innovations from competitive elements outside the realm of the school setting can leverage student performance. The challenge of the public school administrator is to arrive at a balance between boundary maintenance of organization integrity and assimilating external innovative techniques into the school system to foster higher student achievement. To create this “incubator” the administrator must embrace the possibilities that can be gained from innovation and be willing to move staff in the direction of positive change. There is risk involved and the possibility for failure, but without this enlightened and adaptive behavior, the prospect that the competitors’ innovations may attract students away from the existing school system structure. The Charter school as an external model for innovation can become the incubator that could help school districts overcome the barriers to innovation while minimizing the costs of implementation. If working models exist outside the public school context, adaptation becomes incremental rather than comprehensive. Successful platforms for reform stem from successes that are practiced. The reciprocal nature of innovation and imitation can yield greater effects if open communication and transparency exist between the district and charter. 122 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The question remains whether such an environment exists that will promote and nurture innovation? The purpose of this study is to answer this question by studying the charter school and what it has to offer to the knowledge base of the parent school district. A better understanding of public school’s adaptive mechanisms is needed. Does the school district have the intelligence apparatus to gain from the charter school experiment? Are reciprocity and collaboration necessary ingredients to innovation in the face of competition from Charter schools? The public school administrator in his/her role as change agent must be able to organize multiple, conflicting perspectives presented by the competitive alternatives to shape a responsiveness to the process of innovation. Kotter in Leading Change has outlined a process for creating successful change: 1. Establish a sense of urgency 2. Create the guiding coalition 3. Develop a vision and strategy 4. Communicate the change vision 5. Empower broad-based action 6. Generate short-term wins 7. Consolidate gains and produce more change, and 8. Anchor the new changes in the culture (103) Kotter asserts that their antonym, not doing so for each phase, portends transformation failure (101-109). Implementing successful change requires patience and a demeanor that will allow the administrator to analyze the situation and appreciate the evolutionary characteristics of change. This gives the administrator space and time to maximize information retrieval during the process of consideration of the innovation’s application to the public school context. Neustadt and May’s statement about the context for innovation is insightful 123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. when they say, “[...] thinking in time-streams is imagining the future as it may be when it becomes the past - with some intelligible continuity but richly complex and able to surprise” (253-254). As an innovator, the administrator becomes the linkage between the organization, its environment, and the connection with the staff one relies upon to use the innovation. Innovation has no real meaning and value without continuity from past to present and possible future. Where invention as object and its subject, innovation, mesh is the interstice that defines the quality of public school administration. Constructive use of administration methods that foster innovation for the school setting will determine its value. Public school administrators become, in Bolman and Deal’s words, “[...] playful theorists who can see organizations through a complex prism. They will be negotiators able to design elastic strategies that simultaneously shape events and adapt to changing circumstances” (380). In large measure, an innovation’s diffusion requires a process of “reframing” the context as Bolman and Deal display in the following table: Table 1. Reframing Organization Change Frame Barriers to Change Essential Strategies Human Resource Anxiety, uncertainty, feelings of incompetence, neediness Training to develop new skills, participation and involvement, psychological support Structural Loss of clarity and stability, confusion, chaos Communicating, realigning and renegotiating formal patterns and policies Political Disempowerment, conflict between winners and losers Creating arenas where issues can be renegotiated and new coalitions formed Symbolic Loss of meaning and purpose, clinging to the past Creating transition rituals: mourning the past, celebrating the future Source: Lee Bolman and Terrence E. Deal, Reframing Organizations, 2n d Edition, 321. 124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reframing is inclusive rather than an exclusive process. The catalyst takes the form of organizational learning where the innovation’s chemistry seeks its niche through a receptive bonding and application in the organization. Integrating this learning into the process facilitates a sense of spontaneity that is agile and nimble. Organizational learning must become a core competence of the administrator and organization so that the long term viability of the organization is sustained. Organizational learning requires an appreciation of what other organizational cultures can bring to an organization’s development (Argyris, 1965; Argyris and Schon, 1970; Senge, 1999). This coevolution that originated in biology and is described by Eisenhardt and Galunic as, [...] successive changes among two or more ecologically interdependent but unique species is such that their evolutionary trajectories become intertwined over time. As these species adapt to their environment, they also adapt to one another. The result is an ecosystem of partially interdependent species that adapt together. This interdependence is often symbiotic (each species helps the other), but it can also be commensalist (one species uses the other). Competitive interdependence can emerge as well: one species may drive out the other, or both species may evolve into distinct, non competitive niches [...]. (113) From this perspective sponsoring school district administrators should “simply set the context and then let collaboration (and competition) emerge” from the process (112). Competition and collaboration only make sense if the relationship is synergetic and valuable to both parties. According to Baumol, firms do not yield maximum value by withholding the benefits of innovation from the market. The maximum yield requires application to the market that other firms can adapt to their own purposes. The return to the innovator is a higher yield by relinquishing to the market. Baumol conjectures that “20% of the total economic benefits of innovations go to those who invest directly or indirectly in m aking 125 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. them happen. The rest of the benefit spills over to society at large” (3). So we can conclude that it is in the best interests of both the sponsoring school district and charter school to share inventions through cross-fertilization, which increases value, rather than horde the innovation and decrease value. But the reality is that the current environment, that is competition driven, may not be conducive to sharing. Tension and friction from change is greatest when school districts are faced with a diminishing market share or demand for their education product or service output. The reason for this is that the adaptive mechanisms are primarily geared toward maintaining the integrity of internal structures rather than expanding their adaptive boundaries by adopting innovations existing in the environment that will retain and attract additional students to their education programs. The latter approach requires an organic view of organization and a different, more responsive administrative skill set that organizes responses to change with an ecosystem perspective in mind. Research on innovation has demonstrated that those firms that are able to innovate are better able to respond competitively and have a stronger market presence by creating value through their innovative practices. As Tidd, Bessant, and Pavitt declare, “innovation can enhance competitiveness, but it requires different sets of management knowledge and skills [...].” (ix). Those skills include managing market forces, technological expertise, and guiding organizational change and organizational learning. While innovation is not necessary to maintain an organization in the short run, the risk of not employing innovative techniques risks organization dissolution. It is imperative that organizations pursue innovation processes to respond to changing environmental conditions that put them at risk. 126 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The irony is that the reluctance to change in response to innovation, emanates from a reliance on past successes that were innovative but are now embedded in the organization. Breaking free becomes a process of changing the existing paradigm of stasis to one that embraces change as a dynamic quality of organization development and improvement. In a broader sense, the innovation phenomenon that is demonstrated at the organization level also affects the broader social framework. Schon observed that: The loss of the stable state means that our society and all of its institutions are in continuing processes of transformation [...]. We must learn to understand, guide, influence and manage these transformations. We must make the capacity for undertaking them integral to ourselves and to our institutions. We must, in other words, become adept at learning. We must become able not only to transform our institutions, in response to change situations and requirements; we must invent and develop institutions which are Teaming systems’, that is to say, systems capable of bringing about their own continuing transformation. (30) Administrators must be attuned to these nuances and willing to implement organizational learning as part of their practice. Innovation is a rational process that derives from pre-determined preferences calculated in measurable terms. Simon’s analysis of the distinction between the objective and subjective rationality is in order: [...] rationality is concerned with the selection of preferred behavior alternatives in terms of some system of values whereby the consequences of behavior be evaluated [...] a decision may be called ‘objectively’ rational if in fact it is the correct behavior for maximizing given values in a given situation. It is ‘subjectively’ rational if it maximizes attainment relative to the actual knowledge of the subject. (Simon, Shape 75-76) The assumption that innovation can be directed and controlled in advance of diffusion (objective rationality) would be called anticipatory. But some innovation is functionally unpredictable (subjective rationality) in the organizational context. Innovations introduced to the organization always have unintended consequences outside 127 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the administrators’ control. Consequently, their fiduciary role to sustain the organization requires a more adept and nimble management of the process than in the past where a more sedate administration was exercised. This learning process does not emphasize the makeup of the product, only the environmental framework within which the administrator exercises judgment and decision making. This is an ethic that holds principle as a constant that will prevail over the onslaught of changes that may temper application of the innovation. This ethic places a priority on process over product, knowing that product will be a byproduct as the process evolves. Such an environment embraces an open frame of mind to build on the strengths of the administrator and the organization’s resiliency and responsiveness to change to overcome the uncertainties associated with organizational learning. Those uncertainties play into actions by the administrator who enacts principles that guide the course of response to innovation. In this state of flux, continuity must still be maintained as collective intelligence and cultural history will define the limits of acceptability. Without continuity, the progressive formation, trial and evolution of projective models cannot occur (Schon 233-236). This existential referent conditions applicability. The innovation product suddenly becomes the administrators’ pragmatic consideration of the projective model’s ideal form and prospect for successful infusion: The learning agent (administrator) must be willing and able to make the leaps required in existential knowledge. These are the leaps from informational overload to the first formulation of the problem, from an absence of theory to convergence on a design for public action, and from the experience of one situation to its use as a projective model in the next instance. These are leaps, because they cannot be justified except by what happens after they are made. They are conditions, not consequences, of knowledge. 128 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The learning agent must be able to synthesize theory, to formulate new projective models, out of his experience of the situation, while he is in the situation [...]. In carrying projective models to the next instance, the learning agent must be able to maintain his projective model as a basis for action while at the same time regarding it as a point of view on the situation. If he is unable to act on it, he will be unable to act at all. If he is unable still to regard it as a point of view, he will be incapable of abandoning or modifying it in the here-and-now of the new situation. This paradoxical combination of tentativeness and resolution is the characteristic mode of existence of the projective model; and the ability to sustain it is the characteristic property of the agent of existential knowledge. (235-236) These models can lead administrators to gain insights that will enhance their effectiveness. In turn, the application of the charter school innovation model requires administrators to recognize that changing the organization to enhance organizational performance can solve problems of student achievement through experimentation and risk taking while minimizing development costs. The projective models are heuristic in that they are “instruments for experimenting [...] with different hypothetical approaches to complex issues and problems, whether they concern the content of and rationale for policies or the institutional and procedural means of accomplishing intended results” (Lynn 100). Heuristics provides administrators with flexibility and ways to adopt innovations to the school district’s context without major disruptions to the education program. Implementation is incremental and, thus, less threatening to the bureaucracy; this increases the likelihood for successful innovation diffusion. An education program’s adaptability and effectiveness is a function of the administrators’ ability and methods in determining the strengths and deficiencies in the program. The administrator must assume the role of the evaluator who must diagnose and define the substance of program performance, focus interventions and develop 129 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. methods that will address perceived weaknesses in education program delivery. In this way the administrator can produce positive changes in student performance. This scanning process involves a search for internal and external innovations that present opportunities that can be incorporated into the school that will be value added. The construction of program effectiveness is dependent on consumer and education community preference analysis through program evaluation. Evaluation methods are used to determine the input factors that are preferential and can modify the program outputs accordingly. The evaluation exercise is used to determine the extent to which an education program can cause changes in the desired direction to improve student performance. This phase identifies the core competencies of the organization available to exploit innovation. The evaluation must take into account the existence of the multiple interests and preferences of parents and students who bring different education values when selecting a program. The administrator seeks to determine those preferences through assessment and design a program that will accommodate those preferences. The evaluation is used to “make judgments and provide findings that can be used to substantiate judgments” (Rossi and Freeman 407). These judgments can be facilitated by administrative techniques applied appropriately to the different contexts of operation and innovation adoption. Clayton’s typology is a method of learning and innovation that depend on context and the change variables. The typology is an instrument for analysis of innovation and methods for implementation: Change Focus Change Approaches Mission (goals, tasks) Strategic Planning, Goal Setting, MBO, Privatization 130 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. People Human Relations, TQM, Quality Circles, Team Building, Employee Empowerment Structure Organizational Redesign, Organizational Planning, Incentive Systems, Centralization/Decentralization Technology Process Reengineering, Computerization, Contracting Out Culture Socialization Processes, Symbolic Approaches Internal Climate Attitude Surveys, Supervisory Training External Environment Environmental Scanning Processes, Boundary Spanning, Network Building, Marketing, Technology Scouting (Clayton 5) The savvy administrator can use these approaches to fit the innovation to the school organization. Assessing and measuring success after introduction is another matter. Public school systems use a variety of education effectiveness measures to determine performance. Test scores are the most frequently used example. There are other measures, however, when added to the program assessment profile, can help to determine a program’s quality by providing a more complete picture of how a school is performing. From Levin we are shown examples and their measures: 131 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2. Examples of Effectiveness Measures Program Objective Measure of Effectiveness Program completions Number of students completing program Reducing dropouts Number of potential dropouts who graduate Employment of graduates Number of graduates placed in appropriate jobs Student learning Test scores in appropriate domains utilizing appropriate test instruments Student satisfaction Student assessment of program on appropriate instrument to measure satisfaction Physical performance Evaluation of student physical condition and physical skills Advance college placement Number of courses and units received by students in advance placement, by subject College placement Number of students placed in colleges of particular types Source: Henry M. Levin, Cost-Effectiveness, A Primer, 115. These cost effectiveness measures provide the means through which administrators can determine the effectiveness of their programs. This “benchmarking” provides valuation measurements for the school as it relates to its educational context. The difficulty arises when the measures are tangible but for the most part unquantifiable since the judgments by the consumer are variable and do not necessarily represent the broader community preference profile. The subjective nature of this assessment process should be considered as unique to the education program under construction rather than used to make universal judgements about other settings. The essence of the profile is that it must be flexible and adaptable to individual and community preferences over time. The assessment process involves establishing the relative value and utility of those interested in the program. The alternatives can be weighted and measured as to their value to the school community to determine consensual preferences and definitions 132 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of what represents a qualitative program. The set of preferences can be assigned utilities with high to value to low value gradations on an ordinal scale of preference. The rating system can then be employed to determine the school’s profile and effectiveness. While the measures are extrinsically valid, the assumptions that underlie the selection process and extrinsic responses may not provide a full measure of satisfaction within the program. There can be other intrinsic factors that may not be apparent in the assessment process. The sum of valuation and utility scores of the community will not match individual preference scores. The administrator must take into consideration this qualifier in evaluating innovation and its effectiveness measures. The new paradigm “[...] is about envisioning and helping to shape networks and contributions and processes in order to weave rich new economic (organizational) tapestries” (J. Moore 6). System thinking that can liberate the public administrator from the constraints of a rigid bureaucratic system. It invites engagement and an activist approach to public administration. This means working outside the boundaries of the organization. There is no longer an invisible hand that is serendipitous but a visible leadership that is present and deliberate, turning the organization from the distractions of a competitive environment to one focused on a cooperative venture in value creation. The next chapter discusses the methods employed to answer the research questions and introduces Findings and Summary, Conclusions, and Implications for Administrator Innovative Behavior. The remaining chapters draw from this review of the literature to build a foundation that will add to the knowledge base in the field of public administration. 133 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter IV METHODOLOGY This chapter introduces the methodology employed in this research project. The qualitative research design follows Rudestam and Newtons’ (2001) prescription and other research methods literature (Booth, et. al., 1995; White and Adams, 1994; and, Johnson and Joslyn, 1995). Qualitative research must consider the theoretical underpinnings of the research, context of the inquiry, subject matter schema, instrumentation, data collection and analysis, and transparency that will present valid conclusions, and “trustworthiness.” The research is delimited so that “limitations on the research design are imposed deliberately [...] delimitations usually restrict the populations to which the results of the study can be generalized” (Rudestam and Newton 91). These elements to a qualitative study are encapsulated into the following subject headings: Research Context, Subject and Participant Characteristics, Research Design, and Procedures for data collection in preparation for analysis. This regime frames the sequential process that was followed to answer the research questions. This study’s methodology is organized to determine whether public school administrators’ innovation impulses are intensified by the degree of competition from charter schools. A targeted interview process was initiated with selected school administrators in different competitive environments in California to learn from their impressions and experience how they are responding to charter school competition. The research attempts to uncover whether their training and education was sufficient to prepare them to operate in a competitive environment, and how the Administrative 134 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Services Credential can be improved to ready future administrators for the competition paradigm. This study differs from the current research on alternative programs that focuses on choice and, in economic terms, on demand. Rather, this research delves into the competition/innovation nexus from the perspective of the public school administrator who must design innovative programs that are attractive to parents and students from the supply side. The intent of the study is not to distract from the merits of choice or its research emphasis but to bring into focus other factors involved in the subject of choice such as competition and innovation as vehicles for education program development to improve student achievement. This research methodology is intended to reveal public school administrators’ innovative capacity, creativity, responsiveness to charter school programs, and sensitivity to their clients; these factors are believed to determine their ultimate effectiveness in this new public school arena. What follows will be a discovery and illumination of these conditions that either embrace change or are constrained by the extant public school bureaucratic system that has been characterized as static, rigid, and unresponsive to a changing environment. This research attempts to discover through its research instruments, the compelling nature and level of competition that can influence the degree of change while gauging the intensity of the public school administrators’ innovative spirit. And, more importantly, it attempts to discover what phenomena operating in the environment are conducive to innovation adoption and diffusion? The next section introduces the research context where the research regime and its techniques of inquiry were employed. 135 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Research Context Qualitative studies challenge researchers to validate their conclusions when they delve into the nature and essence of human behavior that tends to elude quantification. From this perspective, as Kaplan says, “[...] knowledge of human beings consists in the apprehension of qualities” (206). Qualitative research is necessarily beyond quantification and statistical interpretation of human behavior phenomena. It is fair to say that a process of inquiry is a process of intimation that will hint of truth from consistent behavior in response to the existential. The validity of a study rests in the ability of the modalities employed to capture behavioral phenomenon that can be uniformly observed or not observed through a methodology that delimits and defines the criteria by which such behavior is measured and valued. Kaplan holds that these qualities can be apprehended such that conclusions about their existence can be recognized and noted as valid from their sameness and recurrence (208-9). Also, qualitative research can be strengthened by quantification through typology, analogy, and nominal and ordinal statistics. The standard deviations from behavioral norms invite us to consider how quantification can buttress research observations and conclusions. To assess competition’s influence on the innovative impulse requires theoretical constructs from which metrics can be achieved. Development of such a framework in the California K- 12 school system begins by sorting the number of school systems within the education market and drawing from this base of information a more refined sampling that can be extended inductively to the larger context. 136 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There were in the 2002/03 school year 560 elementary, 95 high school, and 327 unified school districts in California that included 5,053 elementary and 918 high schools. Since the enabling legislation in 1992, charter schools have grown from 100 to 488: 460 active and 28 pending (2003 California School Directory). The student population in private and home schooling has also grown significantly. Consequently, there is a concerted effort by public school officials to attract and retain students and accrue revenue from their attendance. To gain an understanding of the competitive dynamic and its possible influence on innovative behavior requires delimiting the research to a manageable level without compromising the significance or validity of the research. Accordingly, administrators from 30 public school districts with their 93 charter schools were randomly selected to participate in interviews and surveys to determine the competition and innovation nexus and to learn to what degree competition is observed that could change public administrator behavior. This is a significant sample. The selected school districts’ enrollments range from a low of 451 to a high of 141,599. The total student population, including their charter schools, is 651,416 which is 9.8% of the total public school student population in California (2003 California School Directory). Within this sample is 9 elementary, 3 high school, and 18 unified school districts, the sample is proportional to the State’s school district population. Beyond these statistics are individuals that can provide information about their relationships with charter school and program directors who can provide valuable insights. To elicit appropriate responses during the interviews and surveys requires a relationship that is trustworthy and credible. 137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This inquiry assumes a quality of its own from the social interaction of the research project itself. From theory, an impulse to research requires “a quality of mind that will help us to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within [ . . (Mills 5). This research impels the researcher to engage with the subjects of the research through a social exchange. Social exchange is a theory of human behavior used to explain the development and continuation of human interaction. The theory asserts that actions of individuals are motivated by the return these actions are expected to bring, and in fact usually do bring, from others. (Dillman 14) Social exchange theory facilitates consideration of the rewards, costs, and trust that temper the level of engagement and to narrow the study’s scope and sequence by using the Tailored Design Method (TDM) (3-31). TDM has been employed in that the interviews and surveys were orchestrated around an inquiry designed to answer specific questions attendant to the desired aim of the study while fulfilling the requirements attached to the TDM. Reward for the participants will be gained from a greater understanding and awareness of the school programs’ competitive Context and efforts to change through innovation. Hopefully, their participation has added to their knowledge about education program design. Costs were minimized through random sampling. And, trust was gained through unobtrusive methods designed to secure responses without risking respondents’ identities. Although the research methodology is bounded, it is designed to obtain valid conclusions that have broad implications for the school administrator. The next section focuses on those subjects who participated in the research project. Their respective roles 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and connections with charter schools provide them the necessary background and experience to answer the research questions insightfully. Subject and Participant Characteristics This section describes the participant’s characteristics and addresses why their roles and connections with charter schools are relevant to the research project. The Case Study: A school district’s experience with charter school innovation and impacts on administrators’ behaviors were analyzed in this study. Suggestions from prior research that there is little if any innovation by charter schools and what exists is not readily transferable is by this example a questionable conclusion. The study revealed existence of innovation in the form of distance learning that impacted the behavior of the sponsoring school district superintendent who initiated an innovation transfer to the classroom. This example invited consideration of the broader environment where other examples might be discovered that would unveil the innovation phenomena occurring between other school districts and their charter schools. Schools Subject to Interview and Survey: The public school districts chosen for this study, along with their charter schools, were selected from the 2003 California School Directory as a purposive sample. Their number represents 3% of the school districts listed in the directory. Only those school districts sponsoring charter schools in their jurisdictions were chosen. Among California’s 982 school districts, 178 (18.1%) had charter schools in 2003. From this pool, 30 (16.9 %) school districts were randomly selected, taking into consideration their geographic location in California, balance of urban and rural school districts, and array of 139 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. elementary, high school, and unified school districts. The desire was that, by their selection, they would fairly mirror the responses that would be expected from other California school districts with charter schools. It is hoped that the research results will also contribute to a greater understanding of charter school competition and innovation for the benefit of unchartered school districts that may be considering granting charter schools within their school district. This research with school districts was supplemented by a survey of the 93 charter schools located in these school districts to gauge their connections and competitive influence on the sponsoring school district administrators’ innovative behaviors. Demographics, Achievement, and Performance Rankings: In addition to interviews and surveys, the researcher sought out statistical data on student demographics, achievement indexes and performance rankings, and comparative measures that would provide insight into student achievement and reveal additional information that would be relevant to the research project. Adding this latter information lends to the robustness of the data and opens up the prospect of other possible explanations and answers to the research questions. These data also hint at future research that would further our understanding of the charter school competition and innovation nexus. Specific information acquired includes student enrollments, data on the schools’ Academic Performance Index (API), and measures of competition and market share within the focal subject’s education market. Student enrollments were obtained with the assumption that school districts with lower enrollments may be more sensitive to charter school influences than larger school districts. The API was used to determine whether academic performance is linked to 140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. charter school existence in the school district. Does charter school presence lead to changes in the sponsoring school district? Do school districts without charter schools perform less well? Measures of competition were employed to determine what level of competition in the education market would spur efforts by public school administrators to initiate innovative practices within their districts to retain and/or increase enrollments. To answer the research questions and other questions attached to the charter school competition/innovation nexus requires that the researcher rely on administrators in school districts who are closely connected to their charter schools and can provide a reasoned assessment of the relationship. Charter school program directors also play a significant role in the research by revealing their perceptions about their school’s contribution to the sponsoring school district’s education programs. Specifically, do charter schools provide evidence that innovation is occurring that is transferable to the sponsoring school district as was originally intended by California’s charter school enabling legislation of 1992? School Administrators and Organization Role: The school administrators selected as respondents to the interview and survey instruments were in close contact with their charter school(s). It was expected that they could provide cogent responses to the research. These respondents included Superintendents, Superintendent Principals, Deputy Superintendents, Area Administrators, Principals, Assistant Superintendents of Curriculum and Instruction, and Assistant Superintendents for Business Services. There were specialists as well who work primarily in larger school districts with titles such as Director for Public Sector Initiatives and Community Services, Director of Magnet Programs, Director of Schools 141 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and Programs, and Equity Assurance. Each of these specialists had a liaison responsibility with their school district’s charter school(s) that made them good candidates/subjects for this research. Charter school program directors were given the survey since they are the direct liaisons with the sponsoring school district and have the most intimate knowledge about their interconnections. The intent was to secure responses that would provide insights into charter school relationships with the school district and help to gauge the extent of competition and innovation transfer between them. The next section introduces the research design and protocol used to secure information and answers to the research questions. The protocol framed the research to provide insight into the charter school competition/innovation nexus and discover whether or not innovation transfer is occurring as evidenced by diffusions to the sponsoring school district. Research Design This research into charter school competition and the roles of charter schools in innovation creation and diffusion was both qualitative and quantitative. Measurements were derived from answers to questions contained in the interview and survey instruments. The instruments were crafted to gain a full understanding of respondent answers and to facilitate inferences from their responses to the other educators outside the participant pool. A byproduct of the instruments was the creation of a typology of participant expressions and answers. 142 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Instrumentation: Research that relies on interviews and surveys must be fitted to the context and anticipated participation by the subjects. According to Dillman, the design of research must be tailored so there is [...] respondent trust and perceptions of increased rewards and reduced costs for being a respondent, which take into account features of the survey situation and have as their goal the overall reduction of survey error. [...] Actions are motivated by the return these actions are expected to bring and in fact, usually do bring, from others. The likelihood of responding to the request to complete a self-administered questionnaire, and doing so accurately, is greater when the respondent trusts that the expected rewards of responding will outweigh the anticipated costs. (27) The importance of the Tailored Design Method is that it defines survey research in terms of a social exchange where the ends of the research are only as valuable as the means through which the interviews and surveys proceed. The premise of TDM is that a well-crafted survey instrument and thoughtful engagement in the research process will produce better results than a less focused and untested protocol. Ethical Considerations: Research that is conducted to obtain responses from subjects requires a research protocol that is ethical and gains the participant’s trust and confidence in the inquiry. Also, the researcher has a fiduciary responsibility to report findings that are consistent with the information received even when it differs from expected conclusions. This is why it is important for the researcher to be aware of the concerns of subjects about the research through advance field testing of inquiry before implementing the methodology so the researcher can minimize the risks associated with the research design (Rudestam and Newton 266). 143 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Two main ethical issues that pertain to using subjects in social science research are the need for fully informed consent to participate and the need to emerge from the experience unharmed" (265). The interview and survey population was considered at “minimal risk” because the subjects were public officials accustomed to respond to such inquiries from the public. Although informed consent is not required, the elements of informed consent were considered important and were included in the interview and survey protocol to minimize respondent trepidation. Application of the elements included: • Participants were told who was conducting the study in advance. • Participants were told why they were singled out for participation. • Participants were given the estimated time that would be required to respond to the interviews and survey. • Participants were informed that the results of the study would help us understand charter school innovation and influence. Their participation would contribute to a better understanding of school administration theory and practice. • Participants were informed their responses would be held confidentially. • Participants were informed about the study, and the researcher offered to answer questions. • Participant involvement was voluntary. • Participants were provided with a copy of information about the study in advance of the interviews and surveys. • Participants did not receive remuneration for their responses. 144 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • Participants were informed they could receive a copy of the study’s findings by verbal or written request. The ultimate aim of this research is to obtain responses that will provide insights and answers to the research questions. Each participant, either the sponsoring district official and/or charter school program director, was encouraged to give forthright and truthful responses to achieve a fair representation of their experience with charter school competition and whether it fosters innovation. Such responses invite subjectivity; but, to the extent possible, their responses were categorized in the context of questions that were uniformly delivered. The responses were, for the most part, consistent with each that lends credence to the interview and survey instruments. The instruments also elicited views about charter school competition and innovation phenomena that were unexpected and profound. White and Adams describe this occurrence as “intersubjectivity” that “can be achieved with an explicit set of methods that refer the action of a fellow social actor to core values of a situation or culture to establish meaning” (234). The subject and the researcher are inextricably linked by communication, and research outcomes are extended to the broader public interest in the form of research results. Communication in the form of a conversation is intended to create an information exchange that is interesting and engenders confidence that what is being said will be fairly represented. The relationship between the researcher and the subject must be a trusting one as their conversation is the vehicle for deriving meaning from their responses. The meaning derived from responses must be aggregated, analyzed, and their mutual responses readied for dissemination. 145 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Interview Questionnaire: The primary purpose of the interviews was to obtain information that was relevant to the study and its research questions. The interview questions followed a sequence that would lead the respondent through a coherent question/answer sequence that flowed from one question to the next. Conversations with respondents indicate that the questions were clear and understandable; this was also evidenced by the fact there were few instances where the questions needed repeating. It consistently became clear to a respondent by the end of the interview that this was an interesting exercise and, typically, the interview ran longer than planned. The questionnaire (refer to Appendix A) frequently stimulated a discussion of other issues that added further understanding about the respondent’s opinions and attitudes toward charter schools some of which were unexpected and revealing. The questionnaire begins by asking, “how do you define innovation?” This question’s purpose was to obtain from the respondent their definition and begin their thinking about the charter school’s influence on their own administrative behaviors. Question 2 poses a question about the level of competition expressed as a percentage in their respective education market that would trigger initiatives to improve the sponsoring school district’s education program. Currently, 14% of California’s student population go to home schools, private schools, and charter schools that represent significant competitive elements in most school districts. The question seeks to identify the level that would move administrators to seek improvements that would capture a higher market share. 146 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Question 3 explores how knowledgeable the administrator is about alternative education in and outside the school district in hopes of gauging their sensitivity about competitive venues where students can find other forms of education fitted to their choice and preference. Questions 4, 5, and 6 seek to identify changes that have occurred since their charter school’s creation. Specifically, to what degree has the charter school influenced the district’s program on a scale from 1 to 10,10 being best? Two successive questions seek specific examples where change has occurred in both the school system’s instructional and non-instructional functions. Questions 7 and 8 were posed to determine if resources have been reallocated toward instructional and curriculum initiatives since the charter school was established. Has there been a significant, recognizable change in the school district? Given the variegated nature of school financing in the State of California, it is not outside the bounds of this question to identify other factors influencing school finances that are driven in large measure by enrollments. Answers to these questions are relevant to discovering what resources have been dedicated to improving education programs and might result in measurable gains in student achievement. Question 9 identifies the communication links that exist between the school district and its charter schools. The nature of the links will help determine if there are communication links particularly conducive to innovation exchanges, and to what degree competition and collaboration exist. Also, do communication links facilitate or hinder the innovation transfer(s)? 147 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Question 10 asks if the principal’s role has changed. Is there an expectation that they become more innovative? If so, this would indicate charter schools influence behaviors and change their sponsoring school systems. Question 11 addresses the respondent’s profile. This profile is used to determine whether their age, education, and professional experience make them more or less receptive to innovative practices and change. Their responses are a lead in to the next question; do they consider themselves innovators? Question 12 (added to the original questionnaire) seeks to determine if the respondent is more inclined to adopt innovations through competition or through collaboration with the charter school? The importance of this question is to test the validity of the 1992 legislation that assumes charter school competition will foster innovation in public schools. The question invites consideration of other avenues for fostering innovation and diffusion. Question 13 asks the administrator to gauge his/her own education, administrative training and professional experience that prepared him/her for charter school competition and his/her ability to make innovative contributions to their own education program. The question explores whether or not their background has prepared them to deal with charter school competition and other competition that exists within and without the school district’s jurisdiction. Their answers are an important basis for assessing whether or not their administrative credential has prepared them for alternative education practices. Question 14 invites the respondents to share their visions of the charter schools they would create if given the opportunity. The question explores how much of the charter school’s education program is their creation and provides an indication of their 148 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. level of knowledge about the charter school’s education program. The analysis of these responses seeks to determine consistency in their responses. Question 15 closes by asking whether any other questions should have been asked by the researcher, what are they, and what would have been answers to those questions? It is important to elicit responses that take into account the overall context of the interview. This question gives the respondent the opportunity to expand on their previous responses, express other ideas and issues about charter schools, and suggest strategies that would encourage charter school innovations that could be successfully introduced and adopted in sponsoring school districts. It also checks the instrument for content and delivery flaws. With the exception of one question added after the initial dissemination, the questionnaire appears to produce valid responses. From the researcher’s point of view, extended conversations gave depth and meaning to the issues surrounding respondents particular relationships with the charter schools. A full understanding could not have been achieved without the contributions from the charter school program directors who also responded separately to the survey instrument described below. Survey Questionnaire: The charter school program directors added another perspective that was valuable in gaining an understanding of the issues surrounding relationships with their sponsoring school district. The survey instrument was a more focused supplement to the interview process. The surveys added depth to the researcher’s understanding of issues underlying their potential to transfer innovations to the sponsoring school districts. 149 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Question 1 asks what innovations have been transferred and adapted to the sponsoring school district? The purpose is to demonstrate innovation and diffusion in practice that would validate the intent of the 1992 enabling legislation. Question 2 seeks to learn from the program directors whether or not there has been a perceptual change in the sponsoring school district since the establishment of the charter school? A positive response would indicate communication between the two entities is sufficient for considering what the charter school has to offer and the potential for innovation transfers to the sponsoring school district. Question 3 seeks to determine what form of communication exists between the two entities? And, are the links conducive to the transfer of innovative practices? Question 4 seeks to discover the health of the relationship between the two entities by either “ambivalent” at one end of the scale or “collaborative and cooperative” on the other end. This question relates back to the question about competition and collaboration in the interview. Question 5 asks if the district would respond differently to parents and students without the charter school? This question is focused on the importance of service levels in competitive environments that will achieve marginal benefits. Question 6 contrasts the program director role with that of the public school principal. Is there a difference? The assumption is that the program director is expected to be more entrepreneurial and innovative. Is this the case for the sponsoring school district principal? The program directors’ answers to the survey were intended to provide insight into the two separate cultures with different value systems. The ability to overcome 150 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. barriers that can exist between two entities is an important ingredient that can determine sustainability of the relationship, value to the sponsoring school district, and the charter school’s viability. The innovation imperative presumes open lines of communication. The next section describes the analytical procedures that followed the research project’s interview and survey phase. A diligent effort was made to assemble and organize the data for analysis that would lead to relevant findings and conclusions about the research results. Procedures This section describes the procedures and sequence of events during the research. The conduct of research sought to gain, through written and verbal communications, responses that were sincere and cogent. Valid responses were anticipated from field testing the instruments with peers and members of the Dissertation Committee beginning in the summer 2001. These field tests produced valuable suggestions to achieve most interest and responses to the questions from the participants. Once the field tests were complete, the final product was ready for mailing (Appendix A). A mailing list was compiled and readied for contact. Interview appointments were arranged by phone beginning in September 2001. The surveys were mailed to the charter school program directors concurrently. Another question for the interview questionnaire was added in November 2002; this question on competition and collaboration required follow-up with respondents that lasted through February 2003. The last survey response was received in November 2001. This formally ended the charter school program director survey phase of the research. 151 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Each participant was provided with a cover letter describing the research and disclosing the purpose, setting and context, methodology, researcher qualifications, and what was needed from a school district and its charter schools. Participants were provided a time estimate for the time required for their interview and surveys based on field-testing performed prior to the formal research effort. Respondents were welcome to request a summary report of the research findings verbally or in writing. Data Collection: All documentation that was used in the research was transcribed from participant conversations during interviews. Surveys were documented in the respondent’s own handwriting. Field notes and a journal were maintained tracking the progress of the research to completion. Data Preparation and Analysis: The data preparation and analysis was organized to answer the following research questions: How does the presence o f charter school(s) alter and/or affect the public school administrators ’ innovative behaviors? What explains the success or failure o f charter school innovation’ s transference and diffusion in public schools? What personal and professional attributes and characteristics prepare administrators to adopt charter school innovations? The preparation and analysis of data from the instruments is intended to allow the researcher to develop relevant conclusions from this research effort. The researcher 152 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. details “differences, similarities, anomalies, and patterns” that are most significant to the research (Booth, Colomb, and Williams 179). A qualitative research project requires a heuristic process of discovery as outlined by Rudestam and Newton: 1. Review each statement for how well it describes the experience. 2. Record all relevant statements. 3. Remove all statements that are redundant or overlap with others, leaving the key meaning units of the experience. 4. Organize the invariant meaning units into themes. 5. Coalesce the themes into a description of the textures of the experience and augment the description with quotations from the text. 6. Using your imagination and taking multiple perspectives to find possible meanings in the text, construct a description of the structures of your experience. 7. Create a textural-structural description of the meanings and essences of your experience. (Rudestam and Newton 157; Moustakas 122) Quantitative data are presented descriptively and graphically for effect. Proportions and magnitudes are depicted to support the research conclusions and their applicability for future research undertakings. Specific examples include: 1. Interview questions that requested the subject to respond to a scale from 1 to 10,10 being best, about charter school influences and the administrators’ education, administrative training, and experience. Also, responses are organized according to elementary, high school, and unified school districts. 2. Ratings of education and training that have prepared the administrator to innovate in response to charter school competition. 3. Answers to a question, expressed as a percentage, as to what level of competition would cause school districts to begin to make changes to the education program? 153 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4. A graphic display of the competitive market and market share of public private, home, and charter schools within counties where the sample sponsoring school districts reside to determine if competition is a factor that spurs innovative behavior. The organization of the questions and responses to the interview and survey questionnaires are sequenced according to content. The responses from each respondent are grouped for each question so that the researcher could then formulate meaning and draw conclusions from varying perspectives to develop an understandable data presentation. The subjective nature of the process required the researcher to extract and weave the common threads into a coherent theme as described in the next chapter. 154 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter V FINDINGS This chapter summarizes the subjects’ responses to the interview questionnaire. The chapter is organized to recapitulate their responses in a coherent and condensed presentation. Responses are presented in the sequence in which questions were posed during the administrator interviews to create both a thematic presentation and continuity. Where appropriate, charter school program director survey responses were incorporated with explanations of the respondents’ answers to the interview questions. Definition of Innovation The research questions begin first by asking how do you define innovation? This question is intended to capture a definition of innovation as described by the respondents. It is important to note that each respondent provided distinctly different definitions. But common threads were contained in their definitions. The most evident threads were terms such as “new” and “change”. Other more arcane phrases appear such as “responsible ways to getting the job done.” But if one were to create a generic definition weighted by the qualities, features, and elements that go into defining innovation it would be this: Innovation is the introduction o f new and unique ideas that change and improve traditional education methods and schools. Innovation creates improvements by deviating from the norms o f operation. It is interesting to note that one respondent stated that innovation must be “verified by data and be quantifiable.” Otherwise, innovation becomes “subjective and residing in the intuitive realm.” 155 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Defining innovation from the above definitions brings insight about the respondent’s understanding of innovation and its qualities. What was conspicuously missing was the concept of diffusion. None of the respondents mentioned that term. In the context of sponsoring school districts, charter school innovation was lightly referenced or considered insignificant. Only one respondent mentioned innovation as “something different but not necessarily new” which captures an element mentioned in Roberts’ innovation definition. The same respondent who had been in education for a number of years noted that innovations that emerged before are now being reintroduced to staff and schools with some contributions from charter schools. “Education reform has been revisited many times and in many forms in my career.” Which points to the recursive character of reform and innovation that is generally recognized as endemic and perpetual in education. Charter School Competition The next question delved into market share and whether the level of competition within the school district’s service area was influencing movements to improve their education programs in response to that competition. It asked, California, Charter Schools, Private Schools, and Home School students represent approximately 14% o f the total student population. At what percentage would your district begin to respond to the competition with changes to your district’ s education program to attract students back into your district’ s schools? ____%. Of the 30 respondents, 10 district administrators said they would begin changes below the 14% level. Their responses ranged from 1% to 10%. 4 responded that they would begin to move once the present competition level began to take a larger market share. For those school districts above the 14% level, 8 156 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. administrators responded from 15% to 45%. 8 respondents were neutral or were unable or unwilling to respond to the question. Appendix E further elaborates about the level of school concentration and competition within the respondent’s county. There is no significant correlation between the level of competition and the ratings that would begin to trigger change to the school district education programs. When assessing if size of the district had an influence on administrator sensitivity toward competition, the data show no direct link between lower enrollments and lower percentage sensitivity to competition. However, administrators who have had experience in alternative programs and private sector work were more likely to select a lower percentage than those who did not have a comparable background. The respondents were then asked, what are the alternatives to the charter school within and outside your district? It was evident administrators were aware of the alternatives inside and outside of their school districts, but were more attuned to what their school districts had to offer parents within their schools than those offerings outside the school district. Alternatives identified outside the school district included “private” or “parochial” or “home study” students. In a few instances other charter schools or other school districts were mentioned. It is evident that alternatives are apparent. But from a competitive standpoint it is more subliminal and is not considered an overt competitive threat to the school district’s standing in the community. Charter School Influence Respondents were next asked on a scale o f 1 to 10, 10 being the most, whether the charter school (s) has influenced my district’ s education programs to become more innovative? Provide examples. Their answers ranged from 1 to 10 and in two instances, 157 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. multiple ratings were stated because there was evidence of different influences from multiple charter schools within their district. The responses were organized in two ways: according to enrollments and the district’s status as an elementary, high school, or unified school district. By organizing the ratings according to the district’s enrollment, it was found that the size of the district and the charter school’s influence did not show a significant correlation. There were low to high ratings for higher enrollment school districts and low to high ratings for lower enrollment school districts. But ratings above 8 were expressed primarily in the lower enrollment school districts (see Figure 11). When one delves into their responses as to why there is a high rating, the significant influence element is their value in communication and organization linkages with the charter school. The surveys received from charter school program directors appear to support this conclusion. As to whether influence ratings vary according to the type of school district, one finds in the following table an array that shows there are more influences in elementary and unified school districts than in high school districts. Table 3. Influence Ratings by District Type Ratings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Elementary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 High School 2 1 Unified 9 2 2 1 1 4 1 158 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 11. Charter School Influences: Administrator Responses 160000 140000 120000 100000 Enrollment 80000 60000 40000 20000 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ I ♦ ♦ 4 5 6 Influence Rating 10 11 The following charter school influences were cited by respondents as interesting and relevant to their respective education programs: ■ Multi-grade, self-paced, individualized learning with group projects ■ Customer focused service delivery ■ Fiscal management and personnel practices ■ Decentralized cost centers and support services ■ Flexible school calendars ■ Technology applications for student learning ■ Independent study methods for student learning ■ Vocational training One finds there are program and organization influences from charter schools that can and have served as models for emulation by the sponsoring school district. It is evident, however, that adoption and diffusion of these innovations require communication and organization exchanges and linkages. The incentives for emulation, however, appear to be tied to enrollment sensitivity, staff initiatives, and parent/student interests. In answer to the question, if the charter school has influenced instruction and curriculum development in your education program, how? Please list, there were few although significant contributions to the sponsoring district that considered them valuable. Of the 30 school district administrators 17 responded that the charter school(s) had no influence on their education programs. But for the remainder, some examples described were “multi-grouping that is a strong model for the intermediate school although the high school campus has had mixed results. The charter school’s accelerated 160 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. program is linked to the college.” Another district stated “the charter school’s special education program model has been adapted to the regular school students wherein the Individualized Education Program (IEP) design is adapted to each individual student in the school.” One district stated that the “emphasis on parental choice has focused our district’s effort on developing similar programs in our school system that will be attractive to parents and students.” The fact that charter schools have smaller classes also had an instructional appeal. Technology in particular appears to be an instrumental influence; where charter schools have used technology for student instruction, administrators have explored its possibilities in their district. Charter schools are, for the most part, small and intimate learning centers where the application of technology by technology savvy instructors is relatively easy. As noted in the charter school program director survey, they have facilitated curricula and instruction technology transfer to their sponsoring districts. It is interesting to note that at least three school districts declared that the influence on instruction and curriculum development is the other way around. These districts are large enough to operate departments for curriculum and instruction and are better equipped to assist charter schools. The inhibiting factors to the influence of instruction and curriculum development included the charter school program niche that the district did not see the need to develop, the expertise of the school district in the areas of instruction and curriculum was more fully developed than the charter school, and ambivalence or lack of communication between the charter school and school district programs to exchange ideas about each program’s instruction and curriculum development. It is apparent that the more 161 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. communication and organization linkages the more likely the exchange of ideas and innovation. In response to the question, what ways other than instruction and curriculum, e.g., budgetary, has your district responded to charter schools?, there was particular emphasis placed on the oversight fee that has helped to supplement the sponsoring school district’s budget and offset the costs for charter school oversight and facilities cost. Some have budgeted the revenue toward student instruction and curriculum development. It is interesting to note that nine school districts identified joint operations support in areas of personnel, budget, technology, facilities, and risk management. But the majority of the respondents did not identify significant charter school contributions outside the areas of instruction and curriculum. The next question was, has your budget for instruction and curriculum changed in magnitude since the charter? Was this due to the charter or some other factor (s)? Explain. The vast majority of the school district administrators sampled responded that the districts did not significantly alter their budgets because of the charter school. Rather, the changes that occurred were prompted by State budget appropriations and other factors outside the charter school and school district domain. Two administrators noted that their charter schools attracted students away from their school district and these districts have experienced a significant revenue shortfall. When asked, how has your district changed since the charter school’ s establishment?, the school district administrators responded that there was a greater sensitivity to parent and student involvement in their education programs. The charter school program directors survey responses support this assessment. Also, some districts 162 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. have set up committees to provide parental access to the schools and provided input to parents about how their student’s learning could be improved and aligned with their needs. As one administrator stated, “so we can become more competitive and receptive to their concerns.” Some have gone further by initiating aggressive marketing and public relations campaigns. Some administrators mentioned that they are now focused more directly on the accountability requirements of charter schools. Districts recognize that as oversight agencies they are expected to actively engage their charter schools. Student performance is becoming a primary focus as a standard for charter school renewal. Federal requirements in the No Child Left Behind policy will no doubt create a higher attention level by charter schools and school districts in this regard. What communication links and collaboration exist between the district and charter schools about their respective education programs? Three respondents stated that there was no direct communication with their charter schools, and two said, “limited.” The remaining administrators described communication as engaged and involved. Some districts had members on the charter school board. Others established liaison committees for curriculum and instruction and periodic meetings were conducted as part of the district oversight responsibility. Many of these linkages occurred before the charter schools were established as many charter school personnel were former school district employees that facilitated communication and collaboration. Those districts that established good communication linkages, however, provided few specific examples of innovations or transfers of 163 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. innovations from charter schools to the sponsoring school district. In some instances, it was the other way around. It is interesting to note that in the charter school program director survey the program directors responded that there was more collaboration and cooperative behavior between the charter school and sponsoring school district than was evidenced by the administrator interviews. In response to the question, how has the principals) role changed since the charter school? Are they expected to be more innovative? all the respondents felt that the charter schools had little if any impact on their principal’s innovative behavior. Principal innovative behavior is determined more by district policy and State mandates than anything else, particularly expectations for student assessment and achievement. The reason for this is that the principal’s role in school districts is somewhat insulated from the charter school’s influences. Although, “receptiveness to parents and students” was mentioned several times as the most significant feature of the charter school that seemed to have the most impact on the principal’s innovative behavior. Administrator Attributes and Characteristics The next question was the Respondent Profile: Age, Education Degrees, Professional Experience (public and private), # o f districts employed, and do you consider yourself an innovator? The respondents ranged in age from 36 to 64 years old. All but two had credentials in teaching and administration. Their degrees were in Business Administration and Economics. Only one administrator has worked in the same district since graduating from college. All other respondents have worked in more than one school district in their career. And their roles over the course of their careers have 164 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. shaped their feelings and opinions about charter schools, particularly for those who have had alternative education program development experience. All but one administrator declared they were innovators. The one exception stated that, “I am not an innovator but a facilitator of innovation.” Would you be more inclined to adopt innovations through competition or collaboration with the Charter School? Most district administrators responded by saying “collaboration” (24). An explanation for their responses is that their education and administrative experience relies on collaboration rather than competition for education program development within the public school system. One comment worth noting was by an administrator who referred to innovative instruction by their charter schools and stated, These models are not presently being utilized in our district and I think that these endeavors can provide valuable information on the feasibility of pursuing this mode of instruction for all students in the district. [...] The charters can set the standard for innovation. It is evident that while administrators recognize innovation exists in charter schools, they view those innovations as only inventions until such time as they can demonstrate their success and feasibility in the context of their school district. Diffusion in their terms requires collaboration. This is bolstered by one school district’s example where they identified one competitive charter school and another characterized as a collaborative charter school. The school district administrator has observed that the competitive charter school did not communicate about its program nor have there been examples of innovation transfer to the school district. But in the case of the collaborative charter school, there is 165 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. communication linkages, charter school staff participation on district curriculum and instruction committees, and, most importantly, an ongoing exchange of ideas about innovation that have been “transferred successfully” to the school district. The charter school’s technology application for distance learning was cited as an innovation that was transferred as there was evidence this instructional method was working to improve student learning and achievement. Three administrators responded “combination of both.” And three responded “competition.” It is interesting to note that these latter three have had some private sector experience along with alternative education program development. Another question was, On a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being most, how would you rate your education, administrative training, and preparation to innovate alternative education programs in response to competition from charter school(s)? Provide explanatory comments. It is evident from responses to this question that most administrators are prepared to believe they innovate alternative education programs in response to charter school competition. This is shown in the following table: Table 4. Administrator Background and Preparation to Innovate Alternative Programs in Response to Charter Schools Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Respondents: 6 2 1 7 3 7 3 1 What is clear is that the respondents made the distinction between the academic and administrative experience and indicated which has been most valuable to the current competitive environment. In all instances, the respondents stated that the administrative 166 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. credential program did not adequately prepare them for the competitive environment. Their ability to respond has been primarily the product of their administrative experience on the job and in various positions in school districts and their acquaintance with alternative programs. In fact, those administrators who had alternative education program development experience rated themselves higher than those without that experience. The two uncredentialed respondents noted that their experience in the private sector sensitized them to competition and trained them to respond effectively to charter schools by supporting and developing alternative programs that appealed to students and parents. These two respondents are also employing marketing techniques to outreach to parents to attract them back into the school district. One respondent, in closing, stated that “competition has no place in public education; therefore, my training on how to be competitive in a public-service agency is minimal.” This statement suggests that there is denial that there is competition and also hints that the administrative credential content needs a closer look to determine if it is adequately preparing the public school administrator for competitive as well as non competitive environments. I f you were to create your own charter school, how would it be different from the present charter school in its education delivery system? Most school district administrators responded that they would model their school after the charter school(s) with some alteration. For example, “I would create a more diverse student population,” “adhere to State standards,” “develop a charter that would test curriculum and instruction over a longer period of time to determine if students are learning,” “a lab school for new 167 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. teachers that supplements our program,” and “a greater focus on distance learning.” One of the more intriguing concepts was that “I would create a charter school university” that would tap into local colleges and community resources to develop a lifelong learning centers for education. It is obvious from their responses that if given the opportunity, administrators could create some dynamic charter schools that would have great appeal to parents and students. Why they have not is a subject for future research. Missing Elements What other questions did you expect I would ask? What would your answer (s) have been had I asked them? This question was posed to determine whether factors were missing in the interview instrument that would help answer the research questions. The administrators introduced ideas and issues that might be subjects for future research. These include the financial impact of charter schools on sponsoring school districts, the level of accountability and oversight provided by sponsoring school districts and the charter school’ (s) responses, the effects of “creaming” populations that skew test scores, effects on diversity that could lend to a balanced education program, and the effects of charter school community outreach on the education program. What is clear is that further research is necessary to gain a fuller understanding of the impact of charter schools on their sponsoring school districts. This research project revealed that, from the perspective of sponsoring school districts, the charter school’s innovative role in their programs requires more than just competition to ignite and change administrators’ innovative behaviors. This insight is further discussed in the final chapter of this dissertation. 168 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Those who experiment, who seek the metaphors for the future inherent in our traditions, who permit freedom to change, seek new visions and become. (Schon, 1967) Overview School district cultures that view charter schools as competitive and rival may be barriers to reception of the merits of their education programs. Consequently, innovation, curriculum development, and student achievement potential may be stifled. This study finds that innovation diffusion requires collaboration between the sponsoring district and charter school. Collaboration and reciprocity require responsive incentive structures that are transparent and will engender trust and reliability that is not always present between these organizations. Absence of trust is due to the nature of laws that stress competition over collaboration and/or informal processes that inhibit transference of the charter school’s innovation(s) to the sponsoring school district. Trust is fragile. Improved communication and transparency bring about accountability. Mutual respect enhances the mutual reputations of both school entities, suggesting that public school administrators should be receptive to this alternative education approach and recognize its innovative potential to improve education program development. Administrators’ valuations of the charter school’s contributions appears to be a function of their education, training, and experience, but is not a function of the administrative credential based on their responses. An enlightened administrative credential program that acquaints administrators with the value of charter schools, and the existence of heterogeneous education programs 169 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. can benefit not only district schools but the charter school as well. A successful education program is one that enhances innovation and generates synergies when activated jointly with other programs. The administrator who acquires systems thinking and boundaryless behavior can embrace new ideas and weave them into the fabric of the school’s organization. Administrators’ ability to adapt to change and integrate innovation into their organization, with all the attendant risks, moves the organization forward and becoming instruments for progress. Thomas Friedman observed that, as with nations, organizations that possess a proclivity toward change are better able to innovate and capitalize on their investment in change. It is not that closed societies can’t innovate, it is simply that the chances of them doing it consistently are much, much lower. When you live as an open society, your strength comes precisely from that openness and the underlying spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship it constantly nurtures. (T. Friedman, 230) The future beckons for public school administrators who will assume the change agent role and provide stewardship of the innovative process. These administrators will be impelled to create environments that will jettison the unworkable and energize a continuous improvement process and systematic innovation. Systematic innovation helps overcome internal organization challenges from change by converting the existing education organization to one that is emboldened to engage the environment, foster opportunity from what exists in other education settings, and proactively create schools with enduring value. 170 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Major Findings The major findings provide answers to the research questions. A fuller discussion of conclusions and implications for the public school administrator will follow this section. How does the presence o f a charter school(s) alter and/or affect the public school administrators' innovative behaviors? For those sponsoring school districts that value accountability associated with the charter school document, close communication, and institutional opportunities for idea exchange such as curriculum and instruction committees, there is a movement to improve their own school programs with the help of charter schools and visa versa. School administrators surveyed who have experience with alternative programs were most likely to capitalize on the successful charter school innovations for their school district. On the other hand, administrators that exhibited ambivalence and considered the charter school as competitive were least likely to change their education program regardless of the merits of charter school innovations or potential contributions to their school district. What explains the success or failure o f charter school innovation’ s transference and diffusion in public schools? For transference to occur, trust is needed in what a charter school offers as an innovation incubator. This can only occur through collaboration and reciprocity compatible with the sponsoring school district culture. Unfortunately, the laws that intended for charter schools to create innovations through competition with the sponsoring school districts appear to sunder their relationships and create an environment less conducive to innovation transfer and exchange. 171 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. What personal and professional attributes and characteristics prepare administrators to adopt charter school innovations? Administrator attributes and characteristics combine both the competitive spirit of entrepreneurs that view innovation as an opportunity for creative organization change and a collaborative spirit that can energize staff to adopt innovations validated by performance and success. This combination is what Evans describes as, “authentic leadership” (183-205). This is leadership that transforms, embodies trust, integrity, and inspires staff through a clear vision and strategy based on moral principles of public service and strong commitment to student learning. Without these attributes and characteristics the value of and prospect for innovation is diminished regardless of the operative environment: competitive or collaborative. Conclusions Competiton/Innovation Nexus? The structure of innovation theory delineated in terms of competition is delimited by its contextual application to charter schools. Charter schools as the instrumental progenitors to innovation diffusion confront the inherent indigenous barriers erected by public schools. Charter schools demonstrate their potential to drive and move public school systems. The fallacy externalizing the innovative process to charter schools without considering that significance of their engagement and connection with a school district that values collaboration and reciprocity is evident. A normative treatment of the value of competition through an economic calculus is of limited value. The mechanics of change when supplemented by collaboration transforms the competitive paradigm to 172 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. something more substantive. Competition alone is not sufficient to change the substantive imperative to improve education for students. A more rigorous analysis of innovation and its prospects for successful diffusion when augmented by collaboration and reciprocity is in order. The following graph shows the relationship between competition/collaboration/ reciprocity and innovation. It is a conceptual representation from this research and discussions with public school administrators; it depicts innovation zones and the likelihood for diffusion from competition, collaboration and reciprocity. Figure 12. Innovation: from competition to collaboration and reciprocity. Plotting the school districts’ behaviors within the graph’s zones depicts their relative value creation. Their position is based on their responses to questions on the influence of competition versus collaboration and reciprocity on charter schools in their Innovation Line o f Progression Zone of Diffusion Zone of Acceptance Zone of Pliability Line o f Regression Zone of Indifference Competition Collaboration ► Reciprocity 173 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. respective districts. Those school districts in the upper right segment of the graph demonstrated a greater sensitivity and receptiveness toward innovation and its role in the school organization where they were closely tied to the charter school than those in the left and lower range of the graph. The former school districts demonstrated collaborative and reciprocal behavior that embraced the innovative process: Innovation Competition-------------- ► Collaboration ► Reciprocity Figure 13. Value Chain. The latter districts demonstrated that a highly competitive environment was not necessarily conducive to innovation or change. In fact, administrators of these school districts expressed views that charters were competitive but did not significantly influence the school district’s innovative practices. As a consequence, the value of charters to their districts appears to have been diminished vis a vis those who are collaborating with their charter schools. 174 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A Field Theory of Administrator Innovative Capacity - Value Creation through Collaboration and Reciprocity: Charter school innovations are less useful to a sponsoring school district in a competitive environment than in environments which foster collaborative and reciprocal exchanges that are mutually beneficial. Collaboration and reciprocity engender value for the innovation. Putnam in his study of “social capital” concludes that value added relationships are expressed best “in the form of norms of reciprocity and networks of civic engagement” (167). And when applied to overcoming the barriers in complex education institutions, Chrislip and Larson suggest that “reform is mutually created and sustained by the constructive engagement of all concerned” (8). These authors later observe that, “whereas complicated public policy issues demand engagement, enrichment of knowledge, tolerance for ambiguity, and problem solving, advocacy hides complexity behind ideology and rhetoric and inflames and divides” (22). This quote describes the current context of public education when charter schools, designed to compete, invent, and spur innovation are having a contrarian effect. This inhibits innovation diffusion in their sponsoring school districts because the ideology of competition based on the market model is incompatible with the collaborative ethos of public school systems. The relationships that exist between sponsoring school districts and their charter schools are being damaged by the alienating effects of competition and the devaluation of collaboration observed from 11 years of operation. As Rubin says, “competition yields the hard statistics and collaboration fills the background” (10). 175 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If charter schools are to gain a resurgence as valuable instruments of education reform, the State needs to revisit the charter school’s innovation purpose. A reorientation toward collaboration is in order. Leadership in this context will be defined by how well one facilitates the process of innovation diffusion. This requires skills and attitudes that must first diagnose and survey the potential benefits and costs of innovations by those best attuned to their value in the organization and develop strategies for action. Mark Smith supports Schon’s view that administrator’s must be equipped with a “repertoire” which is “a collection of images, ideas, examples, and actions that they can draw upon” which is central to reflective thought” (Smith 13). Schon, in more direct terms, states, When a practitioner makes sense of a situation he perceives to be unique, he sees it as something already present in his repertoire. To see this site as that one is not to subsume the first under a familiar category or rule. It is, rather, to see the unfamiliar, unique situation as both similar to and different from the familiar one, without at first being able to say similar or different with respect to what. The familiar situation functions as a precedent, or a metaphor (emphasis added), or [...] an exemplar for the unfamiliar one. (Schon, Reflective 138) The innovation metaphor is enriched through collaboration with others. The factors for successful collaboration include: • Good timing and clear need - a sense of urgency provides momentum • Strong stakeholder groups - those that can speak credibly for their members • Broad-based involvement - balanced representation from stakeholders • Credibility and openness of process - transparency opens communication and involvement • Commitment and/or involvement of high-level, visible leaders - lends credibility to the collaboration process • Support or acquiescence of “established” authorities or powers - frame their constituent’s interests and lend credence to the collaborative process • Overcoming mistrust and skepticism - conversion to trust in the process and valuing the outcomes 176 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • Strong leadership of the process - leadership is gained through facilitation of ground rules and enforcing group norms • Interim successes - secures commitment and celebration of success • A shift to broader concerns - expands the vision beyond parochial interests (Chrislip and Larson 51-54) Beyond this strategy, Thomson introduces a “systematic approach towards understanding the meaning and measurement of collaboration” (1) that could assist future research into this arena of administrative behavior to understand the dynamic of collaboration and competition within and among public organizations such as schools. Thomson’s contention is that “devolution, rapid changes in technology, scarce resources, and dramatic rises of organizational interdependence” (1) spur new organizational linkages through networking. Thomson’s review of research and model development around the “five dimensions” of collaboration provides a framework to analyze how inter-organizational linkages derive mutual benefits that are measurable. These dimensions are described as Governance and Administration that are structural, Mutuality and Norms that interact to create social capital, and Agency that reflects organizational autonomy. Thomson’s model becomes, ■ A diagnostic tool for thoughtful practitioners interested in improving collaborative practices, ■ An evaluation tool for assessing the extent to which collaboration may or may not exist, ■ A conceptual tool for reaching common understandings about collaboration, and ■ A self-reflection tool for building inter-organizational relationships (25) Thomson supports Huxham’s assertion “that the first reason to collaborate is self- interest though this does not mean self-interest at the expense of others” (Huxham 3; 177 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thomson 21). And, because resources are limited, the incentive to leverage the resources of other organizational entities to create synergies impels engagement and overcome stasis. As Stagich sees it, This collaborative process is particularly effective in diverse groups. In a real sense the greater the diversity of the group the greater the potential for synergy and unique contributions, which make synergistic, self-organizing and self-adaptive groups possible. (2) This quote describes the collaboration imperative and why an innovation’s diffusion is conditional upon the ability of organizational systems and the public school administrators’ capabilities to adapt the innovation to their organizations in concert with others. That requires skillful and insightful administration. Competition alone is not sufficient; what is needed is a level of collaboration and reciprocity that will leverage relationships to a higher value added system that is transcendent over competition. As Thomas Sergiovanni says, [...] the reciprocal process [...] involves not only issues of shared purposes, but involves roles that are connected to moral obligations. And, principals (administrators) are expected to meet the obligations that come from their role responsibilities as leaders. (87) It is worthwhile to explore if the Administrative Services Credential fosters or inhibits administrator behavior to these ends. The Future of the Administrative Services Credential: The California State Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) is beginning to evaluate the Administrative Services Credential to determine its relevance to contemporary public school administration practice and what changes are needed. The Commission is considering the following questions: 178 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • What does the 21st Century school require in terms of management at each level? • Which school management positions should require a credential? • Which entities should be authorized to provide administrator preparation? • Which decisions about administrator preparation should be left to local school districts to decide? • What should the structure of administrator preparation involve? • What does an appropriate “learning to lead” continuum look like for school and district administrators? • What is an appropriate accountability system for administrator preparation? These questions are in response to a Task Force’s assessment and conclusion that the current state of administrative training needs alteration and improvement. The most significant observation of the study is, “there needs to be a better blend between theory and practice” (CTC Report, 2001). It is questionable, however, that future administrative credential programs can be relied upon to provide the framework for a successful engagement with the education market of the future. The credential standards offered in the report are primarily geared to insular organizational factors rather than a comprehensive program design for school leadership that places equal importance on external factors as well. In “Standard 4,” some reference and recognition of these external factors is found in successful school leadership. This standard recommends collaborating with business and diverse community interests to build partnerships that promote enduring relationships 179 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that can leverage and enhance school performance. This “civic engagement” is intended to link the school with its environment. There is no mention, however, of innovation and constructive responses to charter school competition or how the public school administrator can effect innovation as a competitive edge for school performance. Also, education alternatives such as charters are unidentified even though they are playing an ever-increasing role in education. Until this occurs, as this study reveals, the Administrative Credential will be hampered by its emphasis on internal school management without systems thinking and an ecological perspective. To improve public schools and increase student achievement requires administrators with cognitive skills that give meaning to innovation and an ability to take a holistic approach to the problem. Reforms that have in the past focused primarily on the classroom are now shifting to the school’s leadership. These reforms will require a different set of administrative standards and skills competencies and are more responsive to environmental factors such as competition and innovation. This necessitates a more active and entrepreneurial administrative style. It also requires instruction that will develop ingenuity: “practical solutions to the problem” when faced with “new conditions” (Homer-Dixon 18). The presence and growth of charter schools, and tangentially, home schooling and private schools, have become significant factors that may serve as measures of administrative success. Retaining and growing public school enrollments are becoming greater challenges. In the future, administrators will not only be measured by their students’ achievements but by their school’s enrollment revenue. In order for public schools and public school administrators to survive, it is necessary to consider alternative 180 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. education success factors and adapt the public school to the exigencies of the market place. Marketing, public relations, and establishing a more business-like, supply oriented curriculum should be part of the credential program. Alteration of credentialing programs, however, because of their pedagogic and bureaucratic entrenchment, will require a significant overhaul with a renewed emphasis on administrative performance so that administrators can become significant players in the education market. Unchartered School Districts - Why? One quandary remains: why do unchartered school districts persist? Could it be that those districts are better equipped to deal with controversy from disgruntled parents and students who look upon charter schools as their vent for frustration with the district’s education program? Or is it a high satisfaction level with existing school district education programs? Or is it the extensive alternative schools within schools that are tailored to the individualized learning? And could it be that school district resources are sufficient to sustain a quality program? Or possibly, could it be due to ignorance about charter schools and what they can offer public education? Whatever the answer(s), it appears that school districts without charters are positioning themselves and providing educational programs that fit their parent and student populations. Not doing so risks the possibility that a charter school movement might arise. The entreaty to both researchers and practitioners is to explore these unanswered questions and nuances in public education administration to understand not only the impetus for charter schools but also what qualities school districts possess that do not generate the desire for charter school development. 181 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Implications for Administrative Theory and Practice Charter schools represent another effort to reform public education. For this generation of public school administrators, it represents a challenge not only from outside public institutions but from within. What has begun as an effort to improve public education efficiency through competition has left open the question as to whether competition in practice is conducive to innovation and improvement? Competition’s effectiveness is left unanswered as Singh has observed, “[...] the dismal performance of the public sector has set the stage for market reforms and that privatization is an idea drawn out of ideological moorings and not so much out of historical experience” (118). This cycle of reform is drawing upon restructuring based on public choice and market models that are thought to be applicable to public education and particularly to innovation development. Charter school competition is viewed as the inducement for change and innovation refracted through the lens of these reforms. But the record is mixed and there is a reason why. Rosenbloom, in his “History Lessons for the Reinventors,” explains how “reform cycles are more a product of collective amnesia than substantive platforms for change. That when applied to government the intrusion of reform has unintended consequences” (161-65). And, as B. Guy Peters says it is, “a triumph of hope over experience” (vii). The implication of this for those administrators who have such charter schools within their school districts means that an evaluation and assessment of their own program’s standing with their public is in order. Adapting through collaboration successful components from charter schools would mean better results for the school district overall. School districts lacking charter schools should seek engagement with the 182 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. charter movement adapting those elements that could generate similar results for their underachieving students. The incentive is clear, and competition alone will not necessarily spur innovations that will create the same results. Collaborative schools demonstrate marginally better results from innovation than schools operated from a competitive framework. A paradigm shift is needed from narrow parochial interests to the broader interests of the community. Improved communication and transparency brings about accountability. Mutual respect enhances the mutual reputations of both school districts and charter schools suggesting that the public school administrator should be receptive to this alternative education setting and also recognize its innovative potential to improve their education programs. And improvements to public school administrative practices involve an education system that should, in Bennis’ words: [...] (1). help us to identify with the adaptive process without fear of losing identity, (2) increase our tolerance of ambiguity without the fear of losing intellectual mastery, (3). increase our ability to collaborate without fear of losing individuality, (4). develop a willingness to participate in social evolution while recognizing implacable forces. In short, we need an educational system that can help us make virtue out of contingency rather than one that induces hesitancy and its reckless companion, expedience. {Bureaucracy 209) Administrators need to believe in the efficacy of change and the benefits that charter schools can offer to their programs to overcome the consequences from malaise and sub-optimization. It is a process of alchemy. Synergies are derived from cooperation. The new competitive arena defined by interactivity ironically creates a favorable environment for change that enhances the prospects of innovations engendering administrator self-confidence to experiment. This process transcends calibrations based 183 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on efficient education and rises to another level defined by effectiveness as measured by others in the education market. Collaboration should not be looked upon by the sponsoring school district as a means to subsume the unique character that charter schools bring to public education or as a way to undermine the charter school’s autonomy and sap its creative energy. There is some reason for concern, however, that 2002 legislation intended to limit charter school autonomy may inadvertently stifle innovation. Two examples are Senate Bill 740 that limits the independent study education model by funding reductions and AB 1994 that limits charter school service areas to within the resident county. Further constraints are expected from the State legislature during its 2003 legislative session. State policy appears to be pulling the charter schools back into the public school system. What was once a highly competitive environment now has turned into one that is limited by legislation intended to restrain competition and correct market imperfections. A process of cooptation is in evidence. Selznick defines co-optation as “the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence” (Selznick, Cooptative 171). As has been observed, competition alone does not insure innovation and its diffusion in public schools. The risk is that “formal” co-optation, intended to correct the flaws of competition, would thwart innovation by returning the charter school to the rigid bureaucratic environment from which it was bom. If innovation is valued and charter schools are a vehicle by which this will occur, then public policy must support and incentivize collaboration among charter schools and public school districts. The following graph depicts the dynamics discussed above: 184 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Innovation Competition Collaboration Cooptation Figure 14. The innovation effect from competition, collaboration, and cooptation. This research suggests that competition that alienates the district/charter relationship or coopts charter schools back into school districts will more than likely thwart rather than promote innovation development. If allowed, autonomous charter schools that have the freedom to invent will award districts through collaborative innovation practices. The caveat is that innovation’s organic nature influences the extent to which it can be adapted to the organizational setting. An administrator may be confronted with reluctance from the staff to accept new pedagogy. Consequently, the path to innovation may rest outside the bounds of existing organizations in alternative settings, such as charter schools. The innovation initiatives that appear most successful are those sponsored by administrators who are motivated to overcome the barriers and rigidities of the public school system bureaucracy. This “entrepreneurial alertness” to opportunities that present themselves and willingness to seize them and orchestrate a recombination of program designs responsive to consumer preferences. It is a reframing process that allows new structures to emerge (Kirzner 1973; Bolman and Deal, 1997). 185 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The importance to the public school administrator is to recognize that tastes are individualized and cannot be fully satisfied without recognizing differences and developing instruments of inquiry in response to varied needs. This administrative task enlarges the domain and value-added education services that are worth pursuing. If education is to grow and appeal to those taught, then expansion of education programs fitted to diverse and multiple settings is essential. Value is ultimately determined by what Ramos terms as “endurance.” It is retention of character through change; it is victory over fluidity. It is a category of and continuously striving towards an optimal balance between conservation and change in the process of attaining a patterned achievement of its intrinsic ends. (171) Patterned achievement through innovation assimilates, as Newland says, through “interconnectedness” (1997). The interventions that are used in the implementation phase to increase value and utility must take into account the methods that will both impact the overall school community and the individual as well. The distinctiveness of the process requires the effective administrator to equip the program with individualized education programs that will address the preferences of the larger community. Resource constraints will dictate intervention protocols. An example of measurement used for program intervention effectiveness is the expressed high value of test scores over reading program initiatives; although both may possess equal value. Taking advantage of this situation through various strategies leads to a higher probability for success. The differentiation and assignment of resources to satisfy those preferences is based on the weighting process that will claim resources and parent and student interests. By the same 186 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. token, differentiation allows the administrator to energize staff support for change (Sapolsky 1972). Employing moderation, or incrementalism, engenders experimentation through cost benefit analysis with each innovative step along the way. The administrators’ calculus both the short and long-term consequence of the innovation on the organization. It provides a means to measure progress, adaptability, and diffusiveness. Administrative innovation also builds confidence that change is permissible and worthy to engage. Once the innovation process becomes part of the culture, change is less obtrusive and threatening. The school that is willing to experiment gains a reputation both for its failures as well as its successes. Without trying, the organization will have no measure of itself against other education settings. The consequences of not trying are predictable. The responsible administrators’ discretion, judgment, values, and fiduciary responsibility in this regard are crucial to the outcome (Cooper 1998). The administrator shapes and molds the value system such that it creates receptiveness for coherent ideas and overcomes complexity through simplicity (Cleveland, 1972; M. Moore, 1995; Lynn, 1996). In the process, the administrator “develops a capacity for self-renewal” and value for “life long learning” (Gardner, xxi-xxii). Innovation alters public school administrator behavior so that it is innovative in and of itself. This is reflective leadership that is the seed for theory and tested through practical application. At this level, the administrators’ behavior transcends the context of the organization and transforms it. The point of equilibrium at which value is achieved without diminishing returns rests between organic unity and diversity. The magnitude and capacity for change is a 187 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. matter of the innovative capacity and the number of quality educational venues that are available. The administrative challenge is not abiding in what exists but rather tuning in to the possibilities of what might exist for the betterment of education programs and student learning. Allowing public school systems and their leadership to develop such innovative programs as flexible options through collaboration and reciprocity may be constructive public policy. The legislation authorizing charter schools should be revisited. Existing legislation assumed charter schools would somehow foster innovation through competition. The need for a new charter orientation is supported by the conclusions of this study. Legislation is needed to encourage and incentivize collaboration and reciprocity between school districts and charter schools. The intent is to yield greater public value and creativity through a learning process unencumbered by the alienating effects of competition. This research supports the conclusion that innovation, augmented through collaboration with charter schools, may yield greater results than innovation from competition alone. A public policy goal should be to codify a sixteenth element for charter schools requiring “charter schools to demonstrate and facilitate innovation(s) that are valuable to the sponsoring school district’s education program by the end of the charter’s term.” That policy would insure that innovation spawned by competition would make a valuable contribution to public education. Absent this, public education will continue to be burdened with vestigial programs that will most assuredly provide the impulse for new and recurring waves of reform and recursive search for the “one best way.” 188 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, T., Managing the Flow o f Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977. Allison, Graham, “Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?” 1980. Classics in Public Administration, 3rd ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1992. American Federation of Teachers (AFT), “Do Charter Schools Measure Up? The Charter School Experiment After 10 Years,” AFT paper. July 2002: 1-108. Andrews, P. W. S., On Competition in Economic Theory. New York: St. Martins Press, 1966. Argyris, Chris, Organization and Innovation. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1965. —, and D. Schon, Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1970. Barnard, Chester I., The Functions o f the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Baumol, William J., The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle o f Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002. Bennis, Warren, Beyond Bureaucracy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966. —, Changing Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Berliner, David C. and Bruce Biddle, The Manufactured Crisis. Menlo Park: Longman Publishers, 1995. Bess, J., Creative R&D Leadership: Insights from Japan. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1995. Bessant J. and S. Caffyn, “High Involvement Innovation,” International Journal o f Technology Management. 14(1), 1996: 121-134. Bixby, K., Superteams. London: Fontana, 1987. Blush, Gordon, “Psychological Dynamics of the Change Process: Strategies for Coping with and Facilitating Change,” CAJPA Conference presentation. Palm Springs, CA, February, 2000. 189 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bohm, Peter, “Estimating Access Values,” Public Economics and the Quality o f Life. Eds. Lowdon Wingo and Alan Evans. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1977: 181-195. Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, 2n d Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997. Bonstingl, John Jay, Schools o f Quality: An Introduction to Total Quality Management in Education. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publication, 1992. Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams, The Craft of Research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995. Bowring, Joseph, Competition in a Duel Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. Bozeman, Barry, “Public-Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do,” PAR. 62(2), March/April, 2002: 145-161. Buchanan, James M., Cost and Choice: An Inquiry in Economic Theory. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1969. Budde, Ray, “The Evolution of the Charter Concept,” September 1996. Phi Delta Kappan. 78(1). September 1996 <http://www.proquest.umi.com/pdqweb? html> Bums, J. M., “Transactional and Transforming Leadership,” 1995. The Leaders Companion: Insights on Leadership through the Ages. Ed. J.T. Wren. New York: The Free Press: 100-101. Bums, Tom and G.M. Stalker, The Management o f Innovation. London: Tavistock Publications, 1961. Burt-Way, Barbara J., “Woodrow Wilson’s Lectures on Administration,” The Wilson Influence on Public Administration: from Theory to Practice. Ed. Paul P. Van Riper. Washington D.C.: ASPA Publication, 1990: 51-64. Butos, Eilliam N. and Roger G. Koppl, “The Varieties of Subjectivism: Keynes and Hayek on Expectations,” Summer 1997. Duke University Press. January 16, 2001 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb . . . html> California Bureau of State Audits (CBSA), “California’s Charter Schools: Oversight at All Levels Could Be Stronger to Ensure Charter Schools’ Accountability,” November 2002. California State Auditor audit. November 11,2002 <http:www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/ summaries/2002104.html> 190 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC), Issues and Options in the Preparation and Licensure o f K-12 Administrators, CTC Meeting Agenda Item, December 5-6,2001. California Department of Education (CDE), January 17, 2003. California School Directory. January 19,2003. <http://www.cde.ca.gov.schooldir/search.asp>. —, January 17,2002. Charter Schools Act o f1992. January 17, 2002 <http://www.cde.ca.org> California Legislative Analyst Office (CLAO), “Request for Proposals: Evaluation of Charter School Effectiveness,” CLAO, October 18,2001: 1-25. Canadian Teachers Federation, “Ten Charter School Myths,” August 4, 2002. CTF Position Paper. August 4,2002 <http://www.osstf.on.ca/www/ issues/ charter/10myths.html> Center for Education Reform (CER), “What the Research Reveals about Charter Schools,” November 2, 2000. CER Compendium. September 1, 2001 <http://www.edreform.com/pubs/charters.htm>. Chrislip, David D. and Carl E. Larson, Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994. Chubb, John E. and Terry M. Moe, Politics, Markets and America’ s Schools. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1990. Clayton, Ross, “Management of Organization Change Efforts,” Unpublished Essay. University of Southern California, January 4,1998. Cleveland, Harlan, The Future Executive. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Cooper, Terry L., The Responsible Administrator, 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998. Corwin, Ronald G. and John F. Flaherty, eds., “Freedom and Innovation in California’s Charter Schools,” WestEd Publication (1995): August 4,2002 <http://www.org/ Policy/pubs/fiill_text/pb_ft_freedom.htm>. Daft, Richard L. and Robert H. Lengel, Fusion Leadership. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1998. DeLeon, Linda and Robert B. Denhardt, “The Political Theory of Reinvention,” PAR. 60(2), March/April 2000: 89-97. 191 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DeMeyer, A., “The Flow of Technological Innovation in an R&D Department,” Research Policy. 4,1985:315-328. Deming, W. Edwards, Out o f the Crisis: Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986. Dillman, Don A., Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2n d ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and D. Charles Galunic, “Coevolving: At Last, a Way to Make Synergies Work,” Harvard Business Review on Organizational Learning. Boston, MA: HBR, 2001. Ekvall, G., “The Organizational Culture of Idea Management.” Managing Innovation.” Eds. J. Henry and D. Walker. London: Sage Publications, 1990: 73-80. Epple, Dennis and Richard E. Romano, “Competition between Private and Public Schools, Vouchers, and Peer-Group Effects,” The American Economic Review. 88(1), March 1998: 33-60. Evans, Robert, The Human Side o f School Change: Reform, Resistance, and the Real-Life Problems o f Innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. Fayol, Henri, “General Principles of Management,” 1916. Classics o f Organization Theory, 4th ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1996: 52-65. Fidler, Brian, Sheila Russell, and Tim Simkins, Choices for Self-Managing Schools: Autonomy and Accountability. London: British Educational Management and Administration Society, 1997. Fisher, Kimball and Mareen Duncan Fisher, The Distance Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001. Follett, Mary Parker, “The Giving of Orders,” 1926. Classics o f Organization Theory, 4th ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1996: 156-162. Francis, D. and D. Young, Top Team Building. Aldershot: Gower Publishing, 1988. —, Unblocking Organizational Communication. Aldershot: Gower Publishing, 1987. Frederickson, H. George, The Spirit o f Public Administration. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers, 1997. 192 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Friedman, Milton, Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962. Friedman, Thomas L., The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books, 2000. Gardner, John W., Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995. Garvin, D., “The Learning Organization,” Harvard Business Review. July-August 1993: 78-91. Gauri, Varun, School Choice in Chile. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998. Gemello, John M. and Jack W. Osman, “Estimating the Demand for Private School Enrollment,” American Journal o f Education. May 1984: 262-279. Gladwell, Malcolm, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York: Little, Brown & Company, 2002. Good, Thomas L. and Jennifer S Braden, The Great School Debate: Choice, Vouchers, and Charters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2000. Goodnow, Frank J., “Politics and Administration,” 1900. Classics o f Public Administration, 3rd ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1992: 25-28. Gove, Amber K. and Nicholas S. Meier, “California Charter Schools: Forcing Competition and Innovation in Public Schools,” December 7,2000. Seminar paper. October 12,2002 <http://www.stanford.edu/-akg/Charterfinal.htm> Gulick, Luther, “Notes on the Theory of Organization,” 1937. Classics o f Organization Theory, 4th ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1996: 86-95. Hackman, J. Richard and Ruth Wageman, “Total Quality Management: Empirical, Conceptual, and Practical Issues,” ASQ. 40,1995: 309-342. Hansen, Morten T., Henry W. Chesbrough, Nitin Nohria, and Donald N. Sull, “Networked Incubators: Hothouses of the New Economy,” Harvard Business Review. September-October 2000: 74-84. Hanushek, Erik A., “The Economics of Schooling, Production and Efficiency in Public Schools,” The Economic Value o f Education. Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd., 1992. 193 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. —, Making Schools Work. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1994. Havelock, Ronald G., Planning for Innovation. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education Bureau of Research project, 1969. Hayek, Friedrich A., Individuals and Economic Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1949. Head, John G., Public Goods and Public Welfare. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1974. Henig, Jeffrey R., Rethinking School Choice: Limits o f the Market Metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. Heymann, H. G. and Robert Bloom, Opportunity Cost in Finance and Accounting. New York: Quorum Books, 1990. Hirschman, Albert, Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms and Organizations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Holcombe, Randall G., An Economic Analysis o f Democracy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1985. Homer-Dixon, Thomas, The Ingenuity Gap: Facing the Economic, Environmental, and Other Challenges o f an Increasingly Complex and Unpredictable World. New York: Vantage Books, 2002. Hoxby, Caroline M., “Does Competition Among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers,” The American Economic Review. December, 2000. Huxham, C., Creating Collaborative Advantage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996. Ideation International (II), “IPS (Inventive Problem Solving),” May 3,2003. Evolution o f Ideation/TRIZ Applications paper. May 3,2003 <http://www.ideationtriz.com/ ips.asp> Imai, K., Kaizen. New York: Random House, 1987. Ingstrup, Ole and Paul Crookall, The Three Pillars o f Public Management: Secrets o f Sustained Success. Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1998. 194 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Izu, Jo Ann, Lisa Carlos, Kyo Yamashiro, Lawrence Picus, Naida Tushnet, and Priscilla Wohlstetter, “The Findings and Implications of Increased Flexibility and Accountability: An Evaluation of Charter Schools in Los Angeles Unified School District,” June 30,1998. West Ed Cross-Site Report. October 12,2002 <http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/full_text/lausd.htm> Jaques, Elliott, “In Praise of Hierarchy,” 1990. Classics o f Organization Theory, 4th ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1996: 245-253. Jarvis, V. and S. Prais, The Quality o f Manufactured Products in Britain and Germany. London: National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 1995. Johnson, Janet Buttolph and Richard A. Joslyn, Political Science Research Methods, 3rd ed. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1995. Kanter, Rosabeth M., The Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983. —, “Creating the Culture for Innovation,” 2001. Leading for Innovation: And Organizing for Results. Eds. Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Iain Somerville. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002: 73-85. Kaplan, Abraham, The Conduct o f Inquiry. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1998. Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology o f Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978. Kay, John A., Foundations o f Corporate Success. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Kharbanda, O. and M. Stallworthy, Project Teams. Oxford: NCC-Blackwell, 1990. Kelly, Kevin, New Rules for the New Economy. New York: Penguin Press, 1998. Kirzner, Israel, Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. Klein, Donald, “Some Notes on the Dynamics of Resistance to Change: The Defender Role,” The Planning o f Change, 3rd ed. Eds. Warren Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, Robert Chin, and Kenneth E. Carey. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1976:117-124. Kollman, Ken, John H. Miller, and Scott E. Page, “Political Institutions and Sorting in a Tiebout Model,” The American Economic Review. December 1997: 977-992. 195 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kotter, John, “Leading Change,” HBR. March-April, 1995:101-109. Labaree, David F., “Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals,” American Educational Research Journal. 34(1), Spring 1997: 39-81. Leonard-Barton, D., Wellsprings o f Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources o f Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1995. Levin, Henry M., Cost-Effectiveness. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1983. —, “Educational Vouchers: Effectiveness, Choice, and Costs,” Journal o f Policy Analysis and Management. 17(3), 1998: 373-92. Lewin, Kurt, Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row, 1951. Lynn, Laurence E. Jr., Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc., 1996. McKenzie, Jamieson A., Site-Based Management: A Practical Guide for Practitioners. Flemington, NJ: Current Change Publishers, 1991. McAteer, James F., “Ideation: The Front End of Innovation,” July 1997. SRI Consulting Business Intelligence document, D97-2086. May 3,2003: 1-12 <http://www.sric- bi-com/BIP/DLSS/DLS2086.shtml> Mills, C. Wright, The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Mintzberg, H., The Structuring o f Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979. —, “The Five Basic Parts of the Organization,” 1979. Classics o f Organization Theory, 4th ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1996: 232-244. Moe, Terry M., “The Politics of Structural Choice: Toward a Theory of Public Bureaucracy,” 1990. Organization Theory: from Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond. Ed. Oliver E. Williamson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Monk, Betty Jo, Toward Quality in Education: The Leader’ s Odyssey. Washington D.C.: National LEADership Network Study Group on Restructuring Schools, U.S. Department of Education, 1993. 196 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Moore, James F., The Death o f Competition: Leadership Strategies in the Age o f Business Ecosystems. New York: Harper-Collins, 1996. Moore, Mark H., Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Moustakas, C., Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994. Mulholland, Lori A., “What the Research Reveals about Charter Schools,” CER paper. August 2001: 1-18. Myerson, Roger B. “Nash Equilibrium and the History of Economic Theory,” Journal of Economic Literature. XXXVII, September 1999: 1067-1082. Nayak, P. R. and John M. Ketteringham, Breakthroughs. New York: Rawson Associates, 1986. Neustadt, Richard E. and Ernest R. May, Thinking in Time: The Uses o f History for Decision-Makers. New York: The Free Press, 1986. Newland, Chester A., “Seminar in Public Administration.” USC Sacramento Center lecture, September, 1997. Niskanen, William A., Jr., Bureaucracy and Representative Government. New York: Aldine-Atherton, Inc., 1971. “No Child Left Behind,” P.L. 107-110,2001, Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, U.S. Department o f Education Web Site. July 11,2002. December 19,2002 <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/exec- summ.html> Nonaka, I., “The Knowledge Creating Company,” HBR. November-December, 1991: 96-104. Oakland, J., Total Quality Management. London: Pitman Press, 1989. OnolOne, Agreement. November 13,1999. Osbome, David and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992. Ostrom, Elinor, Governing the Commons: The Evolution o f Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 197 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ostrom, Vincent, The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration, 2n d ed. Tuscoloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1985. Pareto, Vilfredo, Manual o f Political Economy. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, Publishers, 1971. Pedler, M., T. Boydell, and J. Burgoyne, The Learning Company, A Strategy for Sustainable Development. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill, 1991. Peters, B. Guy, The Future o f Governing, 2n d ed. revised. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2001. Peters, Thomas J. and Nancy Austin, A Passion for Excellence : The Leadership Difference. New York: Random House, 1985. Peters, Tom, Thriving on Chaos. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, Competitive Advantage Through People. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1994. —, “To Build a Culture of Innovation, Avoid Conventional Management Wisdom,” 2002. Leading for Innovation: And Organizing for Results. Eds. Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Iain Somerville. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 2002: 95-104. Phillips, Carol J., “Do You Trust Me?” Executive Excellence. Provo: October 1997. Pindyck, Robert S. and Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Microeconomics, 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998. Pottruck, David S., “How Company Culture Encourages Innovation” 2002. Leading for Innovation: And Organizing for Results. Eds. Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Iain Somerville. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002: 119-128. Prais, S., Productivity, Education, and Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Premack, Eric, “Charter School Implementation Challenges,” January 1994. CSDC Discussion Paper. August 4, 2002 <http://www.csus.edu/ier/charter/ charterimpl.html> Protagoras, Dictionary o f Quotations. Ed. Bergen Evans. New York: Avenel Books, 1978. 198 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Putnam, Robert D., Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Ramos, Alberto Guerreiro, The New Science o f Organizations: A Reconceptualization o f the Wealth o f Nations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981. Rickards, T., Creativity at Work. Aldershot: Gower Publishing, 1988. Robertson, Peter J. and Sonal J. Seneviratne, “Outcomes of Planned Organizational Change in the Public Sector: A Meta-Analytic Comparison to the Private Sector,” PAR. November/December 1995, 55(6): 547-557. Robinson, A., Continuous Improvement in Operations. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press, 1991. Rofes, Eric, “How are School Districts Responding to Charter Laws and Charter Schools?” Policy Analysis for California Publication, April 1998. Rogers, Everett M., Diffusion o f Innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press, 1995. —, and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Communication o f Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach. New York: The Free Press, 1971. Rosenbloom, David H., “History Lesson for the Reinventors,” PAR. 61(2), 2001: 161- 165. Rossi, Peter H. and Howard E. Freeman, Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. London: SAGE Publications, 1993. Rothwell, R., “Successful Industrial Innovation: Critical Success Factors for the 1990s,” R&D Management. 22(3), 1992:221-239. RPP International, “A Study of Charter Schools: First-Year Report,” May 1997. U.S. Department of Education report. February 9,2001 <http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ charter/title.html> —, “Comparison of Charter School Legislation: Thirty-Three States and the District of Columbia,” 1999. U.S. Department o f Education research project. February 9, 2001 <http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/uscs.html> Rubenstein, A., “Ideation and Entrepreneurship,” Managing New Technology Development. Eds. W. Souder and J. Sherman. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994: 15-44. 199 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rubin, Hank, Collaborative Leadership: Developing Effective Partnerships in Communities and Schools. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Ltd., 2002. Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton, Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process, 2n d ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001. Rumble, Greville, The Planning and Management o f Distance Education, London: Croom Helm, Ltd., 1986. Sapolsky, Harvey M., The Polaris System Development: Bureaucratic and Programmatic Success in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Sarason, Seymour B., Charter Schools: Another Flawed Educational Reform? New York: Teachers College Press, 1998. Schein, E. H., Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2n d ed. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1992. Schlechty, Phillip C., Schools for the 21st Century: Leadership Imperatives for the Educational Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. —, Shaking Up the Schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001 Schon, Donald A., Technology and Change: The New Heraclitus. New York: Delacorte Press, 1967. —, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983. School Services of California, “Glossary,” Evaluating New and Renewal Charter School Proposals. Sacramento, CA: School Services of California, 2001. Schumpeter, Joseph A., History o f Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954. Scott, W. Richard, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981. Selznick, Philip, “The Cooptative Mechanism,” 1949. Classics o f Public Administration, 3rd ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1992: 171-178. —, “Foundations of the Theory of Organization,” 1948. Classics o f Organization Theory, 4th ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1996: 127-136. 200 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Senge, Peter, The Dance o f Change. New York: Currency/Doubleday, 1999. —, The Fifth Discipline: the Art & Practice o f the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1990. Senker, P., Towards the Automatic Factory. Kempston: IFS Publications, 1985. Sergiovanni, Thomas J., Leadership for the Schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. Simon, Herbert, Administrative Behavior, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press, 1997. —, The Shape o f Automation for Men and Management. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Singh, Amita, “Questioning the New Public Management,” PAR. 63(1), January/ February 2003: 116-119. Slovacek, Simeon P., Antony J. Kunnan, and Hae-Jin Kim, “California Charter Schools Serving Low-SES Students: An Analysis of the Academic Performance Index,” Program Evaluation and Research Collaborative (PERC) Report, presented at the 2002 ASPA conference. Los Angeles: California State University, 2002. Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Wealth o f Nations. Ed. Edwin Cannon. New York: The Modem Library, 1937. Smith, Mark K., “Donald Schon: Learning, Reflection, and Change,” July 14,2002. mfed.org paper. May 3,2003: 1-19 <http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et- schon.htm> Smrekar, Claire and Ellen Goldring, School Choice in Urban America. New York: Teachers College Press, 1999. Spar, Deborah L., Ruling the Waves: Cycles o f Discovery, Chaos, and Wealth from the Compass to the Internet. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2000. Spicer, Michael W. and Edward W. Hill, “Evaluating Parental Choice in Public Education: Policy beyond the Monopoly Model,” American Journal o f Education. February 1990: 97-113. Stagich, Timothy, Collaborative Leadership and Global Transformation: Developing Collaborative Leaders and High Synergy Organizations. New York: 1st Books Library, 2001. 201 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stagner, R., “Homeostasis as a Unifying Concept in Personality Theory,” 1951. The Social Psychology o f Organizations. Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978: 23. Starkey, K., How Organizations Learn. London: International Thomson Business Press, 1996. Steiner, David M., Rethinking Democratic Education: The Politics o f Reform. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Stevens, Joe B., The Economics o f Collective Choice. San Francisco: Westview Press, 1993. Stigler, George J., The Organization o f Industry. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968. Taylor, Frederick W., “Scientific Management,” 1912. Classics o f Public Administration, 3rd ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1992: 29-32. Taylor, Lori, “Competition in Education,” October 2000. Federal Reserve Bank o f Dallas paper. October 12,2002 <http://www.dallasfed.org/htm/ research/ hot/bdl 000.html> Teske, Paul, Mark Schneider, Jack Buckley, and Sara Clark, “Does Charter School Competition Improve Traditional Public Schools?” June 10,2000. Center for Civic Innovation report. October 12,2002 <http://www.manhattan-institute. org/html/cr_l 0.htm> Thompson, James D., Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishers, 1967. Thomson, Ann Marie, “Collaboration: Meaning and Measurement,” Collaboration Forum, American Society of Public Administration Conference, Phoenix, March 25, 2002. Tichy, N. and M. Devanna, The Transformational Leader. New York: J. Wiley & Sons, 1986. Tidd, Joseph, John Bessant, and Keith Pavitt, Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market, and Organizational Change. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997. Tiebout, Charles M., “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,” The Journal o f Political Economy. 64(5), October 1956: 416-424. 202 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tushman, Michael L. and Charles A. O’Reilly III, Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997. Van Riper, Paul P., “An Introduction to Woodrow Wilson,” The Wilson Influence on Public Administration: from Theory to Practice. Ed. Paul P. Van Riper. Washington D.C.: ASPA Publication, 1990: 1-5. Walters, Jonathan, Understanding Innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Weber, Max, “Bureaucracy,” 1922. Classics o f Public Administration, 3rd ed. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1992: 51-56. Wells, Amy Stuart, “Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform: A Study of Ten California School Districts,” UCLA Charter School Study, December 1998: 1-65. Wheatley, Margaret J., Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1994. Wheelwright, S. and K. Clark, Revolutionizing Product Development. New York: Free Press, 1992. White, Jay D. and Guy B. Adams, Research in Public Administration: Reflections on Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1994. Williamson, Oliver E., The Economic Institutions o f Capitalism. New York: Free Press, 1985. Wilson, James Q., Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. USA: Basic Books, 1989. Wilson, Woodrow, “The Study of Administration,” 1887. The Wilson Influence on Public Administration: from Theory to Practice. Ed. Paul P. Van Riper. Washington D.C.: ASPA Publication, 1990:17-35. Woodward, Joan, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, 2n d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. World Economic Forum’s “Global Competitiveness Report,” Economist. November 16, 2000: 98. Zaltman, Gerald, Robert Duncan, and Jonny Holbek, Innovations and Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973. 203 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix A Interview and Survey Instruments Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Letter of Introduction — Interview March 2002 Dear (Respondent), We need your help by participating in a survey/interview that will be useful in understanding how charter schools innovate and influence their sponsoring school district’s innovative practices; particularly, the Superintendent and principal. The information you provide will be valuable to the charter school as well as to the traditional public schools in California. Please take time to respond to the enclosed questionnaire. Based on the survey’s field testing, completing the questionnaire should last no more than one half-hour. When you return the questionnaire in the enclosed self-addressed envelope it may be necessary to contact you with questions about your responses for clarification. I would like to thank you for your cooperation and willingness to participate in this important project. Your time is recognized and appreciated. Your contribution to this study will help us understand how charter schools prompt public education innovation impulses. Sincerely, David E. Guthrie University of Southern California Enclosures: Research Study Description Interview Questionnaire 205 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Letter of Introduction - Questionnaire September 1,2001 Dear Charter School Program Director/Principal, We need your help by responding to the enclosed survey that will be useful in understanding how charter schools innovate and influence their sponsoring school district’s innovative practices; particularly, the Superintendent and principal. The information you provide will be valuable to the charter school as well as to the traditional public schools in California. Please take time to complete the enclosed questionnaire. Based on the survey’s field testing, completing the questionnaire should take you less than 20 minutes. There are no correct or incorrect responses. All responses will be treated confidentially and in no way traced to individual respondents. If you have an interest to discuss any of the questions included in this survey, please complete the form at the bottom of this letter and forward in the enclosed envelope. Someone will contact you. This is optional. Please return the survey with your responses in the stamped envelope provided for your convenience and, preferably, by September 30, 2001. I would like to thank you for your cooperation and willingness to participate in this important project. Your time is recognized and appreciated. Your contribution to this study will help us understand how charter schools improve public education. Sincerely, D. Edgar Guthrie University of Southern California Enclosures: Survey Research Study Description Token of Appreciation (Supporting Education) Optional: Please provide the following information if you have an interest in further discussing the questions in this survey. Someone will contact you. Name: ________________________________ Telephone # ___________________________ 206 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Description of Charter School and Administrator Innovative Behavior Research Study David E. Guthrie University of Southern California September, 2002 What is the purpose of the study? To understand educational administration innovative responses to charter schools in selected California school districts; to identify the factors that promote and/or inhibit school administrator innovation; to determine if administrators are prepared to respond innovatively to charter schools; and, discover innovative educational programs within school districts linked to charter school development. The Study’s setting: In cooperation with school district Superintendents, the study will focus on more than thirty school districts in California and the charter school Program Directors and Principals within their jurisdictions; more than ninety, overall. Methodology: Interview school district Superintendents and/or designees Purpose: to discover evidence of education administration innovative response to the charter schools within their school districts. Timeline: September 2001/February 2003 Survey charter school Program Directors and Principals Purpose: to discover and identify charter school(s) educational program linkages to the sponsoring school district that influence educational administrative innovative behavior. Timeline: September/October, 2001 Researcher Qualifications: I am a certified candidate for the Doctor of Policy, Planning, and Development Degree at the University of Southern California and am engaged in this research study to fulfill the requirements of the program. I have been a consultant and school business manager for the past 16 years in school districts and county offices of education. My professional career has been engaged in both public and private sector experiences in 207 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. organization management. I am currently the California School Business Development Director for the AXIS 4 Learning Foundation supporting charter, public, and private schools. What is needed from the school district and charter school: Approximately 15 minute interview/survey with the Superintendents and/or designees who are knowledgeable about the charter schools within their school districts. Survey (questionnaire) responses from charter school Program Directors and Principals. Reported findings: The participating school districts and charter schools will be named in the study. Information gathered from the conversations/discussions with superintendents, designees, and the charter school program directors and principals surveys during September 2001 and February 2003, will be held and reported without names and compromising confidentiality. School districts and charter schools will receive a summary of key findings of the study upon request. Dissertation Committee: Dr. Ross Clayton, Advisor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California, Sacramento Center Dr. Chester A. Newland, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California, Sacramento Center Dr. Sarah E. Whitis, Adjunct Professor, University of Southern California, Consultant, Health Care Administration Researcher Contact: David E. Guthrie 12015 Caminito Campana San Diego, CA 92128 Home: (858)673-6964 Office: (858)673-6965 School: (916)442-6911 FAX: (858)675-9101 208 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Interview and Survey Questions (For a response beyond the space provided, please add comment to the back of the survey or on attachments) District Superintendents and Administrators (interview questions): 1. How do you define innovation? _________________________ ________________ 2. In California, Charter Schools, Private Schools, and Home School students represent approximately 14% of the total student population. At what percentage would your district begin to respond to the competition with changes to your district’s education program to attract students back into your district’s schools? ____% 3. What are the alternatives to the charter school within and outside your district? 4. On a scale of 1 to 10,10 being the most, the charter school has influenced my district’s education programs to become more innovative. Provide examples: 5. If the charter school has influenced instruction and curriculum development in your education program, how? Please list: 6. What ways other than instruction and curriculum, e.g., budgetary, has your district responded to charter schools? 7. Has your budget for instruction and curriculum changed in magnitude since the charter? Was this due to the charter or some other factor(s)? Explain. 8. How has your district changed since the charter school’s establishment? 209 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9. What communication links and collaboration exist between the district and charter schools about their respective education programs? 10. How has the principal(s) role changed since the charter school? Are they expected to be more innovative? 11. Respondent Profile: Age, Education Degrees, Professional Experience (public and private), # of districts employed, and do you consider yourself an innovator? 12. Would you be more inclined to adopt innovations through competition or collaboration with the Charter School? 13. On a scale from 1 to 10,10 being the most, how would you rate your education, administrative training, and preparation to innovate alternative education programs in response to competition from charter school(s)? Provide explanatory comments. 14. If you were to create your own charter school, how would it be different from the present charter school in its education delivery system? 15. What other questions did you expect I would ask? What would your answer(s) have been had I asked them? 210 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Charter School Principal (survey questions): 1. What charter school instructional and curriculum innovations has your sponsoring district implemented or adapted? 2. How has the district changed since establishment of the charter school? 3. What communication links exist between the charter school and district about their respective education programs? 4. How would you characterize the charter school’s relationship with the District? (circle one) ■ Collaborative and Cooperative ■ Autonomous Partnership ■ Adversarial and Competitive ■ Ambivalent 5. Would the district respond to parents and students differently without the charter school? Yes N o Explain: 6. How does your charter school role differ from the district’s superintendent and/or principal role? 211 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B Charter School Law 212 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Charter School Law Chapter 1. General Provisions Education Code Sections 47600-47604.5 Title of Act 47600. This part shall be known, and may be cited, as the “Charter Schools Act of 1992.” Legislative intent for Charter Schools 47601. It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure, as a method to accomplish all of the following: (a) Improve pupil learning. (b) Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving. (c) Encourage the use o f different and innovative teaching methods (emphasis added). (d) Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the school site. (e) Provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities that are available within the public school system. (f) Hold the schools established under this part accountable for meeting measurable pupil outcomes, and provide the schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems. (g) Provide vigorous competition within the public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools (emphasis added). 213 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix C School Districts and Charter Schools Listing 214 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table C5. 2002/03 School Districts and Charter Schools Listing with Enrollments. SCHOOL DISTRICT Enrollment C H A RTER PRO G RAM S Enrollment (Less Charter) Alameda City USD 10,381 Anderson Community Learning Center Bay Area School o f Enterprise 158 76 Apple Valley USD 12,990 Academy for Academic Excellence 860 Burbank USD 15,404 Options for Youth 1,343 Camptomille UESD 70 Camptonville Academy 696 Capistrano USD 48,464 Journey 144 Chula Vista ESD 19,848 Arroyo Vista Chula Vista Learning Community Charter Clear View Charter School Discovery Elementary Charter Feaster-Edison Charter School Mueller Elementary Charter School 805 535 521 821 1,137 920 Escondido UHSD 7,454 Escondido Charter High School 909 Gorman ESD 41 Gorman Learning Center Gorman Middle Lifeline Education Charter School 1,486 38 206 Julian Union ESD 455 Julian Charter School 1,185 Julian Union HSD 246 Eagles Peak Charter School 1,774 Loleta Union ESD 211 Pacific View Charter School 197 Long Beach USD 96,697 Constellation Community Charter Middle School New City School Pacific Learning Center Promise Academy 175 118 102 120 Oakland USD 50,209 American Indian Public Charter East Bay Conservation Corps Growing Children Dolores Huerta Learning Academy Lighthouse Community Charter Lionel Wilson College Preperation 162 146 65 211 83 248 215 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table C5. 2002/03 School Districts and Charter Schools Listing with Enrollments. SCHOOL DISTRICT Enrollment CH A RTER PRO G R AM S Enrollment Monarch Academy 344 North Oakland Community Charter 45 Oakland Charter Academy 163 Oakland School for the Arts 102 Ernestine C. Reems Academy 336 University Preparatory Charter 125 West Oakland Community 47 Paradise USD 4,843 Children's Community Charter School 177 HomeTech Charter School 72 Paradise Charter Middle School 102 Paradise Charter Network 101 Paso Robles JUSD 6,763 Grizzley Challenge Charter School 137 Pioneer Union ESD 478 Learning With A Purpose 78 Redwood City ESD 8,006 Aurora High 90 Garfield Charter School 717 Sacramento City USD 51,879 Bowling Green Charter 971 San Diego City USD 131,865 Chancellor William McGill School o f Success 128 Charter School o f San Diego 1,379 Cortez Hill Academy Charter School 100 Damall E-Charter School 579 Explorer Elementary Charter School 205 Harriet Tubman Village Charter School 288 High Tech High Charter School 384 Holly Drive Leadership Academy 156 Kwachiiyao/lxcalli 197 King/Chavez Academy o f Excellence 297 Memorial Academy Charter School 1,867 Museum School 65 Nubia Leadership Academy 375 O'Farrell Community School 1,541 Preuss School UCSD 639 Sojourner Truth Learning Academy 193 Eienstein Charter School 37 Audeo Charter 37 Promise Charter School 195 San Diego Cooperative Charter School 226 216 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table C5. 2002/03 School Districts and Charter Schools Listing with Enrollments. SCHOOL DISTRICT Enrollment CH A RTER PRO GRAM S Enrollment San Francisco USD 57,342 Creative Arts Charter School 183 The Jump Academy 123 Gateway High School 403 Leadership High School 352 Life Learning Academy 30 Urban Pioneer Experential Academy 133 San Gabriel USD 5,419 Options for Youth 611 San Jacinto USD 5,966 San Jacinto Valley Academy 192 San Juan USD 45,974 Choices Charter School 271 Deterding Charter Elementary School 541 Options for Youth-San Juan 322 Visions in Education Charter School 4,275 Sebastopol Union ESD 1,173 Sebastopol Independent Charter School 208 Tahoe Truckee USD 4,734 Prosser Creek Charter School 836 Tracy USD 14,371 Discovery Charter School 224 Twin Ridges ESD 243 Bitney Springs Charter High School 108 Forest Charter School 203 Golden Valley Charter 138 Maria Montessori Charter Academy 107 Napa Valley Charter School 261 Nevada City School o f the Arts 47 River Oak Public Charter School 175 Twin Ridges Home Study Charter School 142 Village 52 Woodlands Charter School 99 Yuba River Charter School 243 Visalia USD 24,406 Charter Alternatives Academy 65 Charter Home School Academy 48 Charter Oak School 60 West Sonoma County UHSD 2,618 Russian River Charter School 69 Western Placer USD 1,072 Carlin C. Coppin Elementary 506 Creekside Oaks Charter Elementary School 670 217 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table C5. 2002/03 School Districts and Charter Schools Listing with Enrollments. SCHOOL DISTRICT Enrollment C HARTER PRO GRAM S Enrollment Horizon Instructional Systems 3,463 Lincoln High School 938 Sheridan Charter School 174 Total: 629,622 44,656 Source: California Department of Education <http://datal.cde.ca.gov/dataquest> April 12,2003 218 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix D Administrative Services Credential Requirements 219 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Meeting of February 6-7, 2002 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: PREP - 5 COMMITTEE: Preparation Standards Committee TITLE: Issues and Options in the Preparation and Licensing of School Administrators _______ Action X Information _______ Report Strategic Plan Goal(s): Goal 1: Promote educational excellence through the preparation and certification of professional educators • Sustain high quality standards for the preparation o f professional educators • Sustain high quality standards for the performance o f credential candidates Prepared By: ___________________________________ Date: Mary Vixie Sandy Director, Professional Services Division Authorized By:___________________________________ Date: Dr. Sam W. Swofford Executive Director 220 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Issues and Options in the Preparation and Licensure of School Administrators Professional Services Division January 22,2002 Executive Summary The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing is engaged in a comprehensive review o f issues and options in the preparation and licensure o f school administrators. During 2001, the Executive Director and staff had extensive interaction with various stakeholder groups, including professional administrator and teacher groups, faculty and administrators from colleges and universities, school board members and representatives from the private sector regarding administrator preparation and licensure. The Executive Director also appointed a task force and directed them to investigate the viability of the existing Administrative Services Credential and the standards that govern preparation for that credential. The Task Force findings were presented to the Commission for information during its November 2001 meeting. During the December meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare a report on existing standards and assessments that are used for administrator preparation and licensure as well as information about licensing requirements in other states. During the January meeting, staff presented in written form an overview o f standards and assessments, and representatives from Educational Testing Services provided an overview o f the School Leadership Assessment Series that they administer. Commissioner’s asked staff to prepare for a more comprehensive discussion o f standards at the February Commission meeting. This report includes a description and analysis o f the California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSELs), the Standards for School Leadership adopted by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), and the Commission’s adopted Standards o f Program Quality and Effectiveness for Administrative Services Credentials. The report also includes an overview o f assessments that are used for administrator licensure. Policy(s) Issue to be Considered What standards should govern preparation for the Administrative Services Credential? Fiscal Impact Statement' Activities related to the review and potential revision o f this credential are covered under the Commission’s base budget. 221 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Issues and Options in the Preparation and Licensure of School Administrators Professional Services Division January 22,2002 Background The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing is engaged in a comprehensive review o f issues and options in the preparation and licensure o f school administrators. During 2001, the Executive Director and staff had extensive interaction with various stakeholder groups, including professional administrator and teacher groups, faculty and administrators from colleges and universities, school board members and representatives from the private sector regarding administrator preparation and licensure. The Executive Director also appointed a task force and directed them to investigate the viability o f the existing Administrative Services Credential and the standards that govern preparation for that credential. The Task Force findings were presented to the Commission for information during its November 2001 meeting. The following eight policy questions provide a framework for the Commission’s discussion o f this important credential area: 1. Policy Question One: What does the 21st Century schools require in terms o f management at each level? 2. Policy Question Two: Which school management positions should require a • credential? 3. Policy Question Three: What should be the content o f administrator preparation? 4 . Policy Question Four: W hich entities should be authorized to provide administrator preparation? 5. Policy Question Five: Which decisions about administrator preparation should be left to local school districts to decide? 6. Policy Question Six: What should the structure o f administrator preparation involve? 7 . Policy Question Seven: What does an appropriate “learning to lead” continuum look like for school and district administrators? 8. Policy Question Eight: What is an appropriate accountability system for administrator preparation programs? During the December meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare a report on existing standards and assessments that are used for administrator preparation and licensure as well as information about licensing requirements in other states. During the January meeting, staff presented in written form an overview o f standards and assessments, and representatives from Educational Testing Services provided an overview o f the School Leadership Assessment Series that they administer. Commissioner’s asked staff to prepare for a more comprehensive 222 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. discussion o f standards at the February Commission meeting. This report includes a description and analysis o f the California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSELs), the Standards for School Leadership adopted by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), and the Commission’s adopted Standards o f Program Quality and Effectiveness for Administrative Services Credentials. The report also includes an overview o f assessments that are used for administrator licensure. Overview of Standards for School Leaders The California Professional Standards for Education Leaders were developed by a broadly representative group that included the Association o f California School Administrators (ACSA) the California School Leadership Academy (CSLA), representatives from colleges and universities, representatives from state agencies, and representatives o f the professional development community. The six standards are based on standards developed at the National level by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium which are used to guide preparation and certification in a number o f other states. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders were developed between 1994 and 1996 under the auspices o f the Council o f C hief State School Officers. The standards, which are based on research on productive educational leadership, were drafted by personnel from 24 state education agencies (including the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing) and representatives from various professional associations. The six standards present a common core o f knowledge, dispositions, and performances that are intended to link leadership more forcefully to productive schools and enhanced education outcomes. The Commission’s Standards o f Quality and Effectiveness for the Administrative Services Credential provide specific direction regarding the structure and content o f administrator preparation to sponsors o f preparation programs leading to the Preliminary and Professional Administrative Services Credential. Standards for the Preliminary Credential are organized into three categories: Program Design and Curriculum; Field Experiences; and Domains o f Candidate Competence and Performance. Standards the professional clear credential are organized into four categories: Program Design and Curriculum; Support and Mentoring Plan; Non-University Activities; and Candidate Competence and Performance. Table 1 lists the six CPSEL standards and the six ISLLC standards, with differences in the standards language appearing in italics. Each standard is followed by a set o f indicators. The ISLLC indicators describe the knowledge, dispositions and performances that are expected in each domain o f the standards. The CPSEL indicators describe performances only, though the performance expectations presume a knowledge base, and, to some extent, a disposition toward leadership. Table 2 lists the Commission’s standards o f candidate competence and performance. Each standard is followed by a set o f factors that are used by accreditation team members to evaluate whether and to what degree the standard is met by a preparation program. Table 2 also identifies the relationship between the CCTC standards and the CPSEL and ISLLC standards. 223 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. CPSEL and ISLLC Standards for School Leaders CAPSL STANDARDS ISLLC STANDARDS Standard 1 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. 9. Facilitate the development of a shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple measures of student learning and relevant qualitative indicators. 10. Communicate and implement the shared vision so that the entire school community understands and acts on the mission of the school as a standards-based educational system. 11. Leverage and marshal sufficient resources to implement and attain the vision for all students and subgroups of students. 12. Identify and address any barriers to accomplishing the vision. 13. Shape school programs, plans, and activities to ensure integration, articulation, and consistency with the vision. 14. Use the influence of diversity to improve teaching and learning. Standard 1 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. Knowledge The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:: 2. learning goals in a pluralistic society 3. the principles of developing and implementing strategic plans 4. systems theory 5. information sources, data collection, and data analysis strategies 6. effective communication 7. effective consensus-building and negotiation skills Dispositions The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to: • a school vision of high standards of learning ■ continuous school improvement • the inclusion of all members of the school community • ensuring that students have the knowledge, skills, and values needed to become successful adults • a willingness to continuously examine one's own assumptions, beliefs, and practices ■ doing the work required for high levels of personal and organization performance Performances The administrator facilitates processes and engages in activities ensuring that: 3. the vision and mission of the school are effectively communicated to staff, parents, students, and community members 4. the vision and mission are communicated through the use of symbols, ceremonies, stories, and similar activities 5. the core beliefs of the school vision are modeled for all stakeholders 6. the vision is developed with and among stakeholders 7. the contributions of school community members to the realization of the vision are recognized and celebrated 8. progress toward the vision and mission is communicated to all stakeholders 9. the school community is involved in school improvement efforts 10. the vision shapes the educational programs, plans, and actions 11. an implementation plan is developed in which objectives and strategies to achieve the vision and goals are clearly articulated 12. assessment data related to student learning are used to develop the school vision and goals 13. relevant demographic data pertaining to students and their families are used in developing the school mission and goals 14. barriers to achieving the vision are identified, clarified, and addressed 15. needed resources are sought and obtained to support the implementation of the school mission and goals 16. existing resources are used in support of the school vision and goals 17. the vision, mission, and implementation plans are regularly monitored, evaluated, and revised 224 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Standard 2 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. 1. 2 . 3. 4. 6 . 7. Create an accountability system of teaching and learning based on student learning standards. Utilize multiple assessment measures to evaluate student learning to drive an ongoing process of inquiry focused on improving the learning of all students and all subgroups of students. Shape a culture where high expectations for all students and for all subgroups of students is the core purpose. Guide and support the long-term professional development of all staff consistent with the ongoing effort to improve the learning of all students relative to the content standards. Promote equity, fairness, and respect among all members of the school community. Provide opportunities for all members of the school community to develop and use skills in collaboration, leadership, and shared responsibility. Facilitate the use of appropriate learning materials and learning strategies which include the following: students as active learners, a variety of appropriate materials and strategies, the use of reflection and inquiry, an emphasis on quality versus quantity, and appropriate and effective technology. Standard 2 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. Knowledge The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:: student growth and development applied learning theories applied motivational theories curriculum design, implementation, evaluation, and refinement principles of effective instruction measurement, evaluation, and assessment strategies diversity and its meaning for educational programs adult learning and professional development models the change process for system s, organizations, and individuals the role of technology in promoting student learning and professional growth school cultures Dispositions The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to: student learning as the fundamental purpose of schooling the proposition that all students can leam the variety of ways in which students can leam life long learning for self and others professional development as an integral part of school improvement the benefits that diversity brings to the school community a safe and supportive learning environment preparing students to be contributing members of society Performances The administrator facilitates processes and engages in activities ensuring that: all individuals are treated with fairness, dignity, and respect professional development promotes a focus on student learning consistent with the school vision and goals students and staff feel valued and important the responsibilities and contributions of each individual are acknowledged barriers to student learning are identified, clarified, and addressed diversity is considered in developing learning experiences life long learning is encouraged and modeled there is a culture of high expectations for self, student, and staff performance technologies are used in teaching and learning student and staff accomplishments are recognized and celebrated multiple opportunities to learn are available to all students the school is organized and aligned for success curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular programs are designed, implemented, evaluated, and refined curriculum decisions are based on research, expertise of teachers, and the recommendations of learned societies the school culture and climate are assessed on a regular basis a variety of sources of information is used to make decisions student learning is assessed using a variety of techniques multiple sources of information regarding performance are used by staff and students a variety of supervisory and evaluation models is employed pupil personnel programs are developed to meet the needs of students and their families 225 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Standard 3 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. Monitor and evaluate the programs and staff at the site. Establish school structures, patterns, and processes that support student learning. Manage legal and contractual agreements and records in ways that foster a professional work environment and secure privacy and confidentiality for all students and staff. Align fiscal, human, and material resources to support the learning of all students and all groups of students. Sustain a safe, efficient, clean, well-maintained, and productive school environment that nurtures student learning and supports the professional growth of teachers and support staff. Utilize the principles of systems management, organizational development, problem solving, and decision-making techniques fairly and effectively. Utilize effective and nurturing practices in establishing student behavior management systems. Standard 3 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the su ccess of all students by ensuring m anagem ent of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Knowledge The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:: theories and models of organizations and the principles of organizational development • operational procedures at the school and district level • principles and issues relating to school safety and security human resources management and development • principles and issues relating to fiscal operations of school management principles and issues relating to school facilities and use of space • legal Issues impacting school operations • current technologies that support management functions Dispositions The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to: • making management decisions to enhance learning and teaching taking risks to improve schools trusting people and their judgments accepting responsibility high-quality standards, expectations, and performances involving stakeholders in management processes a safe environment Performances The administrator facilitates processes and engages in activities ensuring that knowledge of learning, teaching, and student development is used to inform management decisions operational procedures are designed and managed to maximize opportunities for successful learning emerging trends are recognized, studied, and applied as appropriate operational plans and procedures to achieve the vision and goals of the school are In place collective bargaining and other contractual agreements related to the school are effectively managed the school plant, equipment, and support systems operate safely, efficiently, and effectively time is managed to maximize attainment of organizational potential problems and opportunities are identified problems are confronted and resolved in a timely manner financial, human, and material resources are aligned to the goals of schools the school acts entrepreneurally to support continuous improvement organizational systems are regularly monitored and modified as needed stakeholders are Involved in decisions affecting schools responsibility is shared to maximize ownership and accountability effective problem-framing and problem-solving skills are used effective conflict resolution skills are used effective group-process and consensus-building skills are used effective communication skills are used a safe, clean, and aesthetically pleasing school environment is created and maintained human resource functions support the attainment of school goals confidentiality and privacy of school records are maintained 226 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Standard 4 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources. 2. Incorporate information about family and community expectations into school decision making and activities. 3. Recognize the goals and aspirations of diverse family and community groups. 4. Treat diverse community stakeholder groups with fairness and with respect. 5. Support the equitable success of all students and all subgroups of students through the mobilization and leveraging of community support services. 6. Strengthen the school through the establishment of community, business, institutional, and civic partnerships. 7. Communicate information about the school on a regular and predictable basis through a variety of media and modes. Standard 4 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources. Knowledge The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:: • emerging issues and trends that potentially impact the school community ■ the conditions and dynamics of the diverse school community ■ community resources community relations and marketing strategies and processes • successful models of school, family, business, community, government and higher education partnerships Dispositions The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to: • schools operating as an integral part of the larger community • collaboration and communication with families • involvement of families and other stakeholders in school decision-making processes ■ the proposition that diversity enriches the school • families as partners in the education of their children • the proposition that families have the best interests of their children in mind • resources of the family and community needing to be brought to bear on the education of students ■ an informed public Performances The administrator facilitates processes and engages in activities ensuring that: • high visibility, active involvement, and communication with the larger community is a priority • relationships with community leaders are identified and nurtured • information about family and community concerns, expectations, and needs is used regularly • there is outreach to different business, religious, political, and service agencies and organizations • credence is given to individuals and groups whose values and opinions may conflict • the school and community serve one another as resources • available community resources are secured to help the school solve problems and achieve goals • partnerships are established with area businesses, institutions of higher education, and community groups to strengthen programs and support school goals • community youth family services are integrated with school programs • community stakeholders are treated equitably • diversity is recognized and valued ■ effective media relations are developed and maintained • a comprehensive program of community relations is established ■ public resources and funds are used appropriately and wisely • community collaboration is modeled for staff • opportunities for staff to develop collaborative skills are provided 227 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Standard 5 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity. 2. Demonstrate skills in decision making, problem solving, change management, planning, conflict management, and evaluation. 3. Model personal and professional ethics, integrity, justice, and fairness and expect the same behaviors from others. 4. Make and communicate decisions based upon relevant data and research about effective teaching and learning, leadership, management practices, and equity. 5. Reflect on personal leadership practices and recognize their impact and influence on the performance of others. 6. Encourage and inspire others to higher levels of performance, commitment, and motivation. 7. Sustain personal motivation, commitment, energy, and health by balancing professional and personal responsibilities. 8. Engage in professional and personal development. 9. Demonstrate knowledge of the curriculum and the ability to integrate and articulate programs throughout the grades. 10. Use the influence of the office to enhance the educational program rather than for personal gain. 11. Protect the rights and confidentiality of students and staff. Standard 5 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner. Knowledge The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:: • the purpose of education and the role of leadership in modem society • various ethical frameworks and perspectives on ethics • the values of the diverse school community • professional codes of ethics ■ the philosophy and history of education Dispositions The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to: ■ the ideal of the common good the principles in the B ill of Rights • the right of every student to a free, quality education • bringing ethical principles to the decision-making process ■ subordinating one’s own interest to the good of the school community accepting the consequences for upholding one’ s principles and actions • using the influence of one's office constructively and productively in the service of all students and their families • development of a caring school community Performances The administrator: • examines personal and professional values • demonstrates a personal and professional code of ethics • demonstrates values, beliefs, and attitudes that inspire others to higher levels of performance • serves as a role model ■ accepts responsibility for school operations • considers the impact of one’ s administrative practices on others • uses the influence of the office to enhance the educational program rather than for personal gain ■ treats people fairly, equitably, and with dignity and respect • protects the rights and confidentiality of students and staff ■ demonstrates appreciation for and sensitivity to the diversity in the school community • recognizes and respects the legitimate authority of others • examines and considers the prevailing values of the diverse school community • expects that others in the school community will demonstrate integrity and exercise ethical behavior • opens the school to public scrutiny • fulfills legal and contractual obligations • applies laws and procedures fairly, wisely, and considerately 228 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Standard 6 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. 2. View oneself as a leader of a team and also a member of a larger team. 3. Ensure that the school operates consistently within the parameters of federal, state, and local laws, policies, regulations, and statutory requirements. 4. Generate support for the school by two-way communication with key decision makers in the school community. 5. Work with the governing board and district and local leaders to influence policies that benefit students and support the improvement of teaching and learning. 6. Influence and support public policies that ensure the equitable distribution of resources, and support for all the subgroups of students. 7. Open the school to the public and welcome and facilitate constructive conversations about how to improve student learning and achievement. Standard 6 A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. Knowledge The administrator has knowledge and understanding of: ■ principles of representative governance that undergird the system of American schools ■ the role of public education in developing and renewing a democratic society and an economically productive nation • the law as related to education and schooling • the political, social, cultural and economic system s and processes that impact schools models and strategies of change and conflict resolution as applied to the larger political, social, cultural and economic contexts of schooling • global issues and forces affecting teaching and learning ■ the dynamics of policy development and advocacy under our democratic political system • the importance of diversity and equity in a democratic society Dispositions The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to: • education as a key to opportunity and social mobility • recognizing a variety of ideas, values, and cultures • importance of a continuing dialogue with other decision makers affecting education • actively participating in the political and policy-making context in the service of education • using legal systems to protect student rights and improve student opportunities Performances The administrator facilitates processes and engages in activities ensuring that: the environment in which schools operate is influenced on behalf of students and their families communication occurs among the school community concerning trends, issues, and potential changes in the environment in which schools operate there is ongoing dialogue with representatives of diverse community groups the school community works within the framework of policies, laws, and regulations enacted by local, state, and federal authorities public policy is shaped to provide quality education for students lines of communication are developed with decision makers outside the school community______________________________ 229 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2. CCTC Standards of Candidate Competence and Performance CCTC Standards of Candidate Competence and Performance Relationship to CPSELflSLLC Standards Standard 9: Educational Leadership. Each candidate in the program is able to articulate a vision consistent with a well developed educational philosophy and is able to lead individuals and groups toward the accomplishment of common goals and objectives. The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program evaluation. ■ Each candidate displays values, beliefs, and attitudes that inspire others to achieve school goals. • Each candidate understands the importance of the leadership role in schools and the responsibility of exercising that leadership in positive ways. • Each candidate is familiar with a variety of leadership styles and is able to demonstrate appropriate styles in specific situations. • Each candidate demonstrates an understanding of shared leadership and the need to foster and develop leadership skills in others. ■ Each candidate is able to manage conflict, build consensus, and communicate effectively orally and in writing. • Each candidate understands the importance of developing good interpersonal relationships with colleagues, teachers, parents, school board members, community members, and students. ■ The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the institution. ISLLC/CPSEL Standard 1 Standard 10: Organizational Management. Each candidate demonstrates understanding of the organization, structure, and cultural context of schools and is able to lead others in the development and attainment of short-term and long term goals. The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program evaluation. ■ Each candidate understands basic principles of organizational theory so as to be able to lead and manage schools as organizational entities. • Each candidate demonstrates the ability to apply theoretical perspectives to his or her own organizational setting. • Each candidate understands the organization of the school and the roles of individuals within that school setting. • Each candidate is able to identify a wide range of intellectual, political, ethical, cultural, and economic forces that impact on school organizations. • Each candidate demonstrates the ability to lead groups and individuals in the development and implementation of long or short range goals. ■ The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the institution. ISLLC/CPSEL Standard 3 Standard 11: Instructional Program. Each candidate demonstrates the ability to design, implement and evaluate instructional programs and lead in their development and improvement. The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program evaluation. • Each candidate understands basic principles of curriculum design and is able to interpret and guide the planning, implementation and evaluation of school district curricula. • Each candidate understands the developmental needs of diverse learners and is able to insure appropriate learning methods and activities for diverse groups of students. • • Each candidate understands the importance of and demonstrates the ability to work with staff, parents, pupils, and community in curriculum development and evaluation. ■ Each candidate gains an understanding of the appropriate use of resources-human, fiscal, and other— to the benefit of student instruction and the ongoing operation of schools. • Each candidate is able to plan and organize programs for staff ISLLC/CPSEL Standard 2 230 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. development consistent with curricular and instructional needs. • Each candidate is able to direct appropriate ancillary services to students for the improvement of teaching and learning. • Each candidate understands procedures for student assessment and uses assessment information to improve the instructional program. • The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the institution. Standard 12: Management of Schools. Each candidate is able to plan, organize, implement, manage, facilitate and evaluate the daily operation of schools in ways that achieve organizational goals and lead to the safe productive operation of schools. The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program evaluation. ■ Each candidate works with faculty, parents, students, school board members, and other school stakeholders to translate a shared vision into strategic and operational plans. • Each candidate defines roles and relationships for implementing and monitoring strategies and operational plans. • Each candidate identifies resources and strategies required to implement plans. ■ Each candidate develops an understanding of appropriate ways to manage student behavior in a school setting so as to develop and maintain a positive and safe school climate. • Each candidate develops the ability to manage student services in response to individual and diverse students, making full use of the knowledge and services of appropriate support personnel. Each candidate acquires information management skills, including the ability to collect and analyze data, make and assist others in making informed decisions, and interpret and convey information in appropriate and thoughtful ways. • Each candidate develops the ability to facilitate shared decision-making among members of the school community. • The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the institution. ISLLC/CPSEL Standard 3 Standard 13: Human Resource Administration. Each candidate demonstrates understanding of the importance and dimensions of human resource administration and the need to attract, retain, develop and motivate school personnel in ways that enhance learning and professional development and that lead to positive and productive school settings. The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program evaluation. ■ Each candidate is able to work with all school personnel as well as with students, parents, school boards, and community members to establish a positive school climate and so that teachers and students can be successful. • Each candidate develops an understanding of successful staff recruitment, selection, and induction approaches. • Each candidate demonstrates the ability to make appropriate personnel assignments and recognizes the importance of full utilization of each employee's skills, abilities, and training. • Each candidate understands the importance of staff development for all employees and is able to organize effective and appropriate professional development opportunities. • Each candidate acquires processes and techniques for the evaluation of personnel performance. ■ Each candidate understands the collective bargaining process and the administrator's role and the unions' role in that process. • The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the institution.' ISLLC/CPSEL Standard 2 231 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Standard 14: Fiscal Resource and Business Service Administration. Each candidate develops an understanding of the effective and efficient management of fiscal resources and business services. The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program evaluation. ■ Each candidate understands the sources and appropriate use of federal, state, and local school funding. • Each candidate develops knowledge of sound fiscal and business management skills and practices. • Each candidate understands the relationship between human and fiscal resource planning in the management of schools. • Each candidate understands the role of the school administrator in developing a school budget, administering the budget, and evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the services and products funded by the budget. • Each candidate is aware of the division of fiscal responsibility between the school site and the central office. • Each candidate develops skill in managing and scheduling school facilities in ways that promote appropriate and maximum use. ■ The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the institution. ISLLC/CPSEL Standard 3 Standard 15: Legal and Regulatory Applications. Each candidate understands the federal, state and local educational laws, regulations and other policies that govern schools, and knows how to act in accordance with these provisions. The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program evaluation. • Each candidate gains an understanding of federal and state constitutional provisions, statutory standards, and regulatory applications governing public schools. • Each candidate understands the importance of local rules, procedures, and directives related to schools. ■ Each candidate understands the procedures and requirements for the employment, evaluation and retention of school personnel. Each candidate understands the requirements relating to credentialing laws, including assignment authorizations. • Each candidate understands the collective bargaining process and is able to interpret and administer contracts. • Each candidate operates in fair and impartial ways, acting in accordance with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. • The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the institution. ISLLC/CPSEL Standard 6 Standard 16: Policy and Political Influences. Each candidate recognizes the relationships among public policy, governance and schooling and is able to relate policy initiatives to the welfare of students in responsible and ethical ways. The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program evaluation. • Each candidate understands the need for schools to be responsive to diverse community and constituent groups. • Each candidate understands governance roles and has opportunities to practice consensus > building, develop collaborative relationships, and engage in team building activities. • Each candidate understands the need for interagency and interdisciplinary cooperation. • Each candidate understands the interaction between schools and the social issues and concerns that impact the larger society. • Each candidate understands schools as a political system and is able to identify the relationships between public policy and education. The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the institution. ISLLC/CPSEL Standards 5 and 6 232 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Standard 17: School and Community Collaborations. Each candidate in the program collaborates with parents and community members; works with community agencies, foundations, and the private sector; and responds to community interests and needs in performing administrative responsibilities. The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program evaluation. • Each candidate understands the socio-demognaphic make-up of the school community and is able to develop and evaluate instructional programs, strategies and approaches appropriate to diverse student needs. • Each candidate recognizes the importance of collaboration and demonstrates the ability to communicate and work with parents, school boards, and community members. • Each candidate becomes aware of the wide range of social services available to children and families in the community and is able to effectively deliver and coordinate educational services with other service providers. • Each candidate understands the importance of school public relations, is responsive to community issues and concerns, and is able to build and mobilize support for schools in the community. • The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the institution. ISLLC/CPSEL Standard 4 Standard 18: Use of Technology. Each candidate in the program effectively manages the various uses of technology for instructional and administrative purposes in the educational setting. The following factors serve as a guide for initial program design and ongoing program evaluation. • Each candidate has opportunities to develop and improve in their competence of using technological tools. ■ Each candidate understands the importance and role of multi-media technologies for instructional support, administrative decision-making, and the management of data in schools. • Each candidate uses computers and other technologies in the performance of administrative responsibilities. • Each candidate is able to make informed decisions about appropriate technologies for school use. ■ Each candidate is able to manage the use of technology for the improvement of the instructional program. The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the institution. ISLLC/CPSEL Standard 2 233 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E Measure of Competition and Concentration Ranking and Ratios 234 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Measure of Competition and Concentration Ranking and Ratios Education’s significance within a given education market that includes public, private (home schooling), and charter schools is measurable through market shares expressed as a percentage. The study focused on the counties where the subject districts reside. An education market sector measurement was calculated revealing the distribution and competition intensity within each county. The information introduces the possibility that there is a relationship between the measure of concentration of schools and the public schools’ responsiveness to competition. The assumption is that public school districts in county school systems with greater concentration are less sensitive to competition and less innovative than those districts in counties with less concentration. In order to determine the level of concentration the Hirfendahl-Hirschmann Index (HHI) is used. School districts operate within county jurisdictions and their resources and institutional affiliation are proximate. So county-by-county education programs are clustered, segmented, and analyzed. The measure of concentration is not simply a measure of proportion and market share but market power. The theoretical support for the HHI came from Stigler who focused on the market phenomenon of oligopoly. While oligopoly applies primarily to private firms, school concentration and school effectiveness can also experience negative externalities associated with private firms operating in an economy with minimum competition and imperfect markets. HHI analyzes the price elasticity for a given market sector. The general rule is the less concentrated the industry the greater price elasticity (Stigler 223). The HHI is used by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division to analyze mergers and acquisitions and their impact on the market and competition. The HHI also measures the 235 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. trend toward or away from monopolization. A comparison among counties studied is displayed in the following Tables and Graphs. The index displays relative concentrations among counties and levels of competition among sectors. Tulare County has the highest concentration while San Francisco County has the lowest. Consequently, it is expected that Tulare school districts would be less sensitive to competition than in San Francisco. There appears to be no significant correlation between the level of concentration and sensitivity effects of competition on the school districts. This finding indicates that school districts operate as oligopolies rather than competitive firms in the education markets they serve. The county school sector analysis shows a high concentration in all counties primarily from public schools and would be subject to Justice Department scrutiny if they were private firms. This finding does not preclude an analysis of the varying degrees of concentration influences among counties and their districts. The HHI provides an analytical tool from which we can derive the degree of sensitivity by public school districts to competition and their reactions to it. 236 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table E6: School Market Shares (Students) County Public* % Private** % Charter* % Total Alameda 214,730 85.8% 32,097 12.8% 3,311 1.3% 250,138 Butte 32,832 89.2% 2,537 6.9% 1,428 3 .9% 36,797 El Dorado 28,483 92.1% 1,765 5.7% 664 2 .1% 30,912 Humbolt 19,343 90.5% 686 3.2% 1,335 6.2% 21,364 Los Angeles 1,692,682 85.7% 239,932 12.1% 43,426 2 .2% 1,976,040 Nevada 11,710 71.8% 1,571 9 .6% 3,039 18.6% 16,320 Orange 507,111 87.8% 65,275 11.3% 4,994 0.9% 577,380 Placer 53,984 84.1% 3,481 5.4% 6,732 10.5% 64,197 Riverside 347,441 92.0% 27,%7 7.4% 2,166 0.6% 377,574 Sacramento 224,539 86.3% 27,505 10.6% 8,073 3.1% 260,117 San Bernardino 397,720 91.2% 29,071 6.7% 9,508 2 .2% 436,299 San Diego 474,350 85.9% 52,594 9.5% 25,400 4 .6% 552,344 San Francisco 58,297 67.3% 26,648 30.8% 1,694 2 .0% 86,639 San Joaquin 126,188 90.8% 10,642 7.7% 2,175 1.6% 139,005 San Luis Obispo 37,098 90.6% 3,546 8.7% 297 0.7% 40,941 San Mateo 85,072 78.6% 19,286 17.8% 3,919 3.6% 108,277 Sonoma 69,664 85.4% 8,600 10.5% 3,300 4 .0% 81,564 Tulare 87,8% 95.0% 4,193 4 .5% 445 0.5% 92,534 Yuba 12,313 81.8% 533 3.5% 2,199 14.6% 15,045 Total: 4,481,453 87% 557,929 11% 124,105 2% 5,163,487 Source: *Data for Public Schools was obtained from the California Department of Education, 2002/2003 California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS). ** Data for Private Schools was obtained from the California Department o f Education Private School 2002/03 Directory that records schools with 6 or more students. Home school students are included in the private school category factored as 1.7% o f public and private school enrollments (U.S. Department o f Education) to U J Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. □ Public H Private ■ Charter Alameda Butte El Dorado Humboldt Los Angeles Nevada Orange Placer Riverside Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Sonoma Tulare Yuba 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% to u> 00 Figure E l5. School Market Share (Students) Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table E7. Measure of Concentration County Public* % Share Squared Private** % Share Squared Charter* % Share Squared Total Sum of Squares Alameda 214,730 86% 0.7369 32,097 13% 0.0165 3,311 1% 0.0002 250,138 0.7536 Butte 32,832 89% 0.7961 2,537 7% 0.0048 1,428 4% 0.0015 36,797 0.8024 El Dorado 28,483 92% 0.8490 1,765 6% 0.0033 664 2% 0.0005 30,912 0.8527 Humbolt 19,343 91% 0.8198 686 3% 0.0010 1,335 6% 0.0039 21,364 0.8247 Los Angeles 1,692,682 86% 0.7338 239,932 12% 0.0147 43,426 2% 0.0005 1,976,040 0.7490 Nevada 11,710 72% 0.5148 1,571 10% 0.0093 3,039 19% 0.0347 16,320 0.5588 Orange 507,111 88% 0.7714 65,275 11% 0.0128 4,994 1% 0.0001 577,380 0.7843 Placer 53,984 84% 0.7071 3,481 5% 0.0029 6,732 10% 0.0110 64,197 0.7211 Riverside 347,441 92% 0.8468 27,967 7% 0.0055 2,166 1% 0.0000 377,574 0.8523 Sacramento 224,539 86% 0.7452 27,505 11% 0.0112 8,073 3% 0.0010 260,117 0.7573 San Bernardino 397,720 91% 0.8310 29,071 7% 0.0044 9,508 2% 0.0005 436,299 0.8359 San Diego 474,350 86% 0.7375 52,594 10% 0.0091 25,400 5% 0.0021 552,344 0.7487 San Francisco 58,297 67% 0.4528 26,648 31% 0.0946 1,694 2% 0.0004 86,639 0.5477 San Joaquin 126,188 91% 0.8241 10,642 8% 0.0059 2,175 2% 0.0002 139,005 0.8302 San Luis Obispo 37,098 91% 0.8211 3,546 9% 0.0075 297 1% 0.0001 40,941 0.8286 San Mateo 85,072 79% 0.6173 19,286 18% 0.0317 3,919 4% 0.0013 108,277 0.6503 Sonoma 69,664 85% 0.7295 8,600 11% 0.0111 3,300 4% 0.0016 81,564 0.7422 Tulare 87,896 95% 0.9023 4,193 5% 0.0021 445 0% 0.0000 92,534 0.9043 Yuba 12,313 82% 0.6698 533 4% 0.0013 2,199 15% 0.0214 15,045 0.6924 Total: 4,481,453 87% 0.7533 557,929 11% 0.0117 124,105 2% 0.0006 5,163,487 0.7655 Source: *Data for Public Schools was obtained from the California Department of Education, 2002/2003 California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS). ** Data for Private Schools was obtained from the California Department of Education Private School 2002/03 Directory that records schools with 6 or more students. Home school students are included in the private school category factored as 1.7% of public and private school enrollments (U.S. Department of Education) to Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Alameda Butte El Dorado Humboldt Los Angeles Nevada Orange Placer Riverside Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Sonoma Tulare Yuba 0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.4000 0.3000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000 Figure E l6. Measure of Concentration

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Conversion of health care organizations from non -profit to for -profit status

PDF

Educational reform for private state -approved schools in California

PDF

A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government

PDF

Internal venturing in public agencies

PDF

Evaluation of professional services consultants in rural government

PDF

A financial audit model for entrepreneurial governments

PDF

Drug treatment providers' organizational responses to implementation of California's Proposition 36

PDF

Determining acceptable seismic risk: A community participation-based approach

PDF

Assessing United States information assurance *policy response to computer -based threats to national security

PDF

Care management for the uninsured: A force field analysis of the business case

PDF

Determining risk propensity of government program managers for high risk /high payoff projects

PDF

Detecting the effects social and business pressures on small California trucking firm tax compliance

PDF

Bridled boldness: Reengineering the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Lessons learned

PDF

Banking on the commons: An institutional analysis of groundwater banking programs in California's Central Valley

PDF

Adapting and applying a mission-focused strategic framework for emergency management

PDF

Development of a family risk-factor measure that predicts imminent risk of placement and appropriateness for family-based, wrap -around services

PDF

Historical perspectives and future horizons of local government managers and the International City /County Management Association

PDF

Executive spending power: Flexibility in obligation and outlay timing as a measure of federal budgetary and policy control

PDF

An organizational history of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: A critical comparison of administrative decision making in two pivotal eras

PDF

Interoperability among complex defense computer -based systems: The Navy case

Asset Metadata

Creator Guthrie, David E. (author)

Core Title Charter schools' influence on public school administrators' innovative behaviors

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Public Administration

Degree Program Public Administration

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

Tag Education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Clayton, Ross (committee chair), Newland, Chester (committee member), Whitis, Sarah (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-636373

Unique identifier UC11334966

Identifier 3116708.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-636373 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3116708.pdf

Dmrecord 636373

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Guthrie, David E.

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