University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How and why does a district network schools?

(USC Thesis Other)

How and why does a district network schools?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

HOW AND WHY DOES A DISTRICT NETWORK SCHOOLS?

by

Teresa Lanphere-Ames

__________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Teresa Lanphere-Ames
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to some very special people in my life. First and
foremost I want to acknowledge the incredible support, encouragement, and love that
my husband Jeffrey (a.k.a. “My Best Guy”) has given to me over the past three years
as I spent all my free time and then some either working on my courses, writing my
dissertation, serving in my position as an elementary principal, and occasionally
teaching classes at CSUDH. Jeffrey, you have been terrific-now it is my turn to take
over and let you relax and take Charlie for lots of walks.
I also want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of understanding and
support I received from my sisters, Kathy and Michelle, brother-in-laws, Keith and
David, and the best nieces and nephews in the world: Arielle, Rachel, Sam, Matthew,
Spencer, and Hayden. There were many times that I had to forego events that I
would have liked to help with or attend but I was busy writing papers or my
dissertation.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my father, Ralph and my late mother,
Carol, for helping me to see throughout my life that no challenge was too big for me
to overcome. They helped me to see that I could do whatever I set my mind to with
determination and effort. I know I got these traits from my dad, even though he
would deny it!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the individuals that were
instrumental in providing the guidance and support needed to complete this
dissertation. First, I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee:
Dr. Amanda Datnow, chair, Dr. Guilbert Henschke, and Dr. Priscilla Wohlstetter.
There are not enough words to express my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Amanda
Datnow, my incredible dissertation chair for the continuous support and feedback
she provided to me over the past year and a half. Due to the tremendous respect I
have for her as an individual and as a researcher, I strived to follow her lead and do
my best when I started my own research. I know that the final product is a reflection
of her voice in my head as I thought about themes she stressed in our many
dissertation group meetings. She always had something positive to say, even when I
sent her a very sloppy draft of a chapter as she had the ability to see beyond words
and find the content hidden within which helped me to stay motivated and on track.
I would also like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Hentschke and Dr.
Wohlstetter for the invaluable insight and advice they gave to me during my
dissertation proposal phase which set me on a path that made my research stronger
and more relevant. I value the exceptional knowledge and experience they both have
on the topic of networks and know that because of them I was able to delve deeper
into this topic and learn a great deal.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the assistance and support of some
special friends who gave me critical advice and encouragement over the past three
iv
years. To my colleagues from USC, Dr. Yvette Ventura and Dr. Karen Dabney-
Lieras, we started out together in our first class and made a commitment to finish
together-I could not have done it without you both! Both Yvette and Karen have
become friends that I will treasure for life. I would also like to thank Kathy Wiley, a
good friend and one of the best English teachers I know. She spent her free time
reading drafts and providing suggestions that were extremely helpful and was also
available for a coffee break when I couldn’t write anymore.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 11
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 55
TABLE 3.1: Teacher and Administrator Demographics 61
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION 69
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS 155
REFERENCES 182
APPENDIX A: DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 192
APPENDIX B: PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 195
APPENDIX C: TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 198
APPENDIX D: MEETING OBSERVATION PROTOCOL 201
APPENDIX E: DATA CODES 203
vi
ABSTRACT
Schools and districts continue to struggle with reform efforts that are difficult
to implement and hard to sustain. Based on increasing demands from NCLB the need
to address the achievement gap systematically at a district-wide level versus just
school by school is becoming increasingly necessary. The primary purpose of this
study was to examine how and why a district deliberately uses networking to build
capacity system-wide for large scale educational reform to improve instruction and
student achievement.
This study employed a qualitative single case study design focused on one K-
12 unified district organization as a whole unit of study to allow for in depth
understanding of the processes involved with networking practices. The criteria for
sample selection was based on the desire to locate and study a district that was
actively employing practices to build lateral capacity district-wide by bringing
people together in a “networking” process to achieve their goals. A total of 26
interviews were conducted with administrators and teachers from all schools and
levels across the district.
This study examined how one K-12 district has implemented changes in their
organizational design and governance structure to develop and implement their own
intra-district networks between schools district-wide. The study also identified
formal and informal structures, and features that supported and facilitated
networking practices and outcomes for teachers, students, and the culture of the
district.
vii
A number of significant findings and new insights were gathered from this
research on networking. These include the role of leadership, structures that facilitate
networking, and district-wide outcomes. The role of the leadership taken by the
superintendent was identified as a major influence and catalyst in the development
and sustaining of practices to facilitate networking in the district. Another significant
finding revealed that changes in the organizational structure and design of the district
help to facilitate networking practices district-wide. In addition, networking has
provided a number of positive outcomes related to teachers, students, and the overall
culture of the district.

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Background of the Problem
While educators and legislators have been successful in identifying problems
within the existing educational system, it was not until the mandate from the federal
government with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, that states, districts, and
schools have been forced to take increased responsibility and be held accountable for
the success of all students’ mastery of specific educational standards (Furhman &
Elmore, 2003). Although individual schools have seen increases in students’
academic proficiency, these gains have been observed on a small scale and are not
easily maintained system-wide (Fullan, 2005). While educators have identified “best
practices” in these high achieving schools, the results are not easily replicated
throughout a given school district, and often not sustainable even at the site of
implementation (Elmore, 1996; Fullan, 1999; Fullan, 2000b). As Fullan (2000a)
states, “reform efforts have not ‘gone to scale’ and been widely reproduced or there
is no guarantee that the initial success will last….there has been strong adoption and
implementation, but not strong institutionalization” (p. 581). Similarly, Lieberman
& Wood (2002) state, “despite intensive efforts, federal and state policies have been
largely unsuccessful in improving how schools are organized, how teachers teach
and what content students learn” (p. 315).
Due to the failures noted with massive school reform efforts over the past two
decades, there is now even greater pressure exerted from stakeholders at the federal,
2
state, and local levels to resolve the glaring disparities that continue to exist for our
students, especially those of low income or minority status. As educators at the local,
state, and federal level continue to grapple with the various educational practices and
strategies in an effort to find solutions that will meet the needs of the students today
they must meet this challenge with limited resources, time constraints tied to
adequate yearly progress (AYP) from No Child Left Behind, and a myriad of student
factors and community influences. These factors combine to create a context which
does not allow for “a one size fits all” solution. Despite concentrated efforts to
reform public schools, either by site-based changes, comprehensive school reform
efforts or the like, a large number of students under-perform academically. With all
this effort, the achievement gap is not significantly lessening with the exception of
some limited success seen in pockets of high poverty-high performance schools
nationwide.
Statement of the Problem
Schools and districts continue to struggle with reform efforts that are difficult
to implement and hard to sustain. Numerous factors such as: internal challenges due
to changes with the core of instruction, bureaucracy constraints from external
sources, resource and financial limitations, public pressure, and program design all
come into play that affect overall success. In light of these factors, it is difficult to
identify what works best, has greatest depth and scope to reach large numbers of
students, and the ability to be scaled-up to other settings (Steiner, 2000). In addition,
there are various stakeholders to be addressed and multi-level legislative policy
3
constraints which must be considered regarding the type of reform effort to
implement.
Meanwhile, interest in the role that school districts take regarding school
improvement has grown significantly in the wake of standards-based reform and
accountability policies. Based on the increasing demands from NCLB for all students
to gain mastery and proficiency of skills, the need to address the achievement gap
systemically at a district-wide level versus just school by school is becoming
increasingly necessary. However, efforts to implement large scale reform within an
entire district have been fraught with difficulty as there has often been a lack of
clarity regarding the ultimate common vision and goals and a lack of key players and
personnel to monitor and utilize the reform program or practice throughout the entire
school system, let alone at individual school sites (Fullan, 1999; Fullan, 2000b).
Often efforts to develop a strategic plan for a district, which took much time and
energy, never focused on what mattered most: how to impact instructional practices
(Fullan, 2000a & 2000b; Schmoker, 2004). Additionally, large scale and whole
school reform efforts which have been highly prescriptive in nature have not allowed
teachers the opportunity to collectively and creatively engage in the practice of using
innovation and making adaptations to meet the needs of the students they serve
(Schmoker, 2004; Fullan, 2003). In an interview, Fullan (2003) states,
Whole-school reform models make the mistake of thinking that a
comprehensive external reform model will solve the coherence problem
within schools. It doesn’t work because it feeds into the dependency of
teachers and principal. In other words, when schools or district adopt external
4
model, which in itself is not a bad thing, they fail to focus on changing the
culture of the school, and consequently they fail to become embedded (p. 57).

Researchers have found that simply focusing on whole school reform has not
been enough to sustain improved student achievement in a district due to issues with
capacity and incoherence (Fullan, 2000a, 2000b, 2003; Hatch, 2001, Togneri, 2003;
Wohlstetter et al., 2003). Even though implementing reforms district-wide is
challenging, districts that have made changes at the structural and systemic levels are
better able to maximize the social capital and additional resources that already exist
in the given context and use them differently to make improvements in instruction
and achievement (Togneri, 2003). Districts have experimented with different ways to
organize staffing and support to schools and leverage resources in their
organizations.
The notion of increasing opportunities for collaboration has been considered
as a possible action that could provide greater benefit to schools by increasing the
possibility for innovation and a change in practice (Mandell, 1999). Although there
are some research-based practices and programs that have had positive effects in
some schools (Borman et al., 2003; Datnow, 2005), the present challenge requires
that individual teachers, schools, and districts find a way to work that allows them to
engage in the processing of knowledge and the sharing of knowledge gained with
others to effectively and efficiently meet the goals of the students in their
community. The use of collaboration is one way that this can be done to develop
communities of practice or professional learning communities (PLCs) both within
5
and across schools (Stoll, 2004). As Dufour (2002) found in his examination of
PLCs that “strong professional learning communities were four times more likely to
be improving academically than schools with weaker professional communities” (p.
X). One of the hallmarks of developing professional learning communities within
schools is that collectively changes in school culture and instructional practices can
be made (Eaker, Dufour & Dufour, 2002; Stoll et al., 2006). Collaborative efforts by
school teams can be a very effective tool for improving instructional practice yet are
rarely given the time or attention they deserve (Schmoker, 2004).
Use of Networks
One approach that has garnered interest in recent years is the development
and use of “networks.” Networks use collaboration between schools to build
organizational capacity at both individual sites and district-wide (Wohlstetter,
Malloy, Chau & Polhemus, 2003). Networks can be defined as a collection of
individuals or organizations that come together to solve problems of mutual concern
that are too large or complex to address on their own (Mandell, 1999). The term
“network” is viewed and defined more specifically as a community of individuals
who have been brought together for a purpose, the individuals are not just clustered
or grouped together by accident or geography, they have been brought together
deliberately to work on common interests or specific goals (Chapman & Aspin,
2002; Chapman, 2003 as cited in OECD, 2003). Characteristics of networks include
practices where links are established between producers of instruction (teachers) and
the customers (students). Links are interactive networks which enjoy a degree of
6
self-management. Participants in a network share a common purpose. Because they
are dynamic structures, networks come and go. Networks are most effective when
they create and maintain a sense of belonging, cohesion, and reinforcement of values
(van Aalst, 2003 as cited in OECD, 2003, pp. 37-38).
Networks can take on many forms, whether they are informal or formal in
their structure, short-lived, or sustained over time. Networks are often formed for a
variety of purposes, some rather loosely and others tightly structured. Networks can
also serve a variety of purposes depending upon the environment that they are
constructed in and the participants that engage in them (Lieberman, 1999; Lieberman
& Grolnick, 1996). Networks may be formed to: provide information, achieve
something, share access to resources, or provide a better understanding of needs and
opportunities that exist for a group of people (Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; Smith &
Wohlstetter, 2001). Networks have functioned successfully in the business arena for
quite some time as a way to share knowledge and capitalize on specific skills and
talents of individuals in an organization to achieve a common purpose or goal
(Wenger, 1998a, 1998b). Educational reform networks as described by Lieberman
and Grolnick (1996) are becoming increasingly important as alternative forms of
teacher and school development in this time of unprecedented reform. Networks are
a way of engaging school-based educators in directing their own learning: allowing
them to sidestep limitations of institutional roles, hierarchies, and geographic
locations; and encouraging them to work together with many different kinds of
people. Participants have opportunities to grow and develop in a professional
7
community that focuses on their development in specific areas (Lieberman, 2000;
Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; Togneri, 2003).
One of the challenges that many districts face is dealing with a variety of
reform efforts being implemented district-wide simultaneously with little
coordination or monitoring down to the site level from the district, limited staff to
manage the programs, and no broad effort with the stakeholders to discuss the
implementation of the programs, which ultimately leads to failure (Fullan, 1999;
Hatch, 2001). A potential way to address this challenge is to consider using networks
as an alternative model or framework for systemic change as it can allow information
from the district to be disseminated to the various school sites in a different manner
(Reeves, 2006). By utilizing networking across schools, staff may be able to share
ideas and their professional expertise with one another in a less traditional non-linear
manner to increase student outcomes with cost sharing or less of a drain on limited
resources (NCSL, 2006; Lieberman, 1999; Wohlstetter et al., 2003; Reeves, 2006).
Networks as a Collaborative Tool
Networks can be used to draw individuals together in a manner that is
mutually beneficial and purposeful to solve problems. From this perspective the use
of collaborative networks of individuals between schools can be utilized to bring
about innovation and change in instructional practices using teacher/actors and other
professionals in the educational setting in a cost effective and efficient manner
(Lieberman, 2000; Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001; Wohlstetter et al., 2003). By utilizing
the key players -- teachers -- in the reform process, there can be greater buy-in and a
8
vested interest in the outcomes to be achieved (Lieberman & Wood, 2002; Datnow,
2005; Fullan, 1999). Districts and schools can build their knowledge base and
knowledge sharing capabilities by using a variety of networking strategies and
activities to disseminate information and ideas quickly to its stakeholders. Individual
schools that struggle to build capacity on their own can take part in the network and
reap benefits that they could not achieve alone (Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001; NCSL,
2006; Earl & Katz, 2005). Additionally, as Dufour & Eaker (1998) note, there is
power in professional learning communities or communities of practice that are
focused on similar goals.
The theory behind networking schools is that by creating the opportunity for
individuals to have the freedom and opportunity to exchange information that is of
mutual concern, new ideas are likely to be developed and shared amongst members
to build capacity within and across schools (Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; Pennell &
Firestone, 1996, 1998; McDonald & Klein, 2003). Also, by grouping schools
together for support and assistance, schools and teachers can become less insular and
more open to other ideas and opportunities (Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; Pennell &
Firestone, 1996 & 1998; McDonald & Klein, 2003).
Although networks have been in place both informally and formally in both
business and educational settings for quite some time (Lieberman & Wood, 2002),
little is known about how networks are formed and the power they hold, much is
lacking in regard to a number of questions such as: How do networks evolve? How
9
do they build common purposes? What is it that holds or binds them together? How
are they facilitated?
Purpose of the Study
This qualitative research study aims to explore how and why a district
deliberately uses networking to build capacity system-wide for large scale
educational reform to improve instruction and student achievement. This study will
examine how one K-12 district has developed and implemented efforts to build, use,
and sustain their own intra-district networks and will examine the expected outcomes
of networking. The study will examine network connections both from a lateral
(school to school) perspective and vertical (district/central office to school)
perspective for identification of best practices and tangible strategies that another
district could potentially utilize to do the same.
Research Questions
This study will address the following overarching question:
How and why does a district network schools?
Additionally, the following sub-questions will be addressed to further guide
and define the research:
1. What structures are in place for networking schools? What district
features (e.g. size, configuration, level) contribute to these structures?
2. How does the district culture influence networking, and vice versa?
3. What are the anticipated (or realized) outcomes of networking for
teachers and students?
10
Significance of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the relatively new approach to
networking that is being used in some districts. Examining how a district uses
networking to build capacity within their organization, this study will hopefully yield
lessons learned and insights gained that can be applied to other school districts in a
similar manner to maximize reform practices on a large scale level. Additionally, it is
hoped that this study will contribute some further research on the structure and
processes needed for district-wide networking and the potential outcomes a district
can gain from networking their school together.
Definition of Terms
Network: The term “networks” is defined for the purposes of this study as an
intentionally formed group by a district to achieve a specific goal or do certain work
versus an informal network that is loosely structured and has no predefined purpose.
11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
As noted in Chapter 1, the concept of school networks has recently become a
part of the reform discussion in the United States (Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001;
Wohlstetter, Malloy, Chau, Polhemus, 2003) as schools and districts struggle to find
practices that have the capacity to be sustained and used system-wide. To reiterate,
networks can be defined as a collection of individuals or organizations that come
together to solve problems of mutual concern that are too large or complex to
address on their own (Mandell, 1999). In this context, networks are being explored
as intentional or deliberate structures that are involuntary in nature for the good of
the organization. To fully understand the context of the research questions guiding
this study, it is necessary to review the research in several key areas. These are:
1. An examination of network applications.
2. An examination of how networks have been used and facilitated in
government and business as part of their organizational structure and
design to serve as a guide to educators for lessons learned.
3. An examination of the structures or practices that are being used by
districts to build internal capacity for change in instructional practices.
4. An examination of district-wide reform efforts aimed at addressing the
achievement gap.
12
5. An examination of how and why networks are being used to achieve
positive outcomes for teachers and students in and between schools in a
district.
In this next section, literature was reviewed to examine informal social
networks and intentional, formal, or deliberate “networks” and how they are utilized
in both personal and professional contexts by individuals and groups.
Examination of Network Applications
The term “network” means different things to different individuals and
groups depending upon the organization or end user’s purpose. It is evident today
from the vast array of communication tools and technology at one’s disposal that
people are highly networked with others on both a personal and professional level
(Frost & Sullivan, 2006). Although the focus of this research study is on the use of
intentional networks across a school district, a discussion regarding the variety of
networks available to individuals and groups is relevant due to the ever expanding
way in which networks are becoming embedded in the lives and practices of people
world-wide. These network changes may have implications for the way people work
together to solve problems and communicate within the broader context of the world
around us in the future (Frost & Sullivan, 2006). One such type of network which
will be explored further due to the way in which it brings people together as “social
networks.”
13
Social Networks
A social network is a social structure made up of individuals or organizations
that are tied by one or more types of interdependency or connection. A social
network consists of:
Individuals or groups linked by some common bond, shared social status,
similar or shared functions, or geographic or cultural connection. Social
networks form from and discontinue on an ad hoc basis depending on
specific need and interest (Barker, 2003, p. 405).

As one can see with the youth of today, their world revolves around
sophisticated levels of “social networks.” Although social networks are not a new
phenomenon, the design and application of personal social networks sites (SNSs),
not unlike networks in business and government, are rapidly evolving and changing
due to the tremendous amount of technology that is available and used (Boyd &
Ellison, 2007). One could easily argue that by age five most individuals have
participated and joined in their first social network: school. So, for many, even
school which served as an early and common vehicle for social networking of
students is now being replaced by social network sites such as Facebook and My
Space, to name a few. Although these sites are not intentionally designed to network
people together in the same way as a relational social network, the connections are
vast and can serve a purpose for the user. People are linked together by a common
thread. These social network sites or tools have changed not only how young people
connect with one another but have increased who they connect with (Boyd &
Ellison, 2007). Consequently the same changes can be seen for adults. Whether in
14
the workplace or home, adults are no longer confined to the social networks within
the context of a defined work boundary or set of friends within a neighborhood.
Because of this, it is becoming increasingly more important to examine how the
concept of networks that currently exist or are being created can be harnessed and
structured within the workplace. These types of networks can form the basis for
more sophisticated and facilitated collaborative networks which can be used as a
valuable tool to expand and develop knowledge, skill, and innovation amongst
widespread and diffuse groups of individuals in an organization or across a district.
Summary
It is evident that the increased demand and use of networking practices
whether for professional or personal use, have been rising and are able to serve as a
vehicle or mechanism for the rapid sharing of information or ideas amongst a large
group of individuals who may never even see each other face to face. In the next
section, literature is reviewed to explore how organizational structures and
organizational collaboration can be utilized to establish the basis or foundation for
intentional networks that can be used to foster innovation and change and sustain
best practices that continuously evolve as the needs of the constituents or customers
change. Examples will be drawn from the literature using business, government, and
educational models.
15
Organizational Structure and Design
Networked Forms of Governance
In the past, at all levels of government, most departments and programs were
established to address specific problems with defined boundaries (DeSeve, 2007).
This organizational structure in turn created what is commonly referred to as “silos”
within and across government units. In this type of environment there was little
incentive to work across boundaries and little training in how to do so. At this time,
however, external forces, which include the increasing complexity of the problems
that government faces, the interconnectedness of public and private activities, and
the need to respond to opportunities and threats on a global basis are at work to upset
the silo form of traditional organizational structures.
Over the past 20 years there has been a rise in networked forms of
governance (DeSeve, 2007). These types of networks serve as connections or
linkages among people, programs, and organizations for the purpose of
implementing public policy. Networks allow organizations to collaborate on services
they provide in common, while reducing or keeping bureaucracy to a minimum
(Milward and Provan, 2006). Moreover, Milward and Provan report in their study on
the use of collaborative networks that, networks emerge or are created for a specific
purpose (they are intentional) usually as a response to a long standing problem like
homelessness, or an emergent problem like terrorism.
Government leaders are finding that the traditional hierarchical
organizational structures do not allow them at this time, to successfully address the
16
complex problems, such as homeland security, emergency response to disasters, and
the delivery of social services and collaborative networks are seen as an appropriate
vehicle to help tackle these issues (Milward & Provan, 2006). Additionally as
Milward & Provan (2006) note, networks have proven to be a very valuable public
management tool that are repeatedly used because they are the only organization
form that can operate horizontally, across a range of organizations, and integrate the
strengths and talents of a variety of organizations in the public, nonprofit, and the
for-profit sectors to effectively address critical public problems.
Important lessons learned in a study of government networks revealed the
following tools for a successful network (Agranoff, 2003)
1. Be a representative of your agency and the network.
2. Take a share of the administrative burden.
3. Operate by agenda orchestration.
4. Recognize shared expertise-based authority.
5. Stay within the decision bounds of your network.
6. Accommodate and adjust while maintaining purpose.
7. Be as creative as possible.
8. Be patient and use interpersonal skills.
9. Recruit constantly.
10. Emphasize incentives.
Due to the complex problems that government faces today the demand and
necessity for different forms of governance are required. As can be seen, traditional
17
governance practices which by their nature are insular and isolating, have evolved
into a more collaborative and network connected process which allows people,
programs, and organizations the ability to provide services and implement public
policy in a more effective, cohesive manner.
Traditional and Future Business Structures
Traditional management thinking and the typical organizational structures
which ensued are based on hierarchical governing systems (Reihlen, 1996). In this
situation decision-making power is based on the authority a person obtains from his
or her position in the bureaucratic structure. Typically with this type of
organizational structure, decision-making power is maintained with top management
and diffuses or diminishes as it moves down the hierarchical structure. Although this
structural model works well in some situations, especially for routine actions and
tasks, it leaves little room for innovation as it does not allow for the flexible
reconfiguration of decision-making power according to specific problems that arise.
In a traditional hierarchy, the person with significant power may not have the
expertise needed to solve a given problem (Reihlen, 1996).
Currently, businesses that had operated successfully for decades using a
hierarchical organization structure, which also served a silo function, are now
adjusting and adapting their organizational structure and design in response to
changing needs in the global market. Businesses that aim to stay viable in today’s
economy understand and realize that they cannot operate any longer as separate
entities anymore and need to work not only across organizational boundaries within
18
a company to be successful, but beyond their boundaries with other organizations
and businesses to remain competitive and successful (Frost & Sullivan, 2006). As
Brantle & Fallah (2006) note, human capital and information are the two critical
resources that not only organizations but nations must look to if they wish to
generate increased value from their assets.
An example of how organizational structures are changing to meet the
demands of the marketplace in the 21
st
century can be seen with the shift from an
ego-centric model to a network-centric model (Gurbaxani & Plice, 2004). An ego-
centric organization model follows a hierarchical system of control and knowledge is
clustered at the top of an organization and filtered down the organization (Gurbaxani
& Plice, 2004). A network-centric organizational approach is one in which
organizations form together as part of “value networks” to collaborate and provide
goods and services to customers in a way that is beneficial for all parties involved
(Gurbaxani & Plice, 2004). Network-centric organizations exist due to the unique
capabilities or knowledge assets they possess (Gurbaxani & Plice, 2004). This type
of organizational model or structure differs in the way in which information is
stored, utilized, and shared across an organization or organizations. Innovative
companies like Wal-Mart, Dell, Amazon, EBay, and UPS are companies that have
realized the need to make changes in their organizational structures, capabilities, and
skills to remain competitive and have moved to a network-centric approach
(Gurbaxani & Price, 2004). By partnering in value networks, so that complementary
19
goods, services, and information can be shared all partners can benefit from the
synergy that is produced in the network (Gurbaxani & Price, 2004).
Because communication in hierarchies is regulated and vertical in nature due
to being closely coupled to the line of authority (Reihlen, 1996), this type of
structure makes it more difficult to transfer knowledge horizontally between
departments or groups. As Reihlen (1996) notes, innovations require the release of
creative capacities within the organization and are more easily fostered in a more
open structure. Due to customer demands that require businesses to stay competitive,
be more technically savvy, and remain on the cutting edge of innovation, shifts in
organizational structure and design are occurring rapidly. Business models are
moving from traditional hierarchical structures to “heterarchies” which can be
viewed as: pluralistic organizations that rely on the initiative of its members to
engage in learning activities to handle the uncertain future of events or problems. In
heterarchies, organizational members and units are connected with each other
without excluding anybody from participating in decision-making or problem
solving. Coordination patterns are developed according to situational requirements or
needs and are intentional in purpose (Reihlen, 1996). Heterarchies allow for
horizontal sharing of information and knowledge and are governed or facilitated by
its members based on the concept of the “principle of potential leadership” (Reihlen,
1996). This concept of potential leadership is driven by the notion that individuals
assume management responsibility according to their problem oriented decision
expertise. Rather than decision-making power which is permanent with one person
20
or group it is negotiated according to the problem requirements which need to be
addressed (Reihlen, 1996). In this type of organizational structure, members or actors
have greater autonomy and freedom to perceive and solve problems they believe are
important to the organization.
Business Networks and Technology
Much of the current focus on networks within the business community
revolves around the ever-changing use of technology bringing together not only
colleagues across a business organization, but businesses across the globe together
electronically to network and innovate. As Frost & Sullivan (2006) note, there is a
vast array of technology that is available for employees to use to collaborate and
work together. Some of these include: instant messaging, web conferencing, audio
conferencing, presence, e-mail and video conferencing which can be easily launched
and utilized as part of routine business applications. At this time, even the role of the
corporate information officer (CIO) is taking a front seat in organizations as they are
becoming an integral part of the decision-making team as businesses push hard to
remain competitive and innovate. The use of networks and the technology to support
them are ever-changing and are being used to help individuals and organizations
forge relationships and connections quickly and efficiently in ways that could not be
done before (IBM, 2006). Much can be learned from business regarding how
technology can be used and adapted in other settings such as education to network
individuals together to build capacity and problem solve.
21
Summary on Organizational Structure and Design
Research has identified a number of best practices regarding organizational
structure, design, and organization collaboration that have been effective and
successful to the changing needs of the businesses and organizations that have had to
adapt to the current realities of problems and challenges faced in our global society.
Networks can be seen as both a mechanism for structure and as a vehicle for
communication and knowledge transfer across any type of organization whether that
be a government, business, or education. Additionally, the role and use of technology
to expand upon and build the social networks and connections of individuals was
further explored as a method to build organizational capacity and innovate.
In the next section, literature is reviewed to explore how organizational
capacity can be built to foster innovation and change and sustain best practices that
evolve as the needs of the constituents or customers change as well. Examples were
drawn from the literature using both business and educational models.
Building Organizational Capacity
Transfer of Business Practice to Educational Setting
In this section, information will be discussed regarding how business
organizations have successfully used specific strategies to build capacity and how
they can readily be transferred to educational settings. Additionally, literature will be
examined which explores the concepts or notions of learning organizations,
communities of practice, professional learning communities, and collaboration.
22
Lastly, information which highlights how building organizational capacity lends
itself readily to network structures will be discussed.
Much can be learned from the experiences provided from the business sector
regarding organizational capacity and the benefits and challenges that may be
applied to the educational setting. Research has been conducted on the effectiveness
of business practices that have helped companies remain effective, competitive,
productive, and sustainable over time due to their ability to maximize the talent and
skills of employees and adapt to the changing needs of their customers in an ever
changing global society (Wenger et al., 2002). Just as businesses need to respond to
their customers needs in order to remain successful and profitable, so too do schools.
Educators now must find ways to continuously improve practices to meet the needs
of the students and communities that they serve. One such way that districts and
schools can approach this dilemma is to capitalize upon the resources that exist using
the framework of learning organizations. There is great benefit to be had when an
organization can tap into and use existing knowledge to foster innovation and
change. Within the learning organization of a school, networks can be used to build
knowledge, skills, and capacity (Lieberman, 1999, NCSL, 2006).
Learning Organizations
Learning organizations are defined as organizations skilled at creating,
acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new
knowledge and insights (Garvin, 1993). Learning organizations are skilled at five
main activities: systematic problem solving, experimentation with new approaches,
23
learning from their own experience and past history, learning from the experiences
and best practices of others, and transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently
throughout the organization (Garvin, 1993). Based on his theoretical framework
about learning organizations Schon (1973) states,
….due to the continuous state of transformation that we live in as a society,
we must learn to understand, guide, and manage these transformations. We
must make the capacity for undertaking them integral to ourselves and our
institutions. We must, in other words, become adept not only to transform our
institutions, in response to changing situations and requirements; we must
invent and develop institutions which are “learning systems”, that is to say,
systems capable of bringing about their own continuing transformation (p.
28).

It is clear that what Schon (1973) spoke of years ago parallels the current needs in
education today. The need for school organizations to become “learning systems” is
imperative as schools must continuously improve to meet the needs of the students
they serve.
As Kruse (2000) found, the premise of organizational learning is closely tied
to concepts in the professional community, the literature asserts that “when schools
are seen as organizations capable of learning new instructional models, innovations
focused on student learning and teacher accountability and improvement; teachers’
work becomes a key instrument of reform” (pg. 361). By viewing schools as learning
organizations, Senge (2000) posits that learning is meant to develop and foster in
groups collectively; learning is not relegated to the gathering of individual
knowledge at a site.
24
To make changes in student learning, it is necessary to build capacity at the
school level by increasing the skill and knowledge of teachers and principals (Fullan,
1999; Elmore, 2002). Elmore (2002) states districts and schools need to recognize
the steps that must be taken to achieve this goal as the organization needs to actively
make knowledge and skills available for people to do what they have not done before
or do not know how to do. Elmore (2002) means that you must move away from the
notion that teachers come to teaching with all the knowledge and skills they need and
will do fine on their own merit. Elmore (2002) also elaborates further on the notion
that it is imperative that teachers need to be connected to sources of information
outside of their own workplace and connecting people within their own workplace to
develop knowledge and skill. As Talbert & McLaughlin (1994) found a powerful
form of teacher learning and professional growth comes from belonging to
professional communities that extend beyond classrooms and school buildings.
Communities of Practice
Building capacity in schools requires a different type of organizational design
that can allow teachers to observe others and be observed and look at other types of
practice outside of their own school setting. The concept of communities of practice,
which have been used successfully in the business arena has crossover benefits for
the educational setting as well. As Lave & Wenger (1991) argue, the term
community of practice, which was coined by them in their work on Situational
Learning, has gained much attention and has been used in recent years for a variety
of groups of people and organizations that use it a tool/key to improve their overall
25
performance. Communities of practice are made up of people who share concerns,
problems, or a unified passion about an issue or topic and who work together on an
on-going basis to deepen their knowledge in this area. Wenger (1998) speaking on
the value of “communities of practice” notes that when individuals participate in a
community they gradually absorb the models of practice around them and begin to
practice these skills. Some districts have used the community of practice and
continuous improvement planning (CIP) process to serve as a framework for their
reform efforts (Kruse, 2000). From communities of practice, CIP teams can be
developed and utilized to focus on district level issues to help organize change
efforts system wide instead of just using a school based model of reform, shows
some promise (Kruse, 2000). In a summary of the literature, Hord (1997) combines
the notion of process and anticipated outcomes to define ‘a professional community
of learners’ (Astuto, Clark, Read, McGree & Fernandez, 1993) as one:
…in which the teachers in a school and its administrators continuously seek
and share learning, and act on their own learning. The goal of their actions is
to enhance their effectiveness as professionals for the students’ benefit; thus
this arrangement may also be termed communities of continuous inquiry and
improvement (p. 1).

As Supovitz (2002) posits in his work regarding the development of
communities of practice, three conditions must be met for them to develop
successfully: groups need structures that provide them with the leadership, time,
resources, and incentives to engage in instructional work; groups need to develop a
culture of instructional practice that encourages them to continuously identify,
explore and assess instructional strategies that show promise of success for students;
26
and groups need a particular kind of professional development to enable them to
engage in continuous honing of their skills and strategies. As Supovitz (2002) points
out, it is not enough to form teams or groups, there has to be intent and structure for
progress to be made.
Professional Learning Community
As has been noted, communities of practice are closely tied to the concept of
professional learning communities which are gaining momentum as a powerful tool
for reform efforts in education today. DeFour & Eaker (1998) argue that one of the
most promising strategies for sustained, substantive school improvement is to
develop the ability of school personnel to function as a professional learning
community to collectively work together to solve complex problems that are in their
local school or district. A benefit of a professional learning community is that the
members can create an environment that fosters mutual cooperation, emotional
support, and personal growth as they work together to achieve what they cannot
accomplish alone (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Stoll et al. (2006), in a comprehensive review of international research, cite
evidence which suggests that the successful progress of educational reform depends
on a teacher’s individual and collective capacity and its link to school-wide capacity
for promoting students’ learning. Although building capacity for the individual
teacher, the school, and the district are vital, it is no easy task due to the complex
nature of capacity. In this context, capacity is a complex blend of motivation, skill,
positive learning, organizational conditions and culture, and infrastructure of
27
support. When capacity is well-developed it can help provide teachers, school
communities, and school systems with the tools and skills to get involved in solving
complex problems and the power to sustain learning over time (Stoll et al., 2006).
Professional learning communities (PLCs) are viewed as a vehicle for schools to use
to build capacity and improve instructional skills at their core to foster and sustain
improvement.
From the professional learning community concept, the notion of networks
can be further developed and fostered as a way to extend the concept of community
within the PLC framework. Stoll et al. (2006) explain that some researchers do not
always distinguish between PLCs and networked learning communities. Hargreaves
& Giles (2003) make no distinction between networked learning communities and
professional learning communities as they describe how a strong PLC, “brings
together the knowledge, skills and dispositions of teachers in a school or across
schools to promote shared learning and improvement. A strong professional learning
community is a social process for turning information into knowledge” (p. 242).
What distinguishes organizational learning from individual learning is the
additional step of collective knowledge creation. Dialogue appears to be the key link
as the process through which the gap between the individual and organizational
learning is bridged (Senge, 1990). The concept of distributed leadership comes into
play as well because research has found that leadership cannot succeed solely as the
responsibility or domain of one person or a small group of people due to the complex
nature of the work at hand, consequently the success and accomplishment of
28
workplace goals depends on the reciprocal actions of a number of people (Gronn,
2003). As the definition of professional learning communities is expanded, the use of
the term “communities” supports the notion of learning together, not only within a
specific school but between schools (Stoll et al., 2006). As Hargreaves (2003)
suggests, “a network increases the pool of ideas on which any member can draw and
as one idea or practice is transferred the inevitable process of adaptation and
adjustment to different conditions is rich in potential for the practice to be
incrementally improved by the recipient and then fed back to the donor in a virtuous
circle of innovation and improvement (p. 9).” Although PLCs serve as a vehicle for
solving problems and implementing new ideas or changes in a school setting, the
professional learning community has a limited scope which serves the individual
school site. A new way to examine and use the process of collaboration that can
extend beyond the individual school site boundaries is needed to provide greater
scope and potential for sustainability.
Collaboration as a Strategy for Improving Schools
The strategy of using collaborative practices to build connections and
capacity within and between schools has been utilized as a tool to improve groups of
schools, not just groups of individuals within schools (Wohlstetter et al., 2003). As
Gajda & Koliba (2007) state, “collaboration” is a ubiquitously championed concept
and widely recognized across the public and private sectors as the foundation on
which the capacity for addressing complex issues is predicated” (p.26). The process
of increasing collaborative efforts system-wide can be seen by the example provided
29
by educational leaders in England that have been instrumental in pushing reform
efforts nation wide with the Networked Learning Communities Initiative (Earl et al.,
2006). Educational practitioners in England have been operating within the National
College for School Leadership’s Networked Learning Communities initiative which
has evolved as a lateral and local approach to promote learning within and between
schools through a process of collaborative inquiry focused on sharing and
transferring practice, developing understanding, and creating new knowledge on
learning and teaching (Jackson & Temperley, 2007). Researchers Ainscow, Muiji, &
West (2006) conclude from case study analysis of six networks for the National
College of School Leadership that school-to school collaboration can serve as a
powerful tool to strengthen the capacity of schools that are struggling or facing
difficult challenges. Additionally, Howes and Ainscow (2006) report evidence which
suggests that collaboration between schools can both transfer existing knowledge
and help facilitate context-specific new knowledge for schools that are facing
difficult circumstances.
One approach that lends itself well to this type of collaboration is formal
networks. Although there are challenges to be had regarding how collaboration is
used as a strategy due to the complex nature of schools and the degree to which
school and district culture influences how this is manifested (teacher resistance, lack
of time, space to meet, etc.) activities that are organized around a purpose or goal
and are facilitated and fostered have the potential to be successful. Networks may
serve as a vehicle for districts to foster innovation and change (NCSL, 2006).
30
Similarly, Smith and Wohlstetter (2001) found that a number of districts in the U.S.
are embracing the fundamental idea of network structures as an alternative method of
reform as it has the potential to enhance the capacity of schools for change and
reduce the negative effects of radical restructuring.
Summary of Issues Related to Building Organizational Capacity
This section of the literature examined the factors and parameters related to
building organizational capacity for change. Examples were provided regarding how
the business community has successfully used tools to build organizational capacity.
Application of these business practices were then discussed in their relationship to
transfer to school organizations. Information was provided regarding how
communities of practice are developed and used in, both business and school
environments. Lastly, information was shared regarding the concept of professional
learning communities in school and the value that can be obtained when groups of
individuals work together collaboratively to make substantive change in a school
setting. A connection was made regarding how the use of networks can carry the
work of PLCs a step further to build capacity at multiple levels and dimensions due
to their ability to work both within and outside the school environment to foster
innovation and change.
In this next section, literature on district-wide reform efforts will be
reviewed. Specifically literature will be reviewed on how school districts are
attempting to make changes in their organizational structure and design to facilitate
improvement district-wide.
31
Background on District Reform Efforts
As noted in the introduction, past reform efforts have been focused primarily
on what can be done at the school level to make changes such as adopting
prescriptive programs, using site based decision making, and increasing staff
development and collaboration time. Yet, little was done to look at the district as a
whole in terms of making system-wide changes (Fullan, 1999; Elmore, 1996). Often,
school districts were viewed as an obstacle or hindrance to individual schools efforts
to make changes due to the bureaucratic top-down hierarchy that often dictated how
and what schools should do to operate and teach according to rigid policies and
procedures. As Applebaum (2002) points out, this perception has now changed based
on feedback received from reformers who have learned through their experience that
sustainability of any reform effort attempted is dependent on district support.
One reason for the variations in accountability nationwide is the type of
assessments used to measure performance. However, a large portion of the variation
in accountability at the state and national level is a reflection of the level of capacity
among schools. Differences can be found in the knowledge, skill levels and belief
systems of teachers, the school’s ability to collectively respond to external
accountability, and in the effectiveness of leadership (Fuhrman, 2003). Contrary to
what educators and the public have been led to believe, the existence of various
accountability systems do not by themselves appear to mobilize new capacity in
schools; a school’s response to accountability demands depends heavily on the
capacity that is already present at a school (Fuhrman, 2003). Schools viewed to have
32
high levels of internal capacity are able to respond to accountability demands and the
need for innovation and change to a greater degree than schools viewed to have low
capacity (Fuhrman, 2003; Elmore 2004).
Challenges to School and District Reform Efforts
Due to the increased pressure from the local, state and federal level to
increase student achievement and accountability, schools and districts often
undertake reform efforts that are not strategic or sustainable which creates more
problems than solutions for the organization (Fullan, 2000). Hatch (2001) cautions
that the various reform efforts that schools and districts have taken often lead to
incoherence in a system that is already fraught with other initiatives already
underway. As Hatch (2001) states, it remains unclear whether the increases in the
number of improvement programs available to schools or efforts to increase the
number of schools working with improvement programs will lead to more effective
reforms on a larger scale and the type of school-level coherence and capacity for
increased student learning that so many desire.
As researchers Steiner (2000) and Elmore (1997) have found, although there
is an opportunity for continual improvement and innovation in a school setting, good
ideas are rarely applied to other schools or are spread throughout a school system or
district. Success on a small scale has been made with surface structures in given
schools. However, the core processes of teaching and learning have been much more
resistant to change (Elmore, 1996; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Togneri (2003) states,
that although there are wonderful achievements being made in specific schools
33
around the country, these model schools are creating isolated “islands of excellence”
because their practices are not being transferred or replicated in other locations.
More clearly stated, to improve learning opportunities for all children it will require
more than individual talents or school-by-school efforts (Togneri, 2003; Reeves,
2006); it will require system wide approaches and practices that touch every child in
every district across the country (Togneri, 2003).
In a review of the literature, Steiner (2000) explains why it is difficult to scale
up reform efforts and identifies a number of challenges. Some of these challenges
include: shifting teacher beliefs to change the process of teaching and learning,
space and time to make changes, changing school culture to make way for
innovation, student factors, definition of role, issues of collegiality, shared
leadership, and establishing trust. External challenges involve barriers that exist
outside the specific school setting as public schools do not operate as autonomous
organizations; instead they are part a large school district organization that is
governed by local, state, and federal policies which may hinder efforts for change.
As Hassel & Steiner (2001) point out, a great deal of research reveals that it is
difficult to make changes to school-level practice unless the environment in which
schools operate changes as well.
Another major challenge with reform efforts is the ongoing issue or problem
of how to “scale-up” practices to reach a broader base of students (Coburn, 2003). In
the past, “scale” was commonly defined in basic “unidimensional” terms by
reformers and researchers as a district’s way to bring a type of reform or program to
34
a larger number of schools. As reform efforts continue and research is expanded, the
commonly held definition of “scale” has become much broader. As Coburn (2003)
and others argue, the issue of scale for both research and practical purposes has
become multidimensional and involves additional parameters of depth,
sustainability, spread, and shift in reform ownership. The way that reformers and
policy makers perceive or view the definition of “scale” has implications for the way
in which reform efforts are shaped and developed in a particular setting and as well
as on how researchers describe and evaluate implementation of reform efforts.
Clearly, how scale is defined has implications for districts and schools in the way
that reform efforts are introduced and maintained over time. Coburn (2003) argues
that for any type of reform effort to be “at-scale” they must effect deep and
consequential change in classroom practice (Coburn, 2003; Elmore; 1996;
McLaughlin & Mitra; 2001).
Although standards-based reform initiatives have been put in place and
pressure is mounting for expectations of high performance, many states and districts
have found that districts and schools currently do not have the capacity to enable
students to reach high standards of performance without systemic changes (Goertz et
al., 1996; Fuhrman, 1999; Massell, 2000). Thus, capacity building is essential.
Districts need added capacity to respond to the increased demands placed on schools,
there needs to be deliberate intervention to improve teacher knowledge and skill,
provision of extra assistance for students at risk for failure, and a way to build school
35
communities capable of responding to the performance pressure that comes with
accountability (Wohlstetter, et al., 2003; Fullan, 2000).
As Hassel & Steiner (2000) note, in order to foster or facilitate lasting change
in schools, innovators need to focus their attention on the broader environment
within which schools work: their school districts, the larger politics in which they
exist, and the system of professional norms that teachers and administrators bring
with them to school. Also, Elmore (1996) suggests that we look beyond the belief
that good teaching is an inherent trait rather than a set of professional capacities that
can be foster and developed. Elmore (1996) feels that norms for the profession of
teaching need to be strengthened from external sources such as university
partnerships and professional organizations to promote teacher professionalism that
encourage reflective and innovative practice. Networks may provide the key to
collaborative practices that are needed to make substantive change in instructional
practices.
Effective District Practices
The literature related to effective district practices will now be examined to
identify some best practices that have been successful in changing instructional
practices and raising student achievement. For example, Togneri (2003) examined
five district efforts to improve instructional practices and found seven factors that
consistently emerged which appear essential to improvement. Some of the factors
identified were: courage to acknowledge poor performance and willingness to seek
solutions, a system wide approach to improving instruction-one that articulated
36
curricular content and provided instructional supports, and a district vision that
focused on student learning and guided instructional improvement. Additional
factors found to enable improvement include: district decisions were based on data,
not instinct, adoption of new approaches to professional development that involved a
coherent and district-organized set of strategies to improve instruction (i.e. networks
of instructional experts), redefined leadership roles district-wide; and a commitment
to sustain reform over the long haul.
Similarly, Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn (2004) examined several districts in
Canada, United States, and England that have brought about effective change in their
schools due to large scale reform efforts. The authors identified 10 components that
make improvement possible. The first component involves having a “compelling
conceptualization” which describes the districts efforts to utilize a team of people to
create and drive a clear strategy and vision for the district. The second component,
“collective moral purpose” means that everyone in the organization has a
responsibility for changing and improving education to benefit all students. The third
component, having the “right bus” means that the right structures are in place in the
organization to get the job completed. The fourth component, “capacity building”
involves building future leaders to carry on the work. The fifth component, “lateral
capacity building” describes the process of connecting schools within a district to
develop new ideas, skills, and practices that increase the ability of individuals and
the organization to bring about improvements. The sixth component, “ongoing
learning” describes the process a district goes through to refine their strategy as it is
37
implemented based on information and feedback gathered regarding effectiveness.
The seventh component, “productive conflict” means being open to disagreement
and conflict as part of the change process. The eighth component, “demanding
culture” refers to establishing a high level of trust amongst peers and expecting
respect, integrity, and competence from them. The ninth component, “external
partners” means collaborating with outside partners or resources effectively to
achieve district goals. The tenth component, “focused financial investments” means
making good use of existing resources and maximizing investments from outside
sources (foundations, business partners, etc.). Moreover, Fullan et al. (2004) found
that district leaders must build capacity so that a team of leaders can and will actively
pursue the districts’ vision into every day practice (Fullan et al., 2004).
Another example of a large scale reform is Philadelphia’s effort to group
low-performing schools in clusters so that they can work in partnership with non-
profit community groups and for-profit educational management organizations to
build capacity collectively (Reid, 2002). Researchers have found that there are some
common characteristics or factors that are evident in specific programs or
innovations that are more likely to achieve scale. A common characteristic identified
for these successful programs was that they had a specific, clear mission and purpose
and were easily understood (Racine, 1998; Schorr, 1997). Additionally, greater
success moving to scale was found with coherent programs whose larger parameters
or elements work together to meet overall goals (Racine, 1998; Bodilly et al., 1998;
Smith et al., 1998). Lastly, comprehensive programs were more successful than add-
38
on programs which were often cast aside, as comprehensive programs had greater
potential for engaging teachers in becoming a part of a larger movement for success
(McLaughlin, 1991; Schorr, 1997).
Additionally, another concept that is further developed in this framework of
effective practices is the need for lateral capacity building. Examples have been seen
in both the United States and in England (Fullan et al., 2004; NCSL, 2006) where
schools have been linked together to share best practices and bring about change in
lower performing schools. When educators begin to embrace a new mindset that
allows for this notion of lateral capacity building and networking with other schools
and colleagues, their perspective can change from a single-minded school focus to a
broader context that can be applied to a group of schools or a district (Fullan, 2000).
Supovitz (2002) also notes that there are a number of important tools that
district policy makers can utilize to make effective changes in the instructional
culture of schools. One key area of focus is a commitment to continuous capacity
building throughout schools district-wide. Others key points include a clear
articulation and continuous restatement of the expectations, reallocation of fiscal and
other support services, staging of powerful and symbolic acts for staff, and the
alignment and coherence of various policy strategies.
Some of the districts that have taken this bold step to attempt systemic reform
efforts include: New York, Philadelphia, San Diego, Spokane, and Los Angeles, but
success has been limited and difficult to sustain (Fullan, 1999). One example of
effective district-wide practices is cited by Massel (2002) in a research study
39
conducted for the Consortium for Policy Research In Education (CPRE) in 22 school
districts. A common thread amongst these diverse school districts was the desire to
pursue less traditional forms of staff development or professional learning for their
teachers which included use of teacher and school networks, peer Oak Parking, and
professional development centers. Research is rife with examples of traditional staff
development activities that have little or no carryover into the classroom setting
(Guskey, 2000; Schomoker, 2004). It is clear from research conducted that existing
professional development approaches which have had a “one-size fits all” design and
are presented passively to teachers as consumers of information has marginal impact
and transfer back into the classroom setting as these experiences do not take into
account differences teachers experience based on their school or classroom context
or level of experience (Little, 1993; Lieberman, 2000; Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
2001).
Another district reform effort called the Los Angeles Annenberg
Metropolitan Project (LAAMP), a systemic reform effort, was initiated in Los
Angeles in the mid 1990s with $53 million dollars in private funds from the
Annenberg Foundation and additional matching private funds. LAAMP supported
changes in 28 families of schools in LAUSD and LA county office. Although the
purpose of the Annenberg model of reform was to ultimately create concentrated and
visible programs of innovation and improvement in selected cities including Los
Angeles, their outcomes were not fully realized. Some success was noted in the
school families but it was difficult to sustain and transfer to other schools in the
40
district (Menefee-Libey, 2004; Wohstetter et al., 2003). As Togneri (2003) notes,
districts that have attempted to make positive instructional changes to practice have
often formed networks of teacher leaders who provided instructional assistance to
teachers, principals, and central office administrators.
Summary of Research on District Reform Efforts
This section of the literature review examined existing district reform efforts
and the challenges that districts face in selecting, implementing, and sustaining
reform efforts system-wide. Information was provided regarding common
components or practices that are in place in districts that have been able to build and
sustain an environment for innovation and change. Additionally, some examples
were provided of specific district efforts that have been undertaken to serve as
examples for change. Implications were discussed regarding the need for specific
parameters such as organizational capacity to be in place so that reform efforts can
be developed and scaled up to reach not just one school, but a multitude of schools
within a district so that all students needs can be served more effectively.
In the next section, literature is reviewed to explore why and how networks
are being used to increase collaboration, innovation, and lateral capacity building
within and across an organization or district.
Networks
Why networks?
In this section, the concept of networks will be examined to identify why they
should be considered and utilized as an effective tool for educational reform. As
41
researchers have repeatedly noted (Fullan, 1999; Elmore, 2002; Darling-Hammond,
1993; Schmoker, 2004, Datnow, 2005), reform efforts are often stalled and never
reach the potential they are capable of achieving because there is a lack of teacher
support. Moreover, Smylie (1995) posits that creativity and innovation may be
constrained or compromised if teachers are only able to have access to others with
similar ideas or experiences at their school. Individuals and groups of people need to
have access to multiple sources of learning to make significant changes in practice.
Research suggests that schools working together collaboratively may be more
effective in building organizational capacity and improving student learning than
schools working on their own (Wohlstetter & Smith, 2000).
As discussed previously, the use of networks as an alternative form of
professional development and collaboration is beginning to gain momentum in both
the United States and abroad. The concept of developing collaborative practices
aimed at raising standards through formal networks has become central to
government policy in many educational systems (OECD, 2003). Policymakers in the
UK consider collaboration and networks to be important because they can increase
the pool of ideas available to individuals (Chapman & Allen, 2006).
As noted, networks have been used extensively in the United Kingdom
(NCSL, 2006) as part of the Networked Learning Communities programme in a
variety of ways for years. The concept of networks can provide a new way to look at
how education is provided and can act as a new strategy for reform (Chapman &
Aspin, 2002). Although various types of educational networks (e.g. teacher, school,
42
educational reform, etc) have been in existence for quite some time and have been
used in a variety of ways to achieve outcomes, networks are being closely examined
for the benefits that can be had to increase student achievement though adjustments
in instructional practices (Lieberman,1999).
Types of networks
As noted before, there are a variety of different types of networks in the
United States and throughout the world that have different structures and purposes.
There are networks to provide assistance to people in person or electronically,
networks for common purposes, networks to serve as a hub of information
dissemination, there are networks that bind people together by region, and some that
are national in purpose. (Lieberman, 1999; Liberman & Grolnick, 1996). There are
networks that group or link schools together as learning networks (Earl & Katz,
2005). A variety of different types of networks exist in education. A professional
network is one that serves to promote networking among educators on an individual
and voluntary basis (Robertson & Alcar, 1999; Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001). A policy
issue network may be formed which involves an organization or groups of
organizations that promote a specific policy issue or groups of issues with policy
makers (Kaplan & Usdan, 1992; Kirst, Meister, & Rowley, 1984; Urbanski &
Erskine, 2000). Networks may be formed between an individual school and an
external partner for the purposes of providing extra services to students.
Additionally, an affiliation network may be created (Wasserman & Faust, 1994)
where individuals from organizations come together to solve a problem or concern
43
that is of mutual concern that is too large to handle on their own. Educational
networks can be both horizontal and vertical in nature. Horizontal networks connect
individual teachers, principals or schools and vertical networks connect functionally
different but interdependent educational institutions as a schools and school boards
(Sliwka, 2003 as cited in OECD, 2003). Additionally, lateral networks can be formed
which connect schools within a district together.
Structural Differences in Networks
Due to the different purposes and needs of networks, a variety of network
structures can be found. Differences can be seen with networks which are “tightly”
coupled or hard and structured with specific purposes and functions and networks
that are considered to be “loosely” coupled or soft and informal in nature (Chapman
& Allen, 2006: Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996).
Networks can also be differentiated by their geographic scope and could
potentially be local, regional, national, and international. Horizontal networks can be
used to connect individuals in similar functional areas and vertical networks can be
used to connect individuals and organizations in different but interdependent
functional areas (Sliwka, 2003 as cited in OECD, 2003, p. 51). Lieberman (1999)
indicates that networks can provide a variety of collaborative structures which may
provide flexibility and informality for its participants. Additionally, one can have an
organizational structure that can be independent of, yet attached to, schools or
communities (Lieberman, 1999).
44
Purpose of Networks
The purposes of networks can be varied based upon the constituency of
stakeholders and the specific needs of the group but they have the ability to serve as
a link between organizational structures horizontally, vertically, and laterally
(OCED, 2003; Chapman & Aspin, 2002). As Chapman & Aspin (2002) report
networks can provide a process for cultural change by embedding reform practices in
the actions and behavior of a variety of different stakeholders in the educational
setting and community.
Smith and Wohlstetter (2001) highlight the purpose and some benefits of
networking based on research conducted, they conclude that their findings suggest
that networks can be used to promote community-based collaboration, they can aid
in cost-sharing of materials and resources, provide a venue for knowledge sharing,
and can provide a vehicle for external partners to assist and support schools.
Additionally, networks have the potential for increasing stability for students in the
school organization as they move throughout the system and have the potential for
improving how educational services are delivered (Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001).
Because there is variance in the variety and form that networks can take,
networks can take on a variety of purposes in an educational setting as well.
Networks can be used to for many purposes. Networks can join teachers or
practitioners together for a common purpose and to share good practices. Networks
can join groups of teachers and schools together with the explicit goal of enhancing
teaching and learning. Networks can join groups of stakeholders together to
45
implement specific policies locally and beyond. Groups of networks can link
together for system improvement in terms of social justice and inclusion or to serve
as an agency for system renewal and transformation (Hopkins, 2003 as cited in
OECD, 2003).
Research on the Impact of Networks
A number of different studies have been conducted to examine the role and
impact of networks in a variety of contexts and settings. For example, Wohlstetter
(2004) conducted research on two types of networks: school family networks and
charter school networks which were both designed to improve delivery of
educational services. The findings revealed that many of the networks examined
created a variety of work teams to initiate and sustain the reform to be conducted in
the network. These teams developed include: management teams to provide
direction, management and oversight of the reform effort; integrating teams to
coordinate activities across different components of the network and made decisions
about activities to be conducted across schools and organizations within the network;
and improvement teams to focus on the teaching and learning priorities that were
part of the network’s improvement plan (Wohlstetter et al., 2003; Wohlstetter, 2004).
In the spring of 2005, researchers Earl & Katz (2005) conducted 100
interviews with school leaders and practitioners who had participated in the NCSL
Networked Learning Communities programme in England. Findings from this
qualitative study identified seven key features of learning networks which include:
purpose and focus which means having an explicit statement of purpose about
46
classroom practice, school improvement or student learning toward clear and
purposeful actions; relationships which means that networks are a function of
ongoing and dynamic interactions between members of the group; collaboration
within networks is meant to engage practitioners in opening up beliefs and practices
in order to provide them with opportunities to actively participate in the development
of their own practice and that of others; enquiry is a major tenet of networks and is
vital as it serves as a process to systematically and intentionally explore and consider
information from researchers and others as part of the decision making process;
leadership is a skill needed which allows for both the far reaching and pragmatic
needs of the group to develop the vision, provide support, share information and
monitor progress; accountability is a process of transparency and self-monitoring to
support and challenge the work of the group; building capacity and support is
needed for members to further develop skills and seek out others for support so they
can move beyond the status quo within their school (Earl & Katz, 2005).
Networks Impact on School Culture
As Fullan (1999) states, school improvement and reform cannot take place
unless the culture of a school, or larger district organization, is addressed and
changed. Additionally, Fullan (1992) points out that because school culture
influences readiness for change, reform is doomed to failure unless a learning culture
is developed and fostered in an organization. The impact on the use of networks in
an organization may help to foster a better learning culture for individuals within
schools and the district.
47
Examples of networks that have accomplished this cultural shift were found
in a study by Lieberman & Wood (2002). Lieberman and Wood (2002) found that
networks, such as the National Writing Project and other networks noted in the
literature, work to create a collaborative culture that changes the way that teachers
learn and relate to one another. Through the vehicle of a network, a professional
community can be built around shared work, shared interest, and shared struggle
(McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993). Research evidence from Crowe, Noden, and Stott’s,
(2006) study of the effectiveness of Networked Learning Communities in England
revealed that the use of networks had an impact on the morale, motivation, and
practice of professionals in education. As Lieberman (1999) states: “The kind of
sharing that goes on in educational networks often has the effect of dignifying and
giving shape to the process and content of educators’ experiences, the daily-ness of
their work, which is often invisible to outsiders yet binds insiders together” (p. 1).
Additionally, Hadfield et al. (2005) in a review of literature on the impact of
networking and collaboration in the United Kingdom, found a number of benefits of
networking teachers together such as: improved classroom practice due to their
enhanced ability to draw on local specialists, sharing good teaching practice both
within and outside the school with others, setting higher expectations for student
outcomes, and increased planning of innovative work. Teachers also noted that there
was increased student and staff morale at their sites, increased confidence in dealing
with problems, increased reflection on teaching practice, and increased
professionalism (Hadfield et al., 2005). In addition, Hargreaves (2003) in the
48
document titled, Working Laterally: How innovation networks make an education
epidemic, notes that, “networks of peers feed the creative co-production of new
knowledge that is the source of better professional practice and renewed professional
pride.” (p.4). Additionally, Hargreaves (2003) states, “innovation networks increase
each school’s intellectual and social capital but also boost the intellectual and social
capital of the system as a whole” (p. 13). Although no studies have actually been
able to document the direct impact of networking on student achievement, as it
would be hard to do, this would be a worthwhile endeavor for future study.
Elements for Effective Networks:
According to research, a number of elements are needed to make networks
effective and successful (Robertson, 1998; Wohlstetter et al, 2003; Wohlstetter &
Smith, 2000). As Robertson (1998) suggests, for networks to succeed, efforts need to
be made to ensure that actions are taken to foster the collaborative relationships
which must be developed. Stakeholders in the network must have a willingness to
trust one another and be committed to the shared vision or endeavor they are
undertaking. As members, they also need the knowledge, skills, information and
resources to collaborate effectively within the network. Additionally stakeholders
must be actively involved in the management of the network so that there is a sense
of ownership and buy-in to the operations, goals, and achievements of the
organization (Robertson, 1998). Other researchers conclude that additional
components for effectiveness require that participants that have mutual trust and
respect for other members of the group so that social capital can be built and there is
49
support for collaborative process (Chapman & Allen, 2006 pg. 298; Wohlstetter et
al., 2003). Additionally, Wohlstetter et al. (2003) notes that for “the networks to be
effective the participants need to know how to communicate and share information,
bridging the gaps between different units, as well as how to plan, facilitate meetings,
make decisions, and resolve conflicts” (p. 421).
Assertions Regarding Networks as a Change Agent for School Improvement
A positive outcome of networks is that they can promote community based
collaboration, cost sharing, knowledge sharing, and involvement of external partners
(Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001). As Hargreaves (2003) has noted, networks can extend
and enlarge the communities of practice and provide tremendous benefit to the
individuals within it as well as the people they in turn support. Prior research shows
that teachers can benefit from participation in formal teacher networks such as the
National Writing Project because they have an opportunity to create and receive
knowledge (El Haj, 2003; Pennell & Firestone, 1996; Lieberman & Wood, 2002;
Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; McDonald & Klein, 2003). Networks, due to their
horizontal and vertical structure, also have the potential to displace hierarchical and
bureaucratic decision-making structures as they function within the meso-level of a
structure, between the macro-level of district or government policy making and the
micro-level of individual schools (OCED, 2003).
As Hopkins (2003) (cited in OCED, 2003) states regarding the significance
of networks as it relates to governance in an organization:
50
(They) offer the potential for “re-inventing” the meso level by promoting
different forms of collaboration, linkage, and multi-functional partnership-
sometimes referred to as “cross-over structure”. In this respect, the network
enables stakeholders to make connections and to synergise activities around
common priorities. The system emphasis is not to achieve control (which is
impossible), but to harness the interactive capability of systemic forces (p.
17).

As many researchers have noted networks seem to provide a number of
benefits. They can provide an opportunity for teachers to consume and generate
knowledge and information. Networks can provide a variety of collaborative
structures that can vary in terms of flexibility, formality and structure. Networks can
provide a format for discussion of problems that often have no agreed upon solutions
and discuss ideas that challenge teachers to formulate new solutions. Networks can
provide an organizational structure that can be independent yet connected to schools
and provide staff with the opportunity to work across school and district lines.
Networks can be a part of a vision of reform that is exciting and promotes risk taking
among school staff. Finally, networks can facilitate the development of a community
of learners that respects teacher knowledge as well as knowledge from research
practices and reform (Lieberman, 1999; Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996).
Summary on Networks
A wealth of information has been presented in this review of literature that
describes and defines networks according to their typology, structure, purpose,
effectiveness, and use as a tool for change in this era of reform. It is clear from the
evidence being gathered on the use of networks as more specifically learning
networks that much can be gained for both teachers and students who are in need of
51
a vehicle to make significant changes to the current instructional practices that exist.
Networks may be used not only as a mechanism to provide support for collaborative
inquiry within schools, but as a means to operate more broadly throughout a district.
Conclusion
Summary
The review of literature was undertaken to examine types of network
applications that exist, and understand from an organizational structure or design
standpoint how business and government have been able to use networks so that
insight or lessons learned could be extrapolated for the use of networks in other
arenas. Additionally, literature was reviewed to examine and explore the vital role
that networks can play to build internal capacity for change in instructional practices
within schools and districts, examine more fully district reform efforts that have been
undertaken, and examine how and why networks can be used to achieve positive
outcomes for teachers and students in and between schools in a district.
In the first section, the review of the literature focused on examining network
applications and how networks are used for a variety of purposes and outcomes.
Information was shared regarding the growing use of social networks both for
personal and professional purposes as need for information and connectivity
increases in our culture and world.
In the second section, the review of the literature examined how
organizational structure and design and organizational collaboration make use of
“networks” as part of best practices in business and government arenas outside of the
52
realm of education effectively. This information can serve as a guide to educators for
lessons to be learned.
In the third section, the review of the literature examined the structures or
practices that can be used by districts to build internal or organizational capacity for
change in instructional practices. As was discussed, at the school site, just as in the
business world there is a need to develop practices and processes that can help to
capitalize on the talents and skills of the individuals in our school organization, our
greatest resource, to make effective and sustainable change in our existing
instructional practices. Information was provided regarding the notion of building
organizational capacity from models of communities of practice, professional
learning communities and the use of networks as an extension of PLCs.
In the fourth section, the review of the literature examined reform efforts that
have been taken at a district-wide level to address the achievement gap issue for
students. As has been noted, challenges continue to exist with reform efforts as
pressure mounts locally and nationally for change to occur in schools due to the poor
performance of students and the need for educational practices that can be replicated
and transferred beyond the confines of one school. Information was shared regarding
some best practices that effective districts have been using to make a difference for
their students.
In the fifth section, the review of the literature examined what networks are
and how and why they can be used to achieve positive outcomes for teachers and
students in and between schools in a district. Valuable information was provided
53
regarding the dynamics of what constitute networks and how they can be designed
and use to bring about innovation and change in an organization such as a school
district.
Questions to be Answered
Although research has been conducted regarding how groups of schools
within a region or the country can be networked together to share information (e.g.
charter schools) or how teachers can participated in loosely structured networks to
share ideas (i.e. online educational networks, National Writing Project, etc.) much
can still be learned about how a school district can use the strategic tool of networks
to build capacity within from school to school to improve instructional practices.
Some questions that still remain to be answered include: what structures are in place
for a district to network its schools? What district features or characteristics (e.g.
size, configuration, level) positively or negatively affect the network process? What
internal processes are undertaken at the district and site level to prepare staff for the
use of the network process and what support is offered to sustain it? How does the
district culture influence networking and vice versa? How does the individual school
culture influence the success of networking and what are the anticipated (or realized)
outcomes of networking for teachers and students?
Thus, the purpose of the qualitative research study aims to explore how and
why a district uses the vehicle/mechanism or process of networking to build capacity
system-wide for large scale educational reform to improve instructional practices and
increase academic achievement for all students district-wide that can be replicated
54
and sustainable for its students. This study will examine how one K-12 district has
developed and implemented efforts to build and sustain their own networks and the
practice of networking and will examine what the purposes and expected outcomes
of the networking the district seeks to achieve. Connections will be examined both
from a lateral (school to school) perspective and vertical (district/central office to
school) perspective for identification of best practices and tangible strategies that
another district could potentially utilize to do the same.
55
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the design, sample, data collection, and data analysis
of this study on networks. To reiterate, the purpose of this qualitative study was to
examine how a district used networking as an approach or strategy for reform of
instructional practices district-wide to increase capacity and bring innovation and
change. The focus of this study was to examine and illuminate the process and
structures that a specific district put in place to develop and implement networks and
for what specific purposes have they done so. One K-12 public school district, Oak
Park Unified in southern California was studied.
The goal of this study was to address the following overarching question
using a qualitative method of data collection: How and why does a district network
schools?
Additionally, the following sub-questions were addressed to further guide
and define the research:
1 What structures are in place for networking schools? What district
features (e.g. size, configuration, level) contribute to these structures?
2. How does the district culture influence networking, and vice versa?
3. What are the anticipated (or realized) outcomes of networking for
teachers and students?
56
Study Design
This study employed a qualitative single case study design focusing on the
district organization as a whole unit of analysis. As Yin (2003) notes, the use of case
study as a research strategy is used as a method “to contribute to our knowledge of
individual, group, organizational, social, political, and related phenomena” (p. 1). In
addition, as Patton (2002) describes, “qualitative designs are naturalistic to the extent
that the research takes place in real world settings and the researcher does not
attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest” (p. 39). The qualitative design of
this study utilized “inductive analysis” as a framework for analysis as the researcher
is desiring to discover patterns, themes, and interrelationships in the details and data
uncovered (Patton, 2002). As Patton (1990) identifies, qualitative research is used as
a means to understand situations in their uniqueness as part of a larger context and
the interactions that occur there. Additionally, by using the case study method, the
researcher can obtain a qualitative study that is richly descriptive in nature (Merriam,
1998). As Merriam (1998) notes, the use of case study methodology is best suited for
studies which strive to analyze or examine a change process in a real life context.
Also, the case study method allows for the investigation of complex social units with
multiple variables of potential of importance in understanding the phenomenon.
Because the study will involved real-life situations, the case study can serve as a
vehicle to provide a rich and holistic account of the given phenomenon (Merriam,
1998).
57
Additionally, due to the nature of qualitative inquiry, because the researcher
is the instrument of measurement for the study, the credibility and validity of the
qualitative methods used hinges to a great extent on the skill, competence, and rigor
of the individual doing the fieldwork (Patton, 2002). Because of these issues of
credibility and validity regarding the information obtained in this research, great care
was taken to have the methods and questions used in the interviews measure what
they were suppose to be measured (Patton, 2002).
Sample and Population
This study focused on one K-12 unified school district. Oak Park Unified
School District in Southern California was specifically selected for this study as I
wanted to look closely at a district which is networking their schools and teachers to
build capacity district-wide both vertically and laterally. I discussed the purpose of
my proposed study with the Superintendent and obtained a formal letter of consent
for Institutional Review Board purposes from the superintendent and the Oak Park
Unified School District. Informed consent was also obtained from all participants
and all participants were informed that their right to participate was strictly
voluntary. Non-probabilistic purposeful sampling strategies were used in this study,
as that is the method of choice for most qualitative research studies (Merriam, 1998).
As Honigmann (1982) states,
Non-probability sampling methods “are logical as long as the fieldworker
expects mainly to use his data not to answer questions like ‘how much’ and
‘how often’ but to solve qualitative problems, such as discovering what
occurs, the implications of what occurs, and the relationships linking
occurrences” (p. 84).
58
The criteria used for sample selection was based on the desire to locate a
district that was actively employing practices to build lateral capacity district-wide
by bringing individuals together in a “networking” process to achieve their goals.
The sample district has been deliberately involved in lateral capacity building
strategies for the past three years as a means to connect or network staff to focus on
its common organizational goals and purposes. Although the district selected did not
officially use the term “networks” to describe their specific district strategies and the
activities that drive them, the district has a clear and direct focus on lateral capacity
building to improve teaching and instruction. The use of lateral capacity building is
one hallmark of network structures. The description of the district’s current actions
fit within the definition of what a network is or what the process of networking
involves. To reiterate the definition of “networks”, it is a collection of individuals or
organizations that come together to solve problems of mutual concern that are to
large or complex to address on their own (Mandell, 1999). Additionally, Oak Park
was chosen as it is highly regarded by the community and state for its innovative and
collaborative practices which focus on building teacher leadership and collaboration
within its organization. It is ranked in the top 2% of all districts statewide with a
ranking of 10 for the majority of its schools. Lastly, the district has established a set
of district goals and moral imperatives that specifically drive teaching and learning
for all their students.
In this study, data were gathered from 26 semi-structured interviews with key
individuals and stakeholders throughout the organization from the central office to
59
the site level. By meeting directly with individuals at the district and school levels I
was able to garner insight from the people who have hands on experience with the
network processes and practices in this district. I interviewed the following
individuals: Superintendent, Director of Teaching and Learning, Director of
Educational Technology, five site administrators from each of the varying levels and
specific schools, and 18 teachers district-wide. I interviewed a total of 10 elementary
school teachers from the three elementary sites, three teachers from the middle
school, three teachers from the high school, one teacher from the continuation
school, and one teacher from the independent school. Patton (2002) recommends that
the researcher specify minimum sample amounts based on the “expected reasonable
coverage of the phenomenon given the purpose of the study and the stakeholders
interests” (p. 246), and I believe I achieved this.
Criteria for teacher selection in this sample was done purposefully to select
lead teachers and/or teacher representatives that have been in the district a minimum
of 4 years and participated in vertical and lateral staff development activities or
meetings so that information could be garnered regarding past practices as well as
changes that have occurred since the focus has shifted to from vertical to lateral
capacity building district-wide. With the exception of one teacher, all interviewees
had a minimum of 4 years teaching experience with the district. Years of teaching
experience ranged from 2 to 30 years in Oak Park.
A majority of staff interviewed had some experience working in another
district prior to Oak Park, but they had the greatest career longevity in Oak Park.
60
There were even a few of teachers who taught in Oak Park, left the state for a
number of years, and then returned to a teaching position in Oak Park a second time.
In terms of administrators, all of the principals in the district have been hired during
the time that the current Superintendent has been in charge and all of them came
from outside the school district. It is interesting to note that four of the five current
principals had their first principalship in Oak Park. The superintendent has been in
the district, serving in a variety of positions from teacher, principal, etc. for the past
25 years. This is also true for several of the other top central office staff as well.
Although the Assistant Superintendent was not interviewed directly, he also has 26
years of experience in the district and the Director of Teaching and Learning has 17
years of experience. Both of these individuals served as site administrators prior to
moving to the central office. Additional demographic data is listed below for each of
the interviewees highlighting the number of years in the district and their current
position and assignment.
61

Table 3.1: Teacher and Administrator Demographics

Position Years in district Grade/Location
Superintendent 25 District office
Assistant Superintendent 26 District office
Director of Teaching & Learning 17 District office
Director of Educational Technology 5 District office
Teacher 1 15 Third
Teacher 2 11
Third/Science
Oak Park
Teacher 3 19 Third
Teacher 4 8 Kindergarten
Teacher 5 14 Kindergarten
Teacher 6 12 Second
Teacher 7 2 High School: Special Ed.
Teacher 8 21 High School: English
Teacher 9 4 High School: Science
Teacher 10 12 Second
Teacher 11 10 Second
Teacher 12 15 Kindergarten
Teacher 13 9 Second: Summer Schl.
Teacher 14 29 Middle School
Teacher 15 6 Independent School
Teacher 16 6 High School: Continuation
Teacher 17 8 Middle Schl: Technology
Teacher 18 8 Middle School
Principal 1 4 Elementary
Principal 2 4 High School
Principal 3 3 Elementary
Principal 4 1 Middle School
Principal 5 3 Elementary
62
At the elementary level I originally planned to interview teacher
representatives from both lower primary and upper primary to see if there were
differences in their perspective based on the grades they taught. All of the
elementary teachers were currently in grades K-3 but several teachers had experience
with 4
th
and 5
th
grade as well in previous years. Because of this I feel that the
elementary teachers were fairly representative of other teachers at this level. At the
middle and high school levels I planned to have representation from each grade level
to obtain their unique perspective which may be different. I was able to obtain a
reasonable sampling of teachers across grades 7-12 based on the interviews
conducted. Although individuals were purposefully selected for the original sample,
it was possible during the interview process to add other individuals into the
interview or observation process due to chain sampling phenomena. Patton (2002)
defines the chain sampling approach as one in which the researcher, in an effort to
locate information-rich key informants, is directed to other individuals in the
organization to speak to on the topic or event during the course of an interview or
conversation.
Overview of the District
As noted above, the district for this study is Oak Park Unified School District
in Southern California. Oak Park Unified School District is a small district serving a
population of 3769 students. The district demographically is comprised of the
following student population: 83.4 % Caucasian, 10.3% Asian, 3.6% Hispanic, 1.4%
African American, 0.5% Filipino, 0.3% Pacific Islander, 0.1% American Indian, and
63
0.5% multiple response or other. Currently, 2.4% of the students are English
Language Learners, 11.2% of the students receive special education services, and
2.2% of the students participate in the Free or Reduced meal program. The district is
comprised of: one early education school, Oak Park Neighborhood School, based on
the Reggio Emilia model of instruction; three elementary schools, Brookside
Elementary, Oak Hills Elementary, Red Oak Elementary; a middle school, Medea
Creek Middle School; a comprehensive high school, Oak Park High School; a
continuation school, Oak View High, and an independent study school, Oak Park
Independent School. Oak Park USD has repeatedly achieved its yearly AYP and
API benchmarks and as a district has the highest API of 876 of any unified district in
the northwest county. Oak Park USD has a distinguished record of performance in
the state. Five of its schools, the elementary, middle, and high schools have all been
identified as California Distinguished Schools and Brookside Elementary, Oak Hills
Hills Elementary, Medea Creek Middle School, and Oak Park High have all been
selected as National Blue Ribbon Schools in the past. The district has participated in
the UCLA Early Literacy Institute and is affiliated with the Columbia University
Teachers College Reading and Writing Project.
Data Collection Procedures and Instrumentation
Data collection involved semi-structured interviews of 26 district level and
site level personnel. The purpose of these interviews was to obtain specific details on
the process, structures, and perceived outcomes established for networking of staff
within and across the district. The interview protocols were designed to provide
64
targeted responses to the research questions of this study. The interview questions
were explicitly written to address the nature and scope of their position (i.e. district
administrator, site administrator, or teacher) as it relates to the research questions
posed (see Appendices A, B, C). Also, the open-ended interview questions were
designed to target the specific research questions to be addressed in the study with
the expectation that the questions would elicit descriptive as well as interpretive
responses from each interviewee. Additional question prompts were used as needed
during the interview to probe more deeply into an interviewee’s given response.
Patton (2002) states that the purpose of gathering responses to open-ended questions
helps to enable the researcher to understand and capture the points of view of other
people without predetermining those points of view. By using open ended questions,
the responses elicited permit the researcher to understand the world as seen by the
respondents (Patton, 2002). Additionally, Yin (2003) notes that interviews are a
powerful source of evidence because they are targeted to focus directly on the case
study topic and insightful as they provide perceived causal inferences of an event or
phenomena.
The interview process involved the use of a standardized open-ended
interview format to maintain consistency and reliability of the data collected. The
interview protocols were devised so that data can be cross checked and validated
amongst the three group’s responses. Interviews were 30-60 minutes in length, tape
recorded and transcribed. The interviews were conducted at a time and location
convenient to the interviewer and interviewee.
65
Additionally, observation of the actual monthly network meeting for 21
st

Century teachers was conducted and field notes gathered and coded to provide a
variety of mixed methods for data collection using the observation protocol
(Appendix D). This meeting involved some staff development training involving use
of a document camera (ELMO) with the Smart Board. All staff were provided with
new document cameras and received training on how to use it. Prior permission was
obtained from the Director of Educational Technology and the participants to
observe the meeting. As Patton (2002) notes, observational data permit the
researcher to understand a program or treatment to an extent that is not entirely
possible using only the insights of others gathered through interviews. For this type
of data to be useful, observational data must be gathered in a way that provides depth
and detail. This is necessary for the observational data analysis to be descriptive
enough that the reader can understand what occurred and how it transpired (Patton,
2002). Lastly, document review and analysis were conducted to gather additional
information regarding procedures and practices that are demonstrated and in place
regarding networking and capacity building. The documents included: organizational
charts detailing job functions and responsibilities, School Accountability Report
Cards for each site visited, Oak Park Unified School District Vision and Moral
Imperatives, Superintendent’s School Watch Newsletters and Superintendent E-mail
bulletins to district staff. As Merriam (1998) states, documents are a ready made
source of data easily accessible to the evaluator and do not have the same human
limitations or constraints that interviews and observations require. Additionally, Yin
66
(2003) states that documents play a vital role in any data collection in case study
research. Yin (2003) also notes the strengths of using documentation as a source of
evidence. Documentation is stable, it can be reviewed repeatedly; it is unobtrusive, it
was not created as a result of the case study; it is exact, it contains names, references,
and details of an event; and lastly it may provide broad coverage over a long span of
time regarding many events and many settings.
By using various sources of data, triangulation of the data occurred by
interviewing individuals at both the district and site levels to see how well the
strategy and approach of networking was used both vertically and laterally across the
district, through observation of actual meetings or events, and by document review.
As Patton (2002) states, it is important to use multiple methods of data collection to
study a single problem or program. Also, Merriam (1998) notes that triangulation of
data from multiple methods of data collection and analysis serves to strengthen
reliability and internal validity in case study research.
Data Analysis Procedures
Data were coded and analyzed utilizing the software program Hyperesearch.
This data was coded according to themes that emerged from the data. (See Appendix
E for a list of codes). Data was initially coded according to the general research
questions of this study. Additionally, I then recoded data more specifically according
to themes that emerged from the research questions and data gathered as it was
examined and analyzed in greater detail. Because various forms of data were
collected from interviews, observation, and document review, I was able to
67
triangulate my findings from and across multiple sources. Data from the semi-
structured interviews, observations, and document review were triangulated to
support the findings obtained.
Validity and Reliability
As noted before, issues of validity and reliability were addressed in the terms
of the description of instruments and methods used in this study. As Merriam (1998)
states, “ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative research involves conducting
the investigation in an ethical manner” (p. 198). Internal validity relates to how the
research findings match the reality of what really occurs. As a way to address and
enhance internal validity in this study I used multiple methods and sources of data so
that findings could be triangulated. Additionally, I employed “peer examination”
which involved asking colleagues to comment on the findings as they emerged
(Merriam, 1998) as a way to validate if results were consistent and accurate. Validity
and reliability was obtained through the use of methodological triangulation (Patton,
2002). Additionally, reliability was addressed by providing a rich, thick description
of events so that the reader was able to determine how closely their situations match
the research situations, and determine on their own if the findings can be transferred
(Merriam, 1998).
Ethical Considerations
A number of ethical considerations were considered and dealt with as a part
of this study. All participants were dealt with in a confidential manner to maintain
and protect their anonymity. Data collected during this study, such as taped
68
interviews, interview transcripts, field notes, and other documents were kept
confidential. All participants were asked to review an information sheet prior to any
interview or observation to ensure that all participants were clear about the purpose
of the study and their right to withdraw from the study at any time. This study was
conducted in one small school district so care was taken to maintain participant
anonymity, if desired. All participants were informed that data collected will be kept
confidential and all participant’s names are excluded in the body of the study to hide
their personal identify although the names of the schools and district are true.
Throughout the course of this study, I followed the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board (IRB) rules, regulations, and procedures
regarding ethical conduct in research to maintain the highest ethical standards
possible.
Limitations of the Study
This research study was conducted in one school district during a period of
time of about three months. Because of the limited scope of the study and the unique
characteristics of the Oak Park Unified School District, which is a medium-sized,
suburban, high performing district, it may be difficult to transfer the findings of this
study to another school district. Additionally, I was careful not to infuse any personal
bias toward the concept of networks while conducting the interviews and analyzing
the findings to summarize the results. It was not my desire or intention to control,
direct, or manipulate the study in any way that would interfere with the actual
findings or confound the reader.
69
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
“The purpose of school is to see to it that all of our students learn at high levels, and
the future of our students depends on our success. We must work collaboratively to
achieve that purpose, because it is impossible to accomplish if we work in isolation.”
(Dufour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2005, pp. 232-233).

Introduction
As has been noted in previous chapters, the need for better reform efforts that
target all students, not just a select few is on the forefront of the nation’s educational
arena today. Many examples were provided in the literature review of organizations,
both in the private and public sector that have utilized collaborative practices or
network strategies with staff to maximize and build capacity within their
organizations. Networking structures and practices that can be used to build
capacity, not just vertically and horizontally, but laterally within the organization or
system, are the focus of this study. For this reason, this study looked at and focused
on one school district’s efforts to network schools together. The premise was that
this district’s networking efforts helped to build lateral capacity across and within
their organization to focus instructional efforts on teaching and learning strategies
that improve student achievement and success for all students.
Research Questions and Underlying Themes
The findings presented in this chapter directly related to the research
questions posed at the outset of this study and highlight the underlying themes that
were extrapolated from extensive analysis of the data gathered from interviews,
70
meeting observation, and document review. The questions are listed along with the
underlying major themes highlighted.
Overarching question:
How and why does a district network schools?
Sub-questions:
1. What structures are in place for networking schools? What district
features contribute to these structures?
Structures
• Organizational Structure and Design
• Formal Structures
• Informal Structures
Features
• Size and proximity
• Familiarity and Access of Personnel
• Resources
2. How does the district culture influence networking and vice versa?
• Willingness to share and collaborate
• Trust
• Open to change
• High Expectations
71
3. What are the anticipated (or realized) of networking for teachers and
students?
• Unifies common purpose
• Teacher incentives
• Teacher leadership
• Linkage of curriculum
• Linkage of resources
• Equity, uniformity, and opportunity for teachers and students
Prior to providing analysis of the data gathered regarding the findings of this
study, it is beneficial to understand in greater detail some background and history the
regarding Oak Park School District to provide a framework for the findings on
networking.
District Context
In addition to being a place where networking is occurring, the Oak Park
Unified School District, provides the basis for an interesting case study for several
other reasons. These include its small size, the close proximity of its schools, its
outstanding academic performance, and the grass roots efforts taken by the residents
of the community to form their own district.
Originally, in the late 1960’s as the community of Oak Park was slowly
developing, residents had only one elementary school, Brookside, for their children
to attend. This school was part of a neighboring school district in the area. All older
junior and senior high students had to be bused 20 plus miles each way to attend
72
school. In the early 1970’s Oak Park residents attempted repeatedly to join a
neighboring school district which was much closer and they were denied because the
district considered them an undesirable addition to the district based on information
at the time. Concerned residents took steps at the local and state level to approve
legislation that would allow Oak Park to secede from their former district and form
their own district. In 1977, stakeholders in Oak Park received permission to form
their own district and consequently passed a $40 million dollar bond to build their
schools. This early strong show of support from the residents for the school district
continues to be reflected by the sense of community that one feels as they move
throughout the district and community today.
There is an obvious sense or feeling of closeness in the district not only due
to the close proximity between sites, but more importantly an attitude of teamwork
and camaraderie that is noticeably evident with the personnel that work there. School
personnel have a long and vested interest in the district as evidenced by the longevity
of many of its teachers, classified staff, and central office personnel. It is interesting
to note that many of the district staff reside in Oak Park and have a relationship/or
connection with the district both as employees and parents. The superintendent has a
long history with the district, first as a teacher, than as a principal in an elementary
school and continuing education school, then later as a director of human resources
and curriculum before becoming superintendent four years ago. In addition, the
Assistant Superintendent and Director of Teaching and Learning are also former site
administrators who are well regarded and beloved by staff throughout the district. As
73
one site principal shares of the current assistant superintendent who she replaced as
principal, “let me tell you how hard it is to step in for a principal that is loved and
who walks on water, people wept when he left and he didn’t leave, he just went up to
the district office.”
The district values the role parents, teachers, and students take in the process
of the overall school community. Under the district’s Moral Imperatives, Goals, and
Action Plan for 2007-2008, for Organization and Shared Leadership, one moral
imperative states, “Our organizational structure is a collaborative process that
includes the community, employees, educational leaders, and the governance team.”
These moral imperatives reflect the beliefs and attitude of district personnel based on
findings from the interviews as explained later in this chapter. Parents have a strong
voice and are also are strong supporters in the partnership that they have with the
district in the form of Oak Park’s, “Friends of Oak Park” education foundation
which is helping to funds positions.
Summary
A brief summary of the district’s context was provided as a way to help
frame the data as it unfolds. The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to
answering the research questions posed at the outset of this research study. The
findings presented are directly related to the overarching question and subsequent
sub-questions and identified themes culled from the data obtained. Findings will be
summarized after each sub-question. Sub-question one will be addressed in two parts
due to the nature of the questions. The first portion relates to structures in place for
74
networking and second portion relates to the district features that support these
structures.
Research Question 1
Structures in Place for Networking
Data were analyzed about the organizational structure and design of the
district, as well as evidence regarding the formal and informal structures in both the
district and school sites that support networking within and across the district.
Additionally underlying themes related to structure also emerged from the data
which focused on: the embedded history of the district and the changes observed in
the organizational structure of the district, the role of leadership, the use of
curriculum, resources and technology.
Before delving into the current organizational structure of the district or the
specific formal and informal structures currently in place, information regarding the
embedded structures that are a part of the history of the district will be shared to
form the basis for the changes seen in organizational structure today.
History as it relates to district structure
Examining the past history of embedded structures and practices that were
prevalent in the district prior to networking helps highlight the change or shift in
organizational structure which is evident now. Ultimately, further examination of the
district’s organizational structure, beliefs, and practices will help to answer the
questions of how and why Oak Park USD networks its schools.
75
The superintendent explained that the school district has moved away from a
previous site-based management model which was popular in the 1980’s and has
shifted to a more collaborative management model. The superintendent explained the
history of governance in the district:
In the 1980’s for example, there was a very large reform effort toward school
based management. In other words, schools were better if they were on their
own and loosely connected with a federation of other schools as part of a
district. At that time there was a lot of talk that you got better performance
from students and happier staffs if you had that kind of thing going on. And
so in Oak Park that was overtly touted, that some school based management
was good. Schools were not necessarily encouraged to work together in that
model. So the school site councils were empowered, there was a lot of local
school governance going on and not a lot of interest at the district level of
linking things.

Other interviewees who had a long history with the district concurred with this
sentiment as well. As another district administrator stated:
Well I don’t know if you know much about the history of our district, it goes
way back. One of the things we always prided ourselves was on site-based
management. So we came from a place where there was pride in that concept.
Which is a different concept, not that you could not communicate or network
with others but there was a “pride” in that. That every school could be
different, every school could make their own statement… that one school
would do something one way and another school a different way. That is not
necessarily because they just didn’t talk, it was a conscious decision to let
people be creative and problem solve according to their constituency, what
was best for them. So it has been more recently, I think that there has been a
shift in that to look at “equity” for students where we need to communicate,
not that we all need to be the same, but we need to make sure that kids get the
same kind of opportunities everywhere.

The superintendent also stated that there was always some effort being made
during the 1980’s and 1990’s for schools to work together but the structure to
facilitate it was not in place, he reports, “There was a lot of effort to try to work
76
together but there wasn’t was a lot of good articulation.” The superintendent noted
that because the district was initially very small in size, with only one elementary,
middle, and high school, school personnel had to go through a process of learning
how to work together and collaborate when they added a second elementary school
in 1988. He states:
There was this process they had to go though to learn how to work together
and I became principal of that school in its second year. I was in the midst of
all those problems and there were a lot of negative feelings between the two
schools and the two schools didn’t work together particularly well as they
were sort of being encouraged to develop their own individual personalities
by the district. That was something that was kind of working against
networking. And then over time, there was recognition as the state framework
and standards came into place that there was “power” in working together
and solving common problems.

A teacher, who had previously worked for the district, before moving out of state for
many years and then returning to Oak Park as a teacher again, had this to say about
the observable change in district structure and culture:
I notice a big difference here now versus when I was here before and left. I
think part of it has to do with the growing of the district. We were one
elementary, one middle, one high school. When Oak Hills opened up there
was a separation of the two elementary schools for a while. We were getting
started and there was this very established school. Two different places in
growth and so for a while we were just trying to get going over there. There
was more of a sense of our school, their school. And then Red Oak opened
and people got a bit more concerned about the need to start working together
as a district. The district office has always been encouraging of that. I think it
was a matter of growth and time and getting up on our feet over there. Now
coming back I see a lot more of a connection of working together and also
now that we have grown you know people at the different sites. I have
worked with them and they are friends and that really opens that up as you
can just call and say what are you doing?

77
As the history of the district has evolved over time there is evidence that a shift in
focus has occurred in the last five or six years regarding the way in which teacher
learning and collaboration is being done. The superintendent reported the following:
Since I joined the district office in 2001, it was my first position at the district
in curriculum, I worked very hard to work together with the schools and we
had more committees that would decide and define things together so that we
had uniformity amongst elementary schools and better articulation between
middle school and high school and elementary schools so that a child’s
experience, no matter what elementary school they came thru was similar in
Oak Park. I would say we worked very hard since then to build that kind of
model.

When asked about changes that the district has made to do more networking, another
district administrator shared that staff articulation is now viewed as purposeful and
intentional:
We didn’t have a structure until recently to really articulate on a regular
basis. We didn’t have what I did in my former district, like I said those
regular meetings for English and so forth. So when it came up and we needed
it (i.e. what literature are we going to adopt…), it was more needs-based than
on a regular basis. I think there are certainly some pluses to that, in former
district there was a different philosophy that everybody had to be doing the
same thing. So the purpose of the meetings was to standardize and the
message was that we all kind of needed to be on the same page, whereas here
at Oak Park, networking was more to solve problems. The focus was
different.

Additionally, the district has made a major shift in the way in which staff
development is offered for its teachers. Whereas in the past there were K-12 staff
development days focused around a specific theme for all staff to participate in and
some opportunity for articulation meetings by grade level or department, now all
teachers participate in buy-back days district-wide which allow for freedom of
choice regarding staff development activities that suit individual teacher needs and
78
interest. Another site administrator noted the current shift in practice for teacher staff
development to include the use of “buy-back” days:
So what the district has tried to do is to get away from the model of one size
fits all and really personalize that professional development and tailor it to
groups of people so we will have 6 or 7 people who will want to find out how
to use a smart board or a group of people that want to talk about authentic
learning or differentiated instruction. So those opportunities get created.

Additionally, a teacher who has been with the district for 14 years, shared insight
about the district’s past practice of district collaboration days which are now
formatted differently as buy-back days to reach more individual teacher needs:
I would say the whole time I have been here I have definitely sensed that
need and that concern for everyone to pitch in and voice their opinion and
work together. The way that we meet those needs I think has changed. You
know now for instance, for the teachers to get their extra hours on those buy
back days. Now we also have what is called a passport… for teachers to get
their 14 extra hours of service. We have the freedom and flexibility to choose
workshops for the areas we sense we need and with that being said, not
everyone attends the same workshop and so I feel the old collaboration days
are taken away from us district wide, but yet they are given back to us on
pullout days with substitute teachers.

There was broad consensus from the interviewees that they valued the district-wide
(K-12) or multi-level collaboration days that the district created for staff
development days in the past as well. Although the structure for staff development is
different now with the buy-back days in place, interviewees reported that there is
opportunity as needs arise to have collaboration or articulation meetings by grade
levels, departments, or areas of interest. Interviewees shared that the district does still
finds ways to get people together when needed. As one teacher reported when asked
what happens when a specific need arises to get staff together, “I would say now
79
they tend to be more where grade levels are getting subs and maybe meeting at the
district office instead.” It is evident that the district sees the need for both individual
and collective staff development opportunities for their staff.
Organizational Structures
There are a number of actions that the district has taken to change or modify
their organizational structure to respond to the expectations that they have placed on
themselves in an effort to provide the best educational experience for students in Oak
Park USD. Some of the organizational structures that were highlighted in the
findings focus on the district’s moral imperatives, hiring practices, leadership style,
and use of resources to facilitate the organizational structures in the district.
Moral Imperatives
As has been noted by Fullan (1999, 2000B) districts often struggle to make
large scale changes within their organization as they lack a common vision or goals
(Fullan, 1999, 2000b). In response to the work done by Fullan, the superintendent
worked closely three years ago with school personnel, the school board, and
community members to develop a series of Moral Imperatives which currently serve
as a formal type of structure or guidepost for all district stakeholders to operate from.
One district administrator shared what was done to help make the moral imperatives
a reality. As she explained, because the moral imperatives were a shift from past
practice, there was a need in the district to have discussions with staff about the role
that networking played in helping to facilitate the implementation of the moral
imperatives K-12:
80
So we have had discussions about the moral imperatives and that they do
require the networking to get them implemented K-12 and how that, doing
something all the same, its sometimes different than the previous philosophy
of we all do it differently…I think high stakes testing and standards was
maybe the turning point where there was a need to really understand how we
are all interfacing with each other and to help each other in terms of
achievement.

The use of moral imperatives instead of traditional goals is indicative of the process
for change the district has undertaken to broaden its ability to support the needs of
the schools and community it serves. The moral imperatives are detailed in three
broad areas which include: Teaching and Learning, Organization and Shared
Leadership, and Finance, Budget and Facilities. Within each of these broad areas
specific moral imperatives are outlined regarding what they believe in as a district.
Additionally, each broad area has specific goals to address and an action plan which
details steps to be taken. One example of a Teaching and Learning moral imperative
which focuses on authentic learning for all students states, “Every student can learn,
and every student will learn, if presented the right opportunity to do so. The purpose
of school is to develop learning opportunities for each student every day.” This is
being supported in Oak Park in part through the ongoing staff development
opportunities that teachers are provided such as the Columbia Reading and Writing
Project and Renzulli Learning Program from the University of Connecticut. Another
example of one of the Teaching and Learning moral imperative states, “learning is
optimized through the use of the latest technology.” This moral imperative is being
acted upon based on evidence from interviews regarding the districts efforts to utilize
technology funding for the new 21
st
Century classrooms (K-12) that have been
81
established this year to build a new, better technology infrastructure for the entire
district.
Teachers and administrators spoke frequently of the district’s moral
imperatives and what they stood for. This was a bit surprising as most teaching staff
I have encountered in my experience as a site administrator do not typically know or
refer to district goals. As one administrator shared, “Well, one of the things that you
may have heard about is the goals and moral imperatives. We all were very involved
in forming those goals and moral imperatives. I think the first one is about building
lateral capacity.” In the area of Organization and shared leadership, the moral
imperative states:
Building lateral capacity shall remain our primary modus operandi. Only by
working together can we hope to fulfill our vision for teaching and learning.
We require the cumulative ingenuity of all leaders, including and especially
teachers, to fulfill our vision.

Moreover, teachers have an understanding of the expectations and goals that the
district desires for all staff and students and that message is communicated to staff in
a variety of ways. In addition to the site-based newsletters that teachers receive and
information shared at staff meetings, the teachers and staff receive periodic email
news from the superintendent which highlights current events, ongoing projects or
issues, and information on next steps for the district. One teacher noted the impact
that the superintendent’s emails to staff have had on her and ultimately the district:
I don’t know how often he does it, maybe every couple of weeks, a kind of
state of the district message and he lets us know what is going on in different
schools. He has pictures of kids working on projects at the elementary
schools. He tells us middle school is getting ready to go on a trip or do
82
whatever. If it is high school, it might be about athletic conferences or
whatever. So it just gives us this whole overview of what is going on in the
district…I emailed [the superintendent] after the first one and said, ‘thank
you so much for putting time into doing this email. You have no idea how
much it means to me’…I think it builds more of a sense of community
because I think what happens is schools tend to be so isolated. They think the
world revolves around who they are and what they have to give to their level
of kids. I think what we don’t realize is that there is team effort involved, we
need to be supporting and looking at what people are doing at all grade levels
and realizing we are a team and it is not us against them.

Clearly, this moral imperative is being addressed and is confirmed by the way
in which teachers and schools are being connected with each other across the district.
Hiring Practices
There is an attitude and an intentional practice of hiring staff, both teachers
and administrators that fit the expectations of the district in terms of collaboration
and sharing. Although one could argue that finding someone to fit district
expectations is not a unique district feature, yet the way in which specific staff is
hired in this district helps to support networking practices. This may not have been
the case with prior superintendents but this is the belief now. During the
superintendent’s four year reign, he has hired all of the site principals (K-12). In
addition, at the start of this school year he created a new position, Director of
Teaching and Learning, to oversee teaching and learning in the district. In the past,
both curriculum and humans resources were handled by one individual. There is now
an Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and curricular issues are handled
by the Director of Teaching and Learning. The superintendent explained that there
was a need to have someone specifically focused on teaching and learning practices
83
within the district so it was imperative to have an individual that could focus on that
alone. The person selected for this position was someone who has lengthy experience
with the district and keen awareness of the needs district-wide having served as the
middle school principal for 17 years. In her prior role as the middle school principal,
due the small size of the district, she had the opportunity to interface with staff at all
the elementary schools and the high school, which has provided her the opportunity
to see curricular needs and issues across the district.
When asked directly about the concept of hiring the right people for the job
the superintendent indicated that he would rather let a teacher go at the beginning of
the year if they decided Oak Park was not for them, rather than try to make a teacher
collaborate, as expected in Oak Park , when they don’t want to. As he states:
That part of the deal with working at Oak Park is that you will work
collaboratively with others. When we hire people we do not hire people that
are not collaborators. And when we do orientations for new teachers we make
that abundantly clear. If you think that you came to a place where you can
close the door and work in a little red school house that is not curricularly
innovative then you are in the wrong place. You need to not sign your
contract, you need to get out because there is always going to be something
new happening here and we expect you to work with your friends and
neighbors and work together, that is just what we do.

As one site principal shared when asked about the district hiring practices she
reported the following:
The elementary principals I know were brought in very close at the same time
and we were brought in as people that were considered to be communicative
and to have collaborative working styles. So, I think that the district started
with the hiring process and looking for those attributes and the kinds of
people they wanted to bring on board. Then I know that it was made clear to
us in our goal setting meeting that the principals were to write a goal that
addressed building lateral capacity and so that we then could sit down and
84
actually talk about what that might look like and what the benefits of that
would be to all of us and of course, it was huge because we were all new to
the district in roughly the same time frame. So that was very… that was a
really positive experience to have that go through and the experience,
acclimating to a new district at the same time, and being asked to specifically
focus on that in our goals.

Another site administrator also spoke of the type of people Oak Park looks for when
hiring, he shared, “I think they had those things in mind when they hired us, people
that would be communicative and would be very open and outgoing, collaborative,
and actually would love the networking opportunity.” This belief in finding the right
people for a position and the district was not just seen at the administrative level but
at the teacher level as well. One principal indicated that he was asked during his
interview for principal the question, “What type of teacher would you hire?” which
reflecting back helped him to see that this was a priority for the district. When the
administrator was asked if he had hired any teachers this year and what he looked for
he responded, “I wanted somebody who is going to be very collaborative. I do
believe that and I do not want somebody who is walled up in their own classroom
and not willing to reach out and collaborate.” Another principal concurred, “I think
that we need to have people that are very dynamic, but also very collaborative…I
would naturally look for teachers that don’t prefer isolation that prefer networking as
a personal style.” As a new site administrator shared about the benefit of coming
into a school with a staff that is very collaborative due in part to hiring practices:
My sense is that all along, the history of the school has been established as
very collaborative. All of these structures, the shared leadership and the
teacher input, I think [the former principal] established that fairly early on,
that was part of her philosophy and part of her building of this school. So I
85
think she has had it here for a very long time and hired people accordingly,
she certainly left a legacy of a really great staff in those terms. How they
collaborate together and with us so I didn’t come into something where I am
fighting an uphill battle to do those things at all, which is nice.

As a way to confirm this information, the former site principal was asked about the
process that she took in creating such a collaborative staff at her former school. In
addition to the staff development work she did with staff to build a strong
collaborative team, she explained that over the years she had been able to hire at
least 75% of the staff at that school and that she had a particular type of teacher in
mind. She stated, “I got rid of people I felt were not up to standard. I didn’t keep
people who couldn’t be a 10.”
It is evident that the district has made several shifts over the past many years
regarding district expectations and practices. They have moved from a site-based
management model to a collaborative model which now includes an even greater
focus on the need to find the right people, collaborate within and across schools to
share ideas, and to take ownership as a district for the collective whole of the
students and network to build lateral capacity to improve instructional practices and
create equity for all students. Next, an examination of the leadership and formal
structures that are currently in place to support networking will be addressed.
Leadership
A recurrent theme found in the data is role of leadership at both district and
site levels. As stated above, the majority of the staff is aware of and knows the
district’s vision and moral imperatives. They see the leadership of the district,
86
especially the superintendent, as a visionary force that has kept the district on a
progressive, forward thinking path. Some of the superintendent’s feats include:
maximizing use of Title II funds for staff development (i.e. sending teachers to
trainings at Columbia University and the University of Connecticut) to make all
teachers highly qualified and the recent passage in 2006 of a $17 million school bond
for technology that is laying the infrastructure and providing the hardware and
software to make the district one of the most technologically advanced in the state
and country. The district leadership provides extensive support for teachers to access
innovative curriculum and technology that is cutting edge.
It is interesting to note that the interviewees not only abide with the district
vision but embrace it. As one teacher notes when asked what prompted or
precipitated a change in the district toward more networking and lateral capacity
building she said, “I think the superintendent has been a huge proponent of
networking and articulation.” Another teacher had this to say as well:
I guess it would have to be with leadership, the vision of the leader, and in
this case, I would say it is the superintendent, but there has to be buy-in as
well. There have to be well planned opportunities that actually people can
see potential in being beneficial. They also have to have opportunities to see
that the networking is nice. The other thing is that when you start sharing
ideas, you create more energy and I think this is just a really challenging job
that kind of wears people down at times and I think it is well document that
why the teachers leave the profession is because of burnout, but when you
start providing opportunities with networking or sharing of ideas, it energizes
things.

87
It is clear that many people feel that leadership is a key component of the success of
Oak Park leadership and this can be broken down into district leadership, principal
leadership and teacher leadership.
District Leadership. In terms of district leadership, without question almost
every single interviewee cited the superintendent as a key facilitator in the forward
movement of the district and their success with students. The superintendent is
extremely vested in the school district. As one teacher shared, “this is not a job for
our superintendent, it is part of his dream for children.” Another teacher shared the
following as well:
I think that [the superintendent] is visionary and I think that he is a person
who believes in collaboration I mean just really deeply, you know he is very
collaborative just as a human being and I think that that is just part of his
style because that is how he is, not because he is trying to…. I just think that
is who he is. So, I think that he has changed the focus of the district. He
came in as superintendent when I took this job. So, I only know what I heard
about the district before. I did not experience it directly.

Yet another shared:
Well, I think a lot of the direction has come from our superintendent who
believes strongly in this, in people getting together and learning from each
other, part of it is also driven by the fact that he likes to offer opportunities
for staff members to go and learn. We can go to in-services and conferences.
He puts his money where his mouth is. By allowing teachers to have the
funds to go to such places as you know Columbia to learn about the writing
and reading project that is huge as you know it is across the country…

Due to his longevity in the district, the superintendent is in a unique position -- due
to the amount of allegiance and buy-in that he has with staff across the district -- to
use his influence in the long standing relationships he has developed to make
changes and innovate because he has their trust and respect. Moreover, there is a
88
core group of district office personnel who share similar beliefs and have cultivated
relationships with teachers that foster trust as well. This finding is significant as
changes and innovations cannot easily be put in place district-wide or sustained
without staff buy-in at the district level (Fullan, 2001; Wohlstetter et al., 2001). In
all, they have a shared vision about their students and are able to take risks and try
new things that are creative without major resistance from personnel due to the
collective beliefs shared.
They also welcome and expect teachers to be a part of decisions that are
made. It is important for district personnel to convey support to staff as they are
considered to be valuable members of the team and they want all employees to be
happy in their jobs. The superintendent shared during his interview that it was
crucial to put structures in place and identify resources which can help teachers be
able to do their job right. Moreover, district teachers feel valued as professionals
when they are given the opportunity to participate as decision makers.
In sum, although one person cannot stand alone to take credit for the success
in Oak Park USD, interviewees repeatedly cited the specific leadership qualities of
the superintendent as an important and instrumental force in the current change
processes, opportunities, and success the district has experienced since his move to
the district office in 2001, first as a director and then as superintendent.
Principal Leadership. Site principals play a vital role in the leadership of the
district and are an integral part of the district’s plan for success. As is noted in the
moral imperative for organization and shared leadership, principals are leaders of
89
instructors or leaders of leaders, with principals working to empower teachers as
leaders and nurture this process. In addition, principals are expected to work
together, to support each other, and to share innovations. Principals are members of
the district leadership team and meet monthly with the superintendent. In addition,
they meet monthly with the Director of Teaching and Learning to stay abreast of any
changes in the curriculum that are being addressed district-wide. The purpose of this
monthly meeting, which is new this year, is not to operate as a decision making body
but serves to keep all stakeholders involved. She explained the reason for the change:
One of the things that I have done this year is sort of restructured a little bit in
terms of curriculum, rather than just have a meeting on a certain topic with all
the teachers and maybe a representative administrator what I have seen is
unless the principals are on board things don’t get implemented. Unless they
see it, understand it, they can’t support it. Once a month we meet with the
administrators on curriculum, it is not a decision making body in the sense that
it is top down but the issues that are out there are discussed so that everybody is
on the same page and everybody knows about them. We don’t just have one
principal on a committee and nobody else knows about it. That way we can
flush out all the concerns or issues that they may have. We also have the
district curriculum committee which meets and that has some principals on it
who have already had a chance to talk with their colleagues so they become
well versed in K-12 opinion or issues and then we have teachers, parents, and
board members and others represented as we make a larger decision. At least
the administrators who are on the committee really represent their constituency
as they have had a chance to meet with them and talk with them and that is new
this year.

They also participate in K-12 committees. In the past, prior to the assignment
of a Director of Teaching and Learning, site principals assumed leadership roles in
the implementation and management of several district curricular programs. They
have also been a part of the decision-making process for new initiatives and future
direction for the district. One site principal shared his insights about the networking
90
that is ongoing in the district and plans for the future, following a visit with some
headmasters from England that were visiting his school to look at best practices:
Well I think that as we are identifying where to next move, I think
networking not just within our own district but as far a net as we can cast is
going to be critical. I think that is what I have been enjoying with the
headmasters from England and we are talking how we are preparing students
for their future careers and are we (schools) truly preparing the students with
the essential skills for that. If we are not in our classrooms then how do we
move curriculums and teachers to be teaching those essential skills. And
being able to talk to my counterparts from England that are facing the very
same questions and challenges towards moving towards that change. I think
establishing those networks is going to be critical. I don’t think we are going
to be able to solve all these problems within our own Oak Park area. I think
that the direction and the overall reform, you can look at the moral
imperatives of our school board and [the superintendent] have done a lot of
very good research on where we should be directed but I think they may
leave a lot up to the individual schools to help create their vision towards
that. I don’t want to create a vision that is drastically different from the high
school or elementary schools so all of us on the leadership team need to keep
communicating what we are trying to do and trying to accomplish. That is
where I think our leadership meetings with [the superintendent], that type of
communication needs to be constant and the articulation between the
administrators has got to be critical.

It is clear from interviews conducted that principals value the support and assistance
they receive from the district leadership and one another. One site administrator
commented on the support she feels as a member of the leadership team this year:
It feels like things are more together. It feels like my first year here I was
like a little satellite onto myself and now, it definitely feels that we are being
pulled in together and I think part of it is by [the director of teaching and
learning] who has this new position. So things that we took care of or so
before, she is taking care of which makes it feel like we are a unit. Where
before let us say I would say to the other elementary principals, I will take
care of setting up Columbia this year, you take care of math or whatever and
you do science. So, it gives us a chance to interact now, in the past I just did
my job and now because somebody at the district is doing it, it does
encourage us to work together more.

91
Teacher Leadership. As is highlighted in the district’s moral imperatives,
teacher leadership is not only valued in Oak Park as important, but viewed as a
necessary component for their overall success with students. The district utilizes
teachers in a variety of ways to support the needs of students K-12 throughout the
district. An example of how they make use of teachers who are actively teaching in
some leadership capacity can be seen in their organizational structure and design.
They have several positions, such as the district GATE coordinator or the district
science Oak Park, that allow teachers to work in partnership positions so that they
can be freed up during the week from their regular teaching position to fulfill their
leadership duties district-wide. In addition, a teacher is responsible for summer
school at the elementary sites as part of her position as well. By utilizing teachers in
this way as leaders across the district, they allow individuals to use their talents and
by virtue of the fact that they are still teaching as well gives them credibility and
buy-in with the other teachers in the district they support K-12. Teacher leadership is
strongly encouraged in Oak Park and staff derives great value in receiving training
and support from their colleagues as opposed to always seeking outside “expert”
support. This is evidenced by one teacher’s example of making use of the personnel
resources in the district:
Well, I think it saves you money for one thing because you are not paying
[expensive consultants] to talk. I think that is a huge benefit to any district.
Another benefit is at least at Brookside we have teachers who have all been
teaching. A lot of teachers have been teaching over 27 years here. They are
brilliant women, and they have been teaching a long time and they have more
resources than they can ever use. So, that ability to make use of what you
already have instead of bringing somebody in who might have taught for five
92
years and then became a lecturer and I think that is the biggest benefit. The
economics and the fact that you have the resources here already.

An obvious example of staff development that relates to teacher leadership is
evidenced by the way in which an initial set of teachers got involved in the Writers
Workshop from Columbia University. Several years ago, four teachers who had
heard about the work at Columbia University from the superintendent when they
took a class with him at University Elementary School
1
at University of California,
Los Angeles. The teachers expressed interest in finding out more about the program
at Columbia. The superintendent supported their efforts to go to Columbia to get
trained with the express notion of coming back to Oak Park to train more teachers.
These original four teachers became “Team Columbia” as the superintendent liked to
call them and they made notebooks for all the teachers at the school based on what
they had learned and trained other teachers at their school. Teachers are also actively
involved in leadership in other ways such as serving as lead teachers at the site, on
leadership teams at schools, leading site and district staff development and leading
district committees.
Technology/Infrastructure to Support Networking
Due to the district’s ability to forecast the need for district-wide infrastructure
that could support the developing technology needs required in 21
st
century schools
and classrooms, the district initiated and passed a technology bond in 2006 to
provide 17 million dollars for technology in the district. Because of these funds, the

1
University Elementary School is the laboratory school for the Graduate School of Education and
Information Studies at University of California, Los Angeles
93
district has formulated and is implementing a plan to incorporate all types of hard
wiring of new servers and links so that all the schools within the school districts will
be extremely well connected. As the Director of Educational Technology stated:
We’re actually redoing the entire network. So we’re going to be redoing the
LANs, which is the connection between all our schools that bring us back to
the DL. We’re going to be doing the LAN, the local area networks at each
site. And we are also going to be redoing all our cable. So we’ll have a full
gigabyte connection in our district. Which is fabulous because it opens the
door for video conferencing and lots of additional communication doors.

The district has a technology committee that has been in place for three years and is
comprised of parents, teachers, community members, and administrators. The IT
director explained that it was under the vision of the superintendent that the
committee worked to define what a 21
st
century classroom might like to base their
current model on. The impetus for the 21
st
Century classroom model was due to the
needs and challenges of the students in our classrooms today. As she explained:
The kids we are teaching today, having been a teacher for 20 years, are very
different. Its short attention spans. They are very media driven. You know we
use the term all the time, digital native. So we are teaching the digital native.
I mean the kids in kindergarten and first grade never knew a world without
the internet. They are so connected in their own world. You talk about
network. Look at how kids are… Kids are networked, they are authors,
publishers, and collaborators. I mean they are just across the board connected
on all levels. Then we bring them to school and what do we say? Turn off the
iPod and we are going to stick you in this room and teach you.

As part of the district’s technology plan for this year, the district started their first
21
st
Century classroom program. They sent out applications to every teacher in the
school district so that it was available to all. They expected 10 teachers to apply and
join the program and received 43 teacher applicants (K-12) instead. They enrolled all
94
43 teachers in their new 21
st
Century classroom program which has provided on-
going teacher training as well as equipment for each classroom. The equipment
includes an interactive SMART Board
2
, laptop, LCD projector, Senteo
3
interactive
student response system, and Elmo document reader/camera, etc. The new
equipment allows teachers to be freed from their computers to be interactive with the
equipment and students and has created opportunities to engage students more in the
learning process. In addition, teachers will ultimately have the capability to not only
network with other teachers and students across the district but across the country.
The district is working to connect the iChat
4
feature on their computers so that they
can communicate with teachers across the district. They are also working to have
video chat with three teachers at a time or audio chat with up to 10 people so they
can have meetings without leaving the building. The increase in technology
capability will also support better communication and interface with the parents in
the community as well.
Funding Structure for Resources
As was previously stated above, the district successfully passed a technology
bond in 2006 which has provided the funding structure for the current and upcoming
technology needs in the district. These funds provided for a new infrastructure to be
implemented so that staff has the capability to be connected together in a multitude

2
SMART Board is an interactive whiteboard made by Smart Technologies.
3
Senteo is an interactive student response system, made by Smart Technologies, that can be used with
a SMART Board to allow students to individually respond digitally to information presented to them
at the same time.
4
iChat is a technology feature that allows users to connect with other individuals with video and voice
capability for conferencing.
95
of ways beyond email. In addition, the district has made use of Title II funds to
support the need to have opportunities to be highly qualified. The district uses a grant
writer to help facilitate the development of applications for grants that are found to
be of benefit for the district. As one teacher stated, “If there is money out there [the
superintendent] will find it!” The district works closely with their education
foundation, Friends of Oak Park, and has been able to receive financial support for
the Science mentor position in the district. The district creatively utilizes personnel
and their educational expertise to provide staff development or support for the
district. They follow a model of teacher lead teacher training for many programs that
have been implemented. By utilizing a process like this, in lieu of bringing lots of
outside trainers into the district all the time, allows them to focus on building their
teacher leader skills and providing opportunities for their personal growth.
The design and implementation of the 21
st
century program was done
creatively so that there was a great deal of teacher buy-in from the outset. Teachers
district-wide were all allowed to apply for the program. The only time commitment
teachers had to make to participate was for two weeks of training in the summer,
which they did for free, and monthly participation in meetings for training and
support throughout the year. For their participation, each teacher received a
substantial amount of technology for their classrooms. By doing so in this way, the
district was able to minimize its staff development costs, as teachers attended the
summer training without pay, with the incentive that they would receive equipment
and on-going training thorough out the year.
96
Formal Structures
There are a number of formal structures in place in Oak Park USD which
help to facilitate the use of networking practices both within schools and across the
district. These include: relevant and rigorous curriculum, shared decision making
practices, meeting structure, and allocation/use of time and resources.
Relevant and Rigorous Curriculum
Oak Park’s emphasis as noted in district literature and its moral imperatives
stresses the need for a well-balanced and rigorous core curriculum at all grade levels
for its students. The district places a great deal of focus on the need to provide
learning opportunities for all students that are as authentic and builds a child’s
interest in learning. They note in their moral imperatives, that the state content
standards shall be used as a floor, not a ceiling in terms of expectations for what
students can learn and that learning should be differentiated and experiences should
have depth, complexity, and novelty. The district feels that learning can be optimized
through the use of the latest technology, as evidenced by their push for more
sophisticated technology in the classroom.
It is important to note that the superintendent has been instrumental in
bringing about reform efforts to enhance the curriculum for students in the district.
One administrator shared how the district has prepared staff to be open and
supportive to changes in curriculum and encourage participation she stated:
Well [the superintendent] provided funding and his own personal support for
these programs (Columbia, 21
st
Century, etc.) which is huge, if he doesn’t
support them they go away. He is very articulate in explaining them to board
97
members and other people so that you get everybody on board to move
forward. So I think his influence has been huge. We formed networks of
committees that focused on whatever the issue is we were trying to
implement.

The district has participated in the UCLA Early Literacy Institute and is affiliated
with the Columbia University Teachers College’s Reading and Writing Project. In
response to the changes seen with the implementation of the Columbia project, a
teacher had this to share:
For teachers that have buy-in I think it has been great. I think the parents are
very on board, they are happy that their kids are writing were we didn’t really
have a writing curriculum before…I think people are very happy about it.
They are glad that we do it, they think we are on the cutting edge, that we are
never resting on our laurels. We are always exploring new ways to make
curriculum better.

In addition, the district recently began using the Renzulli Learning Program from the
University of Connecticut as a way to expand student’s creative thinking and
authentic learning skills.
As a way to facilitate and foster a change in instructional practices and
innovation the district has moved away from traditional staff development as has
been noted previously and moved to a model that supports the exploration of new
ideas, strategies, and curriculum. As one teacher states, “Staff development was
usually a one size fits all which basically fit no one.” Teachers are now encouraged
to find different staff development opportunities that support the push for more
relevant and rigorous curriculum. As one teacher stated, even in Oak Park, there is a
need to find more creative ways to reach students:
98
We have assumed because of the community culture that we have a lot of
kids who have a huge amount of family support, and are college-bound and
have college educated parents and so forth, and what we’re finding is that
we’re going to need to find other mechanisms that are driven from the school
in order to begin to prompt and reinforce the a kind of responsive creative
learning to engage students.

As one interviewee reports, parents have strong buy-in to the practices of the district,
she states: “I think the parents are usually thrilled when we implement new
curriculum or new technology. We usually talk it up at Back to School and at parent
meetings, parent conferences. They are usually very pleased with what we do.” At
the high school level, an example is provided regarding the way in which English
teachers got together as a group to revamp their educational offerings for 12
th
grade
students following a networking meeting that they had with English departments
from neighboring similar schools in an effort to make their curriculum more relevant,
rigorous and appealing for their students. One teacher explained what happened:
What has happened is the English departments meets with all the English
department chairs and it has been great because I can ask questions about
anything from rubrics to what they are doing with their Honors and APs,
open enrollment versus prerequisites, and you know just things we struggle
with and I get so much to bring back. So, we can kind of see what other
people are doing. Then, one thing we are struggling with for years in our
school is our 12th grade English program and we just felt like it was kids who
get into 12th grade English, they checked out are CP kids. Our AP and
Honors kids just want to get into college and they are still focused. So, for
years we were talking about coming up with something a little bit different
and I talked to a colleague about joining me for a visit to a neighboring
school…So, we went in with the idea we are going to see what other schools
were doing in 12th grade English...we found one school that had instituted an
elective program and they basically talked about how kids would have
semester classes and electives, so what it did was it kind of emulated the
college experience and then they still met the standards within those
electives, but kids could choose things that were areas of interest with the
idea that they would have more buy-in. So we brainstormed at the
99
department and we came up with Womens Lit, Identity in Literature, To
Mythology to Science Fiction, cinematographic text…Shakespeare and
Madness and California literature. So, what we did was in our classes, we
offered them all out there. We found three of them that had sufficient
enrollment, Madness and Identity, science fiction, and the cinematographic
text, we had about half of our kids sign up for. So, what we have now is half
of the kids are still taking just regular English IV and the other half has
signed up for the elective program so they will have two different semester
electives and from what we are hearing from kids, pretty much we are
thinking that eventually they will all go to the elective programs and we are
giving them choice, but that all came from networking within our department,
giving some leadership to other people within the department at grade levels
going to a different school, hearing what other schools are doing and then
coming back and instituting it and it has solved so far what we think and it is
not the perfect situation because you would still deal with Senior apathy.

In Oak Park, efforts to make curriculum more relevant and rigorous are being done at
both the district and site level. The district has the expectation that students will
receive this as part of their school experience in Oak Park and teachers are given the
opportunity to help create and foster those experiences for students.
Shared Decision Making
One hallmark of Oak Park School District is the way in which the district
embraces shared decision-making as a key element in how they do business as a
district. Teachers and other staff have a strong voice in providing input for decisions
to be made yet it is done collaboratively with a focus on student outcomes. Decisions
are not focused on what is right for the teachers or the union. As one teacher who
had a very different experience in another district explained:
I mean one of the things I was most surprised my first year in Oak Park with
was how many committees they have and not useless committees. I mean it
was a big deal…Everybody joined a committee. Everybody had a voice and
they spent a ton of time talking about things and I came from a district where
100
you are basically just told what to do. There wasn’t a big discussion on what
was the best thing.

The district views all stakeholders as members in the process of decision-making at
the school sites and the district to achieve the greatest benefit for students. As one
district administrator explained:
So in order to make informed decisions we need to make shared decisions.
And I think that – I’m very impressed with – matter of fact I’m always
complaining that I have to go to too many meetings…But you know it’s all
part of the puzzle. It’s like – I think that’s maybe the way to look at the
administration. It’s like a big jigsaw puzzle. And you can’t give one person
a set of pieces and another person a set of pieces. Because it’s all part of the
same picture.

The administrator also feels that the shared decision-making process is crucial to the
district’s steps to move ahead, she states, “I think that it’s definitely evident you
know like I said. I’ve already alluded to the stakeholders. You know valuing input
from all levels. I really think that all of our new initiatives move forward – that are
moving forward are kind of focusing in on this definitely.” A teacher explained her
participation in decision-making practices at the school site and the district, “Well,
we have all these new things coming into place where people are able to collaborate
and have input and so it seems like we have a lot more happening this year, which in
some ways is really good.” When asked to further elaborate she shared the
following:
Lots of input related to curriculum. We have a new curriculum or a director
of curriculum, not just a new person in that position, but it used to be one
person in charge of personnel and curriculum, so there was no way that they
could be head of all these curriculum decision committees. By including that
position now, the director of curriculum is actually working on making
decisions related to a new health curriculum, making decisions related to a
101
science textbook adoption, making decisions related to teaching family life,
and …so these are all separate committees family life, science, accounts,
[Inaudible] and we didn’t have representatives from the school prior to that
and I just mentioned those because I think I have been on all those. [Laughs]

Another teacher commented on the way in which shared decision-making is
facilitated in Oak Park:
I think the way that things are facilitated is critical. If you have somebody
who has really good facilitation skills and they are simply facilitating the
process and can almost be outside of the decision making without preventing
their own, I think it can be really effective and people feel like they have
input. They feel like they have input and they feel like they are not going to
be surprised. They know what… because if the process… they know what is
coming down the pipe and they know the reasoning and the rationale… and I
think that is probably the biggest piece of that as it helps the players to know
the background, maybe some of their reasoning for the decision making and
be able to make their connections as to why this is good for students and why
they need to be part of it.

Shared decision-making is a process that the district uses effectively district-wide to
share knowledge and information and build consensus for the initiatives and
innovations that they aspire to implement for all students.
Meeting Structure and Purpose
The need for structures in place to support the networking processes is
fundamental for ultimate success at both a vertical and lateral level within a district.
Based on analysis of the findings there are a number of structures that are in place
both on a formal, intentional level as well as informal structures that support
networking in Oak Park. As Fullan (2003) notes that although there are a number of
reform efforts that schools and districts undertake, they will not become embedded in
the district unless there is a change in the culture of the organization. In the district’s
102
case, based on the interviews conducted, there are embedded structures which foster
an attitude and culture of openness and support to innovate and network together.
Some formal structures that are in place within the district are: site based leadership
committees, use of lead teachers, staff meetings, committees, buy back days, staff
development opportunities both weekly and throughout the year, time to collaborate
(release time for teachers), stipends for after school meetings, teacher leadership
assignments for Science and Gate. Staff members from all schools serve on a variety
of district committees that are commonly K-12 (i.e. Community Service, anti-
bullying, etc) at the district level.
Although many of these formal structures are not unique to any one particular
school district, a significant finding to note is the way in which the formal meetings
or committees are created and facilitated, at both the site and district level. At the site
level principals provide staff with a great deal of latitude to share information and
guide staff meetings. Site-based leadership teams meet and discuss issues for
upcoming staff meetings with the principal. One site administrator explains how this
is done:
We have formal staff meetings once a month and I can call more if
needed…They also have instructional leadership team that meets once a
month and that is one representative from each grade level and our teacher in
charge who meets with me before the staff meet so they can bring up issues if
we need to put it to a vote or discuss it with staff, that is on the agenda.

As has been noted previously, there are additional opportunities for teacher
leadership district-wide. Teacher input is highly valued and committees or meetings
regarding major issues in the district are typically K-12. There is intentionality or
103
deliberate steps taken in the way staff are brought together and how meetings are
facilitated that is utilized from the top down. In response to questions about the
structures in place for networking, the superintendent shared how meetings are
structured and the purpose for doing so:
One of our moral imperatives is shared decision making so that’s something
that is important… it is very hard to always do it so everybody feels they are
a part of the decision or are involved in it… I think that is part of our model.
We have the process of using committees where teachers from all the schools
are brought together to work on common issues together and they are
inclusive, they involve teachers, they involve parents, they involve school
board members and a lot of different people to do that. So that is our “norm”
of how we work around here. We tend not to hand things to the schools and
say “now go do this. ”A committee may do that and some people might
object but at least it is done through committee process.

Also, as interviewees have explained, by approaching many issues on a K-12 level
there is a greater opportunity to network staff across the district. By bringing all
stakeholders and constituents together as one united K-12 group, teachers from all
levels see what the issues are and make decisions or resolve problems that are
student centered. A recent example of this type of organizational process which
involves shared decision making and networking was described by the Director of
Teaching and Learning. She reported that a group of teachers came together to
devise a new way to use categorical funds for PE, Art and Music. Rather than the
district just giving a dollar amount of categorical funds to each school site, they
identified key stakeholders and had them come together for a half day meeting to
develop a proposal of what they wanted for their programs and the costs involved,
based on an allocated dollar amount available to the district for these programs. The
104
director facilitated the meeting and asked all participants to share with the group
their highest priorities and needs for the money to be allocated. The three groups
were then asked to go back to their school sites and work in their own groups to
come up with a viable proposal regarding what the goals and needs for their students
were. They were asked to complete this task within one week and submit their
proposal to the Director of Teaching and Learning for review. Following review,
proposals would be submitted to Curriculum Council for consideration and approval.
The beauty of this process or meeting strategy was that staff had buy-in, took an
active role in leadership and decision-making, and came up with a proposal in a
week’s time. Time was not wasted with numerous committee meetings without focus
or purpose. The teachers involved had tremendous buy-in because they could see that
action was going to take place that had an impact on them and their program.
When asked to describe one of these meetings, the Director of Teaching and
Learning described what transpired during a recent committee meeting she attended
that had K-12 members present:
It had to do with community service. As a whole district, how are we going to
articulate clear expectations that are equitable across the site and kind of stair
step through the district? So at the elementary level, it is important for the
elementary schools to kind of have a basic understanding or agreement on
what are we going to expect in terms of community service and then what is
expected at the middle school level, and then what does it look like at high
school. We talked about kind of having a vision of what it is we want our
students to gain from a community service requirement. So that was a nice
articulated discussion that was ultimately needed for our district vision and
requires somebody from each site to take this information back, have a
discussion so that information is flowing from the committee back to the site,
then back to the committee and so decisions are being made at a lateral level.

105
Although staff come together all the time to meet and problem solve, what is
unique from this researcher’s perspective is the degree of ownership that is put on
the teachers to collectively put their heads together and generate ideas in a short
period of time. Their decisions could be acted upon at the district level without
numerous committee meetings to rehash ideas and stall the process of action. The
benefit from this type of meeting structure for teachers is that needs could be
identified, ideas shared and much of the red tape for bureaucracy decisions
eliminated. The decision was made quickly, funds could be released and materials
received and in place for the classroom in a very expeditious manner. This is often
very difficult for a larger organization as a great deal of time is taken to obtain
consensus and buy-in from staff before a decision can be made. Often it can be
months or even years before decisions are made which is very frustrating when
practitioners are eager to get materials, start programs and move ahead. Momentum
is lost if action and opportunity are bogged down in red tape.
Oak Park’s approach allows teachers to become major players in how
decisions are made within the district that have an impact on their instructional
practices. Additionally it gives teachers ownership and empowers them to generate
ideas and actions that are relevant and timely. As has been noted before, site
administrators also meet with the superintendent once a month. One administrator
explained how district leadership meetings are handled:
Oak Park has the advantage of a small district as our leadership meeting is K-
12 so we have all the elementary and secondary principals together as part of
the leadership team. So there is not a separate elementary level meeting and a
106
secondary level meeting and I think that is very helpful and very nice to have
that relationship and contact with everyone.

Also, as was discussed before, the Director of Teaching and Learning has
restructured the way she meets with site administrators regarding curriculum issues
so that information can be disseminated more readily across the district and
administrators can identify problems, seek solutions, and get teacher feedback on
changes to be made more readily. A site principal shared how beneficial this type of
meeting has been so far, “We have curriculum meetings as a leadership team where
we can talk about our capacity across the district.” Even though these meetings have
only taken place for as short time, the principal feels that the impact has been
significant in terms of being able to be together as a leadership team for these issues
district-wide. The way in which meetings are structured at the site and district level
create opportunities for teacher buy-in, teacher leadership, and the ability to quickly
solve problems of mutual concern.
Allocation and Use of Time or Resources
One of the ways that Oak Park helps to facilitate networking within and
across the district can be seen in the way it allocates and utilizes time and resources.
All three elementary schools have a process which allows for weekly collaboration
and staff development. Two of the three schools bank time throughout the week so
that they can meet on Wednesdays for a period of time once students are dismissed at
12:35 p.m. The remaining elementary school follows a different model by utilizing
107
Art, Music, and PE specialists so that staff can have a planning and collaboration
time two to four days a week. As a teacher explains:
We have planning days four times a week. Right now but we have planning
time every day four days a week. We added time in the before school. The
other two schools choose to have theirs on Wednesday afternoon. Children
leave at noon at the other two schools. We keep our kids here the whole time,
but we’ve got a P.E. specialist two days a week. We have music one day and
an art specialist the other day. So four days a week, we have 45 minutes off.
So we plan at least two of the four days we spend team planning.

All teachers interviewed felt that this banked time or opportunity to meet during the
school day was crucial for them to work together and plan. As one teacher states,
“The more time third grade gets together the more we share.” Another teacher
explained how the other two elementary schools bank time and the purpose of
meeting:
Another thing we do here and I know two of the schools in Oak Park do… at
Red Oak here we have every Wednesday, we have an early release day and
so our teachers are all released at 12:35 and we spend the rest of the
afternoon in grade level meetings. Every Wednesday. Except one
Wednesday a month there is a staff meeting, but the other three, it is grade
level meetings. You know we do planning on the grade level. If we had a
concern, if we wanted to go to first grade, first grade is available at that time
to do cross grade level articulating and all. That was started two years or last
year and that has been an almanac. I mean I think that all schools need time
because it doesn’t happen if you ask teachers to meet after school, but to give
us time… and we have to meet, you know and we do. I mean we work you
know at that time.

One teacher voiced her preference that all three elementary schools be on the same
schedule for banked time as she felt it could increase networking opportunities, she
explains:
The way I see it now for us right now in 2
nd
grade it is informal. Well I have
a personal thought on this that two schools, our school and Red Oak have the
108
Wednesday planning day and Oak Hills is not on that same schedule. What I
have noticed is that on those days it allows us some time to have lunch with
the 2
nd
grade teachers over there and then formally meet and talk. If Oak Hills
were on that same schedule it would provide more opportunities, we do grade
level planning, we do staff meetings. If we had time at least quarterly where
we were all off, not just a big in-service day but a time to meet, plan and do
units together. It is a little more organized than just to call and set something
up. I know everybody is so friendly to each other and are really willing to
help and share. I do not get a sense of competition of this is our schools unit
and you are not getting it. You know, there is none of that. In fact we are
getting ready to do a rocks unit that Red Oak just did and finished and
worked out some of the bugs. We met with them and they passed it on to us.
That is awesome, that is the way it should work and then we traded back with
them. We started the social studies unit which they had not started yet and
shared that information back with them so we are able now to do that.

At the middle school and high school levels, teachers meet in department meetings
frequently and as a whole staff at least one time per month. Site principals work with
their leadership team members to identify needs for the staff and find ways to allow
staff to gather together and collaborate at their sites. Teachers are given the
opportunity to attend conferences, locally and out of state as needed, through the use
of categorical funds as deemed necessary.
Teachers are given the opportunity to visit other teacher’s classrooms and
observe, if interested, and the principal will hire a roving substitute or even cover a
classroom. One teacher explains how this was done at an elementary site:
Actually, I really enjoyed it…We had a day that we could go and observe
other classrooms within our school. A peer observation day where we could
you know, a guest teacher came in here and then I could go to any of the
classrooms I wanted to and observe what was going on. All the teachers had a
chance to do it…We would like to do it differently in the future…You know
more than one day because it was hard. I mean they only allowed us an hour
to go out and you can’t see a lot in an hour. This was the first time that we
had ever tried something like that and it was really helpful to go in to see the
other classrooms, to see what was going on in the other classroom.
109
Teachers are provided with release time if needed to get together for committee
meetings during the day or are provided a small monetary stipend if they are required
to attend committee meetings after school. In addition, teachers that have full
inclusion special education students receive time throughout the year to have some
release time from the classroom to collaborate and brainstorm ideas with other
colleagues. One teacher shared her experience with the following comment:
We were given one day a trimester to do some planning if we have a full
inclusion student and I do, I have an autistic student. So the three of us that
have full inclusion students took that time to go over to Brookside and
network with one of their Columbia Readers and Writers Workshop teachers
there so that we could share information and pick their brains.

Informal structures for networking
In addition to a number of formal structures that are in place to facilitate
networking within and across the district there are several informal structures that are
crucial to its success as well. These include the various methods of communication
available to staff to network and the use of informal collaboration that happens on a
frequent basis with teachers.
Communication Methods
Although listed as an informal structure for networking, communication is a
crucial link in the facilitation of the network process district-wide. Examples can be
seen from the district, site and individual level how communication tools both,
formal and informal serve to keep information flowing across the district and in a
timely manner.
110
Even though the district is in the process of upgrading its technology, staff
has been using the technology that exists in Oak Park effectively for some time. All
staff interviewed indicated that the use of email was a vital method for
communicating with their colleagues, parents, and students. Teachers frequently
email each other throughout the day to ask questions and seek resolution to
problems. One teacher in the high school shared how she was able to obtain swift
assistance for a student in the midst of a personal crisis because she sent an email off
to the counselor and the student’s other teachers. The student was provided help that
day and because of the teacher’s ability to connect with staff about this student it
helped to foster additional relationships with others around a common purpose.
One site administrator shared how email was used in a different way to solve
a problem at the school in a short, but efficient manner and allowed people who
often don’t speak up at meetings to be part of the on-line discussion. The
administrator explained below:
We started a new tool and we will use it again. We started conversations in
February online about changing the time of graduation. So I sent out an email
and I said here is what we are thinking of doing, here’s why. Please give me
your response on this and I will send them out to others so know you will be
copied on this. Someone wrote back…it was sent out…etc. We did that over
the course of three days and you could read responses from those who wanted
to weigh in on the topic, those who didn’t want to, didn’t have to and then
ultimately I asked the department for a vote and it was unanimous. It was the
first time we had a school-wide conversation through email, it was a blog
without it being a blog and everybody loved it….So I can always pick the
same five people who will speak including me at meetings and with this
approach we had 20 people respond.

111
Another teacher shared how easy it was to connect and communicate with her
colleagues informally through email, and it also serves to help her feel less isolated:
It is just more open, as a teacher you can be so isolated in your classroom. It
is just there is that quick connection around people who you might not run
into all the time and you can send them an email and make those connections.
It helps you feel more connected, you don’t feel as isolated as it used to be,
you use to only see people at recess and lunch and then when you got phones
in the room, it was like, cool I can call now. And now it is that instant, as a
grade level we communicate in the evening and over the weekend. (i.e. Hey I
already typed this up so don’t bother with it) and send it out to each other so
there is just a constant way you know you can get in touch with each other.

Several teachers shared how they are using communication and email to work
through new problems or issues they are dealing with such as the influx of more
English Language Learners (ELL) students in the district. When asked how the
culture of the school had changed due to networking, one teacher commented:
Well, one thing as far as culture and not even related to networking is the
number of ELL students we are getting. I have all of a sudden, five, six, or
seven whereas in the past I had one student. So I am using networking to call
the other teachers and find out, email other teachers to get ideas.

The Director of Educational Technology explained that as technology has become
more accessible to staff, she has seen the following, “So I’ve had communication
increases. I think that it’s going to be a positive change. I think lack of
communication can lead to many difficulties. And I think many district difficulties
can probably be traced back to a lack of communication at some point in time.” The
superintendent uses communication in a variety of ways to stay connect with his
administrative staff, teachers, parents, and the community. A vehicle for
communication that has been successful in the past, in addition to monthly leadership
112
meetings with administrators, is the leadership retreat that he holds each year before
the start of school as a way to set the tone and focus for the year. In 2005 it was,
Developing A Culture of Creativity, to foster more authentic learning experiences in
the classrooms and focusing on shared leadership and specifically ways to promote
higher levels of teacher leadership and shared-decision making at all levels of the
organization. In 2006, the theme was, Islands of Excellence, which focused staff on a
continued examination of authentic learning and new ways to define instruction with
the passage of the technology bond. In 2007, the focus with leadership was on,
Developing Each Student’s Natural Joy of Learning, which tied into the district’s
desired outcome for the 21
st
Century Classrooms project which was started this year.
During the school year, information is communicated from the district to parents and
the community in a variety of ways which include the district web site, School
Watch Newsletter, which is sent out several times a year, and the Monthly Coffee
and Chats to parents and community members to help keep them informed of
programs in the district. These events are rotated throughout the school sites and
provide information about technology, PE, preschool, Science, Nutrition, district
personnel, and budget/enrollment. Information from each school site is also shared
from the principals and the school in the form of school newsletters, school events,
and regularly updated information on the school web sites. The superintendent uses
email extensively to communicate with staff and has begun this year, sending out
periodically an email to all recipients in the district regarding updates from the latest
113
school board meeting, upcoming events and new initiatives and events, and
successes district-wide.
Informal Collaboration
There are numerous examples provided from interviewees about the ways in
which they informally collaborate with one another both within schools and across
the district. Teachers spoke frequently of the ways in which staff is tied together
within the community both professionally and personally. In addition to working
together, many teachers live in the district and their children attend school there.
Interviewees shared how they frequently get together on their own to collaborate and
share ideas. One teacher gave an example that was commonly heard in the interviews
about how they get together informally:
We could get together, like we in 2nd grade could get together with other 2nd
grade teachers at the other two schools to share information. We took it upon
ourselves two weeks ago, my partner over there (teacher in next room) we
just went to a house of another 2nd grade teacher from another school to pick
their brains, to share information, to build units of study together. It is not
something we are given time to do during the regular school day or even on
staff development days but it has been invaluable to us to be able to do that.

Another teacher shared the same type of experience:

A lot of times we do things on our own. I know kindergarten, our three sites
get along, but you know the teachers have just sought each other out. We all
get along well and we would choose to meet after school on our own. Let us
say to iron out a unit or to let us see why one site is teaching it differently
than the other sites or whatever. I know that the district allows us to voice a
concern if we all need to get together, they do find the time and the money to
get us together somehow. We are very fortunate.

One teacher felt that the size of the district lent itself to more informal networking, “I
think because we are small, it is easy to network.” The teacher indicated that
114
because the schools are so close to one another it was easy to informally connect.
She stated, “The elementary schools are three minutes away from each other. We can
pop over before school, at lunch, or after school to pick up materials or drop things
off. Even just to meet informally. I am not sure it could be accomplished as easily
say in a district of your size. Unless you have hubs.” Another way in which informal
networking is being done at Oak Park can be seen with an example using the
district’s alternative evaluation process. This process allowed a team of ninth grade
teachers; two English teachers, special education teachers, a social studies teacher,
two P.E. teachers, a football coach and the department chair for the electives
program, who were all up for evaluation to use this option to get together and look at
a school issue or a school problem and work on it as a collaborative group. An
example of how this was used effectively is detailed by a teacher below:
I went to the principal and I said, How about if we look at all the teachers
who have been here 10 years as part of their contract, who teach ninth grade,
anything in ninth grade, and we ask them to come together for a group of
meetings that will look at our ninth grade program…we want to look at two
elements of it. First of all, how well are we transitioning kids from the middle
school and secondly, how well are we preparing them for the rigors of tenth
grade? So we came together as a group and we asked our brand new ninth
grade counselor to run the meetings, so it gave us an opportunity to get to
know him. As a group we looked at what we are doing and what are major
areas of concerns were and then we drew up some suggestions and things we
need to do, like more articulation with the middle school…we had four or
five meetings…and then we submitted it to the administration…..I mean you
know this is a really creative way to do some meetings rather than just getting
evaluated….

The teacher shared the following positive outcome from doing the alternative
evaluation, “We had buy-in from a lot of different people who serve a lot of different
115
needs of kids.” She felt this process they completed as a group will ultimately benefit
the students. It is evident that teachers and administrators frequently get together to
informally collaborate on issues or problems that they share. They do not wait for
someone to get them together as a group to facilitate or organize meetings; they take
the initiative and leadership themselves to gather together to make their jobs easier
and in turn more successful for students.
Summary on Structures
In sum, there are numerous structures that are in place in Oak Park which
support and facilitate networking practices across the district. As was noted, changes
have been made in the organizational structure of the district to help implement these
practices. The district has moved away from a prior site-based management model
and is embracing an organizational design that relies heavily on the district’s moral
imperatives and the need for staff to be highly collaborative with one another. There
is also a strong focus on leadership in the district which is for all staff, not just
administrators, but teachers as well. In addition, a great deal of focus is placed on the
evolving technology infrastructure that is being implemented district-wide and the
way in which funds are structured and used to provide the greatest benefit to teachers
and students. The district has a variety of structures, both formal and informal, which
make networking possible. Formal structures include the use of relevant and rigorous
curriculum throughout the district, shared decision-making practices as part of the
district’s moral imperatives, use of meeting structure and focus that is purposeful for
the participants, and creative allocation and use of time and resources. Informal
116
structures include utilizing a variety of communication methods to convey
information to teachers, parents, and the community, and the extensive presence of
informal collaboration that exists district-wide.
Sub question 1: part 2
Features that Facilitate Networking
A number of distinct or unique features were apparent when the data was
analyzed to identify what facilitated the promotion and success of the network
practices in the district. These include physical features such as size and proximity,
familiarity of staff and accessibility, and resources. Data supported the notion that
structures by themselves do not work in isolation, they need to be facilitated and
fostered to occur.
Size and Proximity
The majority of all interviewees, when questioned about whether the district
features such as size or configuration played a role in the networking process,
resoundingly agreed that the small size of the district made networking easy for them
to do and felt it was a component of their overall success. Many of the teachers and
administrators interviewed have had experience in other districts beside Oak Park
and were able to see some differences related to size. Also, the number of students at
each school campus is reasonable which allows for easy management of students and
staff. Enrollment is not excessively large at any one site so that teachers and
administrators know the students well. As one district administrator stated regarding
how easy it was for staff to stay informed about what was happening in the district
117
and where they were headed regarding changes to come, “I think size is our greatest
asset. It’s a very personal district.” That sentiment was reflected in another site
administrator’s comments as well:
I think that size is an advantage. First of all you know everyone and you
have such access to people. I told the superintendent that the first year I
worked here. I spoke with him more in one year than I did in the 14 years in
another district to the school superintendent. I mean he is on site several
times a week. He is in classrooms. He comes into the office and talks. He
doesn’t have an agenda. He just wants you to know he is there.

When asked if and how the small size of the district contributes to networking, a
teacher stated:
I think the small size is what helps contribute to it. I mean definitely it makes
a big difference that it is small. I know all the kindergarten teachers in the
whole district.… I really think it helps networking when you can… If I had a
problem here, I can call up another school and feel comfortable knowing who
I am talking to, instead of it being a complete stranger that I am talking to. It
really helps that I know the people and you get that in a small district, but you
don’t get it in the larger districts.

Another teacher concurred that the size made it easier for her to network with others:

I think because we are smaller it is easier, I really do think that’s because I
have worked in bigger districts and it is very hard to… you just kind of get
mandated to do stuff. Do this, do that. I think here because we are smaller, it
is easier for us to all get together.

Several teachers noted in their interviews they felt that the feature of the small size of
the district lent itself more readily to change or implementation processes which
moved quickly and helped staff to work cohesively together:
It makes a huge difference, where I can understand if it is a bigger district or
may be you don’t know, maybe you are intimidated a little bit to that talk to
them. Hey I am trying out this new lesson on something and I’m trying to
cross collaborate and it could be difficult.

118
As the superintendent points out, he feels size is an asset in Oak Park but size alone
does not facilitate networking:
Well our small size, moderately small size, we are considered to be a medium
district by California standards, can be a help but I would also add it isn’t
always necessarily one…cooperation or articulation amongst the schools isn’t
just because you are a small size district that it will automatically happen. It
makes it easier to happen when you have the will to do it. I can have a
meeting when we are going to adopt a new text book and have teachers on it
from every school and it is still not more than 20 people on it and it is
manageable. We can have one teacher from every grade level per school on
that committee so we can have a big argument about what textbook to adopt
but everybody is a part of it. So then nothing is being imposed on someone
and that is great. The structure does make it easier to make it happen and our
proximity….. here it is like you could walk to all the schools if you really
wanted to.

As a way to identify differences seen in Oak Park as compared to other districts, one
teacher who had previously worked in a large district had this to say about Oak Park
and its small size, “because the school district was so large, schools were left to run
independently and so there was a lot of competition between schools and
comparison.” In addition, the teacher reported great frustration when she attempted
to network with a neighboring school literally next door to her separated by a
parking lot:
We happened to be the only high achieving school that year so people [from
outside the district] were trying to get into our site to see what we were doing
[to succeed]. It was frustrating because without that concept of sharing within
the district we couldn’t even get the school next door to that same high level.
At the other school people were left alone to reinvent the wheel.

In addition, another noticeable aspect of being a small district is that its size lends
itself to varied opportunities for teachers. As has been noted before, many teachers
have been given the opportunity to take leadership positions not only within the
119
school site but as a district leader. Due to the close proximity of the schools to one
another, one could argue that this positive physical feature is an unintended structural
component that further supports networking as well. If personnel have ready access
to one another, the potential for networking and collaboration may occur more
readily. Although most interviewed felt that the small size of the district is a plus,
some drawbacks were noted due to the small size of the district as a reality that staff
acknowledged and dealt with:
I think it is a delicate balance and I guess what I mean by that is it is two
ways. In a larger district you don’t feel like there are relationships with
people or it takes longer to get to that point where you can take risk, but if it
is too small, everybody is doing everything and I think we are feeling that a
little bit at our site where we are the smallest elementary school with the
fewest number of teachers and so, we are dividing up all the responsibilities
and we are I think because of the size of our school, we actually have to take
on more of the responsibility because we have fewer people to divide them
among. Like the district responsibility, we need somebody to serve on this
committee. We might be serving on four committees while teachers at the
other schools might only have to serve on three to get the job done.

Additionally, another teacher when asked if there were any drawbacks to being small
said, “Only in terms of sometimes we take on a lot of projects and there is nothing
wrong with that but you stretch yourself thin because you really need to be involved
with a lot and you want to be involved with a lot and sometimes you don’t know
exactly how much time it is going to take.” Another teacher agreed, “The smaller it
is the more you are involved with everything.” It is interesting to note that although
several interviewees commented about having to serve on a lot of committees due to
the small size of the district, they participated without complaint. In many districts,
the number of adjunct duties teachers are required to do are often dictated by a
120
negotiated contract with the teachers union and some would protest if they had to do
more than others. You do not get the sense that there is an issue about this in Oak
Park as the expectation for participation is part of the district culture.
Several teachers and administrators concur that the small district is easier and
more manageable when staff need or want to get together. As one teacher notes, “I
think the smaller the easier. I think if it is larger, there are so many more people, so
many schedules to accommodate.” Additionally, a site administrator had this to say:
Well, definitely being a very small district has a great advantage in that
regard because you don’t have to coordinate so many different schedules and
you can get people together pretty easily. I know that I work with my two
colleagues, elementary school principals and we meet regularly. I don’t
know that other school districts could do that, I mean can you get all the
elementary school teachers together at one spot very easily? So, size works
for us there.

It was repeatedly noted that staff felt that it was easy to get together due to their
small size, as one teacher shared, “I think, a smaller sized district, absolutely
facilitates more opportunities of working together and I think there are fewer cooks
that are stirring the pot.” Although the small size of the district is a positive feature
or factor in terms of ease of connection for staff, further analysis of the data gathered
from interviews conducted reveal that it is not solely proximity to one another or the
small size of the district but the way in which the staff works together that is truly the
key to networking together.
Familiarity and Access of Personnel
Some additional features that facilitate networking in Oak Park are (1) the
familiarity that staff has with one another and (2) the easy access to personnel at the
121
district and site levels. Some unique attributes that are evident to the observer are
that it is a well run district with limited staff, organized, and without question the
majority of staff are extremely accessible, knowledgeable and forward thinking. At
each school visited, staff were welcoming, open, and friendly. People went out of
their way to see if I needed water or coffee while waiting to meet with staff and was
provided office space to conduct interviews. At one school, the investigator was
invited by a teacher, days before my site visit via email, to join them in a special
lunch they have weekly just because I was to be on campus that day. As one site
administrator shared when asked to comment on the district features:
I always said, it is like Cheers where everybody knows your name. Because I
almost fell over when the superintendent walked into my classroom. And it
was, “Hi, how are you?” And I think there’s a lot of value in that. And being
visible. Because we had teachers who never even met our superintendent in
the other district. Because he was like, you know an ivory tower
superintendent. So I think that the networking piece it has to start at the top
down.

Another important feature noted by interviewees was the accessibility and quick
resolution of issues as can be seen in this comment:
I think the district offices are very accessible and they are very user friendly
and they want us to be happy. So, it is very easy. I have always had the
feeling in my other district that, although I loved working there, it was
frustrating. It took so long for things to kind of go through the steps. If
anything needed to be decided or changed, it just seemed to be a very lengthy
process and it doesn’t seem that way to me here.

In addition, many teachers reside in the district and frequently see one another
socially, as one teacher shared:
Lots of teachers live in this district, so we run into each other at the coffee
place or grocery stores. A lot of us know each other from just living here,
122
there are several that take yoga together and then if we are on different
committees we see them. Like I am in 21
st
century, there is a lot of
elementary and high school teachers that I get to see. You know we started
off at Brookside and some of us went there and you’ve grown together and
you know people. I can go to each site and I know people. My son is at
Medea Creek Middle School, I know teachers there. There is just that
familiarity. In Clark County I could go to another site and not know anyone
there and so there is always that. Here you know each other. I think that is
one of our biggest advantages, teachers are known as friends, there is
friendship between the schools. There are teachers at Oak Hills when Denise
and I were both there so it is an easy phone and I was at Red Oak so is just
that, there are teachers that have moved between the schools. I think it is that
familiarity of knowing each other and know you can just call and go over.
The physical closeness of the schools is very nice.

Resources
One feature of the district that repeatedly emerged in the data was the
tremendous opportunities that teachers had in Oak Park to receive staff development
training and support. As one long time teacher reports when asked what prompted
the focus on the use of Writers Workshop district-wide and the staff development
opportunities that she has participated in over the years:
I would have to say it started with the writing. A lot of people also
participate in GATE workshops and conferences. The district has been very
generous and that is you know one thing that you will find in this district. I
don’t think you will find in many others… the generosity of the district in
supporting teachers to do staff development projects or training. Many of
them took place in different parts of the country. I have been to conferences
for two years. I have been to University of Connecticut. I have been to the
College of William and Mary and the district is willing to support that. It
creates an excitement to go to different parts of the country and see what
people are doing and that’s where it starts for me. I think that is worth the
travel that you see these great ideas and you say well they are accessible. I
can do them too. That is the main thing, that I can do them too. Get excited
about it and to have the confidence that everybody if they have an interest
can do them. I think a lot of the energy has come from staff development
experiences.

123
Due to the emphasis that the district and school board place on innovation and best
practices, teachers have a wealth of resources at their disposal. There are funds for
staff development opportunities, cutting edge technology that is coming into the
classrooms, strong community support from parents and the Friends of Oak Park,
and opportunities are constantly sought out for additional grants and other resources
from the surrounding businesses. Another teacher had this to say about his
colleagues and parents in the community:
I don’t have any expectation that they [teachers] are going to help, they just
always do. So my expectation is that they are always going to be there as
they always have. If I needed anything the last 8 years I mean whether it is
with the parents for money, one year this lab was an apple two lab, and we
needed new computers and they put new Dells in here. We didn’t have the
money, you know with education, prop 13 and everything else, parents got
together 40,000 dollars, I had a new lab by the next year. I mean the parents
here, the administrators, and the teachers, and the kids, it is just a wonderful
place. It is really awesome.

An important resource that cannot be ignored is the wealth of teacher
knowledge and experience that is available to new teachers joining the district. There
is a large cadre of teacher leaders that readily share their knowledge with others and
eagerly seek out additional strategies and supports that build their existing
knowledge and skills. Teachers also have access to a variety of assessment tools that
are used as benchmarks throughout the district to guide instruction and have access
to innovative, cutting edge curriculum for their students.
Summary on Features
In sum, there are a number of distinctive features of Oak Park that support
and facilitate networking practices in the district. One of the key features that stand
124
out from the findings is the role that small size of district and close proximity play in
this process of networking. Although the small size alone does not account for
increased networking practices, because there already exists a willingness to
collaborate and meet, the size and proximity to one another makes it easier to do. In
addition, staff are very vested in Oak Park and many have a lot of history with the
district as both employees and often, parents and community members. Because the
community of Oak Park is small, many staff frequently see one another in the
community and share experiences outside of school together. As was noted in the
findings, a feature of the district is the familiarity that staff have with one another
and the easy access to support and assistance they receive from the district when help
is needed.
Major Findings Related to Research Question One
Evidence suggests that:
1. The district has intentionally established elements, such as their moral
imperatives, as part of their current organizational design that lay the
ground work for networking practices district-wide.
2. The district has established hiring practices that facilitate identification
and placement of individuals that are highly collaborative and innovative
in their schools and district level positions to support their district vision.
3. The district has high expectations for all staff and schools are not viewed
as separate entities, staff see the district as one united force for all
students served.
125
4. Practices have been put in place to provide equity and opportunity for all
staff to become highly qualified in the latest innovative practices.
5. The district understands the vital role that technology has in helping
students to learn and succeed today and has found the resources to
develop 21
st
Century classrooms.

Research Question 2
Culture
Introduction
The culture of Oak Park is one of openness/accessibility, willingness to work
together and collaborate, trusting relationships, and high expectations. This type of
culture helps to influence or foster networking in a positive way. As one teacher,
who has been in the district over 20 years shared regarding the change of culture she
has seen at her school, “there is more a feeling of openness in being able to talk
about what you see as being important matters and knowing that people are listening
to what you are saying and care about what you are saying.” As employees of the
district there is an expectation that staff will work together, team and collaborate for
the good of the students. It is expected or assumed that staff will partake in
opportunities to better your skills and become a more competent teacher and leader.
Moreover, in Oak Park staff should expect and embrace changes and the need to
innovate so that students can be provided with opportunities for authentic learning
and a high level of success.
126
Networking Influence on the Culture of the District
When interviewees were asked about how the culture of the school changed
or influenced due to networking processes, commonalities were noted in their
responses. One administrator had this to say:
I would just say the more we network and the more we are given the
opportunity to network or to even just attend these workshops which gives us
every reason to want to network together, the more we do it. I just think it
builds the self esteem of the entire district. I would say that it is just ongoing,
definitely.

In addition, a teacher shared insight regarding the change of culture evidenced at her
school site due to greater networking:
I think you might have a little bit more of camaraderie of you know teachers
that have shared the experiences of going to Columbia and going to different
workshops and you know when you are outside of the school, you sort of get
to know people on a different type of level.

Another teacher representative of the group stated, “I think it is just… it makes us
realize we are all working towards the same goal, and creates a closer climate.”
When asked the same question, the superintendent shared his perspective on the
influence of networking on the district, “We feel we work closer and better together
rather than against each other or in a vacuum from each other. So I think that is
positive.” Many of those interviewed felt that two major factors helped to influence
the culture for networking in the district: the increased use and role of technology,
and the opportunities for staff development for innovative practices. A teacher
reported the following, “I would just say it has to do with opportunities. We have had
more opportunities to train in things that we hadn’t even heard of three years ago.”
127
When probed further about teachers being as open as they are now to doing some of
the new programs and practices, such as the 21
st
Century classroom, the teacher
stated, “We couldn’t have imagined that we would be doing this now.”
Willingness to Share and Collaborate
During the interviews many examples were provided repeatedly from all sites
and levels about the interest and willingness to share and collaborate with their
colleagues. As one teacher shared regarding her experience at her school site:
I am doing writers workshop in my classroom and I am feeling very
comfortable with it because people who have been to the training and two
teachers who just got back as a refresher help me. Everyone is just open, here
is what we do next, here are the steps, and so that has been really awesome as
there is a real willingness to share.

When asked how networking practices have changed over time, a teacher indicated
the following:
You know I am not sure if the idea started as that as much as it evolved from
commonality of staff development where teachers were involved with. So,
because teachers were involved with similar staff development experiences,
that is where that networking, the next realistic step from that would be you
know if you went to the Columbia writing project for example from this
school and you are a kindergarten teacher, you would contact somebody at
the other school and like people got together to get some feedback and the
same with the 21st Century also, that when it was set up, well, that was a
little bit different because that idea came first.…. Teachers went from
different schools and then they got together afterwards to share what they had
learned.

An interesting comment was made from a teacher, who is also a parent in the district,
about the culture of the district:
…coming from a parents point of view, I was PTA president at…there was
always encouragement to cooperate with each other, for parents to cooperate
with each other, PTAs to cooperate with each other. So it’s never been about
128
our school can’t talk to your school because you might steal one of our ideas.
It has always been, there has always in been an atmosphere from that time I
got here, and it was like 11 years ago as a parent, it has been very clear that
there has been an atmosphere of communication and cooperation between the
schools.

Another teacher shared a similar comment about the district and school:

I know everybody is so friendly to each other and are really willing to help
and share. I do not get a sense of competition of this is our school’s unit and
you are not getting it. You know, there is none of that here.

It was interesting to note that the culture of Oak Park is reflected in this teacher’s
simple, but telling comment when asked about the purpose of networking, “To share
ideas, resources and eliminate isolation. I just don’t understand why wouldn’t people
want to collaborate and get together and share ideas?” It is clear that the culture of
Oak Park is very collaborative and teachers readily share ideas and materials. For
many, to do otherwise would seem foreign. Because so many teachers have spent the
bulk of their career in Oak Park they have a hard time relating to the experiences that
they hear about teachers’ resistance to help or support their colleagues. Another
teacher shared about the culture of her school and why she feels it is important for
teachers to support and assist one another:
I think you have to start off with where the culture was when I came here and
where it is now, and I think it is really difficult to change culture. I think the
culture of this site is one of people working together, not really being
interested in creating conflict. I think they value harmony because the job is
pretty demanding and in order to survive, this may be interesting or specific
to the site, but there is so much parent pressure that we have to stay… first of
all we have to think of what we are doing because if there is any weakness in
the decision making process, it is going to be hounded. You are going to get
ripped to pieces. So, one is they have high expectations of themselves and of
each other and at the same time we know that in order to survive the job,
survive the year, we need to support each other.
129
Trust
The issue of trust in relationships is a feature of the district that was evident
from the interviews. Although many did not explicitly use the word “trust” in their
responses, analysis of the data bears this out as a feature. As a site administrator
stated when asked about the reason for change in more networking activities in the
district:
This is a huge consensus district and it is the strength of the district. I think it
works for one reason and that is there is respect and trust of the district, of
[the superintendent]. …I mean he walks the walk …he has no ego… and he
would be very quick to apologize for something being screwed up. There was
a screw up two years ago and he e-mailed every teacher and started out by
apologizing. He is very trusted.

This same interviewee, who has lengthy experience as an educator and has worked in
numerous districts around the country, had this to say about the employees and the
overall nature of the district, “this is one of the nicest staffs I’ve worked with…the
district doesn’t fight with its teachers and there is such good will. We are going
through negotiations and there is such good will.” In addition she stated, “The
culture is just so engrained here, there is openness, there is no feeling of you need to
do this, it is we have agreed to do this which is very different.” The feeling of trust
was evident in the way interviewees spoke of their colleagues, their site
administrator, and the district administration. If trust is not prevalent in the
workplace, there is rarely a willingness to share or support others.
130
Openness to Change
Many long time staff noted that they feel the culture of the district has always
been “positive” yet they perceive additional positive cultural shifts that they attribute
to the leadership and vision of the current superintendent. As one site administrator
shared, “I think the school since I have been here is quicker to celebrate successes,
more open to considering new ideas and of course being more open to
communication also makes teachers feel much more comfortable sharing complaints
as well.” A teacher who has been in the district for five years states, “I see us
constantly improving. I see us constantly moving forward. I was very impressed
when I got here.” Another teacher shares a similar sentiment, “We don’t ever want
to be stagnant, we are always getting new equipment, new textbooks.” Another
teacher who has a long history with the district had this to say about being open to
change and innovation:
And we continually move forward on the newer ways of thinking, sometimes
it is good, sometimes it doesn’t suit us [Laughs]… you jump a little too fast
and you find wait a minute maybe we need to slow down a little bit. So, we
see that too, but when I think the plus is that we are always encouraged to
move forward. We are always encouraged to go to the conferences. We are
always encouraged to share what we have learned with others. We are
encouraged if you want, to go visit another classroom and learn the lesson
that is working, you know our administrators will come in and take our
classes so we can go do that. So, the encouragement to move forward is
absolutely there. In fact, sometimes I think if you are not moving forward, I
would wonder gosh if I wasn’t doing this, would someone come in and get
me or what? I am not quite sure, but I am sure they would find out that I am
still teaching my same dinosaur unit…

An example of how even the district leadership is open to change can be seen
in the example provided by a site administrator. At the beginning of the school year,
131
the lead teacher at a school came to the principal with concern over the number of
new things being thrown at them at the beginning of the year following a staff
meeting. This is how she and the district responded:
The teachers were concerned because they feel that there are too many new
programs being thrown at them at the beginning of the year. So, they came to
talk to me about it because we had had a staff meeting where I talked about
another new program that was coming up the pipe and the teacher in charge
came to me and she said you know I think the teachers are really
overwhelmed…so we sat down and we made a list of all the new things that
we are starting and all other possibilities and the other issue is that we only
have 17 teachers on staff. So, when they are asked to volunteer for district
committees, it is the same people over and over again because we only have
17 teachers. So, I called [the superintendent] and I said… I have spoken with
the other elementary principals and I want to give you a heads up about some
concerns that teachers have and we also want to kind of talk to you about it
and see if we can preempt some of this. So, he said, great. Come this
afternoon. That is [the superintendent]. We went in at 1:30 p.m., sat down
with him for about an hour-and-a-half, he said, what do you think we should
do, what do you think we can get rid of, what do we need to keep in my each
program because I brought the list and I made copies, put a star on the ones
that we thought no, they can’t go, they need to be taken care of and our
question mark on the ones that we thought you know this doesn’t have to be
done now. We could do this next year or we could adopt that program
another time and he said, how do you want to handle it? I said I want to
bring my staff together and kind of talk about what is important to us and
present what is important to you and he said great, let me know. I mean we
have such access to him.

It is clear that even though the superintendent has a vision for what needs to be done
and how they want to progress as a district, input from the teachers is valued and
there is an openness and willingness to make changes for the benefit of all the
stakeholders involved.
132
High Expectations
It is evident based on data gathered from the interviewees that high
expectations are the norm in Oak Park. Although some of the push for high
expectations comes from the type of community teachers work in, as parents expect
their children to succeed, that is not the sole reason. It is interesting to note that
teachers talk about the expectations in a positive, not negative light. There is no
sense that “you must teach a certain way or else” from the district, some of the need
for high expectations is internally driven by the individuals that work there. As one
interviewee explained:
I think the expectation district-wide is that you will be a supportive member
of your grade level team. Personalities don’t come into play here. Our parents
in Oak Park are extremely vocal, they are very high maintenance and they do
talk and if there is one teacher is doing something that the other three
teachers aren’t doing, it comes back in our faces. So we try not to let that
happen outside of different teaching styles. We are literally almost on the
same page every day. We plan like manics. They allow us, we do use banking
time so every Wednesday the kids leave at 12:35 and we have our banking
time grade level meetings where every grade level does it.

Another teacher shared that as they have received increased opportunities to learn
more and be exposed to more resources, she feels the increased opportunities have
had a strong influence on the overall instructional practices in the district.
Summary on Culture
In sum, there are a number of interesting factors that account for the district’s
success in networking its schools together. A number of recurrent themes emerged
from the data which highlight the influence of the culture of the district. These
include a willingness to share and collaborate, which was evident with all the
133
interviewees and sites visited, an attitude of trust amongst individuals, an openness
to change, and an attitude of high expectations. Although the district has been known
to be a very open, friendly place to work, teachers and staff reported that because of
networking practices in place, there was a greater degree of closeness and unity.
Many shared that networking has had an impact on the culture of Oak Park in a
positive way.
Major Findings Related to Research Question Two
1. Staff district-wide feel very supported by their colleagues and district
personnel.
2. There is a prevalent attitude of good will and trust amongst colleagues
across the district and a noticeable lack of competition, between
individuals or schools.
3. Staff enjoy sharing ideas and best practices with one another and eagerly
collaborate whether there is formal time to do so or not.
4. Teachers are very open to innovation and change. They expect that they
will not be doing the same thing year after year, unless it is what works
for the current students at the time.
5. Teachers eagerly embrace the need for technology to bring the best
experiences forward for their students.
6. Teachers have set high expectations for themselves that are internally
driven. They want to be the best teacher they can be and will seek out
staff development training to continually build on that premise.
134
Research Question 3
Outcomes
In response to the research question, “What are the anticipated or realized
outcomes of networking for teachers and students?” data were analyzed, coded and
then further broken down into a number of significant themes that emerged.
Outcomes were identified and coded for both teachers and students. The themes
include: common purpose, teacher incentives, teacher leadership, linkage of
curriculum, linkage of resources, and equity, uniformity, and opportunity for
teachers and students.
Many of the themes identified had relevance for both teachers and students.
Because this study only involved the use of adults in interviews, data for anticipated
student outcomes must be extrapolated from the content of the teacher interviews.
During the interviews, all interviewees were asked a series of questions to identify
anticipated or real outcomes due to the networking practices that have been on-going
in the district. A number of outcomes identified will be delineated below. Many of
the identified outcomes to be discussed have ramifications for both teachers and
students.
Teacher Outcomes
Unifies Common Purpose
A positive outcome of networking practices at Oak Park is the way in which
teachers and administrators feel unified in their purpose, which is to educate all
students successfully. There is a prevalent attitude in the district that shows unity
135
toward a common purpose from one level to the next. The issue of separatism or
competition is not evident. As one teacher shared:
You know, it is let us forget about the competition of the site performing
individually and let us collectively… they are all going to the same middle
school and they are all going to the same high school… let us get them all to
the same place. You know Red Oak doesn’t have a Red Oak report card. It is
the Oak Park Unified School District report card. So, it is nice that we you
know we might be three different sites because one site can only
accommodate certain amount of children. We are all working collectively
towards that that common goal.

As a district administrator elaborated on why it is crucial everyone have a similar
goal and purpose, she stated:
Oh I think that it’s essential. Otherwise you would end up with five islands.
We’re all working towards a common goal, educating these children. And
these children are ours. They’re going to pass through to all of us…they’re
going to somehow have impact with everybody.

Another teacher commented on how networking has benefited her as a teacher and
the district, “Well, I think it makes us more cohesive as a district and there are so
many knowledgeable teachers out there to share, you’ve got to share what we are
doing, what is working to really improve our curriculum.” Another teacher shared
how there was a period of time in the past when she felt the leadership of the
teacher’s union worked to undermine teachers’ desire to work together but that is no
longer the case as she reports:
When I first came to the district, what I really appreciated about the district
was the fact that we were all on the same team and it was really clear that we
were all on the same team. The leadership changed in the union and I am not
sure if what was going on at the state level and filtering down or whether it
was just this individual who was working as our union president, but there
was this competition or this play for power and it was no longer about what is
right for teacher and what is right for the kids, it was about exerting authority
136
and that wasn’t what I… it wasn’t the district that I wanted to be part of and
then it changed. The union leadership were voted out and they went back to
rebuilding this sense of togetherness. The sense of where we were all stake
holders and we have the job to do, let us do it together, let us do it
synergistically, let us do it collaboratively, let us share ideas. I think that is
special about Oak Parkand at least as long as I have been here, is that we like
to work together. Most teachers value that.

Another teacher when asked about outcomes from networking had this to share:

I think the personal relationships have increased. I think when you have
teachers who feel a sense of belonging and a sense of camaraderie in that
they have common goals or they understand the goals of others because they
had a chance to hear them, then it kind of you know rolls on down to the
students and I mean I think it creates an environment that we are all hoping to
work in as educators.

Additionally, teachers report that working together provides the opportunity to
collectively communicate with parents what the students are expected to do. As one
teacher states, “Teachers have shared that it has benefited them to work together as it
gives them a united front for dealing with parent issues and gives a strong message
across the district.” Another teacher shared a similar opinion:
Oh, there are so many reasons. I think that when schools are networked
together, it gives us great credibility with the community because they see
that we know what is going on in the other schools and it all comes together
and is meaningful. So, there is nothing too discrepant in any one school,
though they each have their own personality…I think it really allows us to
share out talents because each of us is a little different and so, it is that
synergy kind of thing that happens.

All interviewees were asked to respond to a question about what they felt the
district’s purpose of networking was and the majority of the staff felt there were
tremendous benefits to it, as described in some of the following quotes, one stated,
“To share opportunities, share learning experiences, share knowledge.” Another said,
137
“Conserve energy and brainstorm.” Yet another reported the following about
networking, “I think it creates power by working together to solve common problems
which we share,” and another stated that the purpose of networking is to allow “all
your strengths to come together.” One site administrator went on to say what he saw
about the value and impact of networking other schools together:
Well, I think not just in schools but any collaboration is more powerful than
one single mind working to solve a problem and there’s different ways of
looking at and approaching a problem that other schools maybe have already
tried or tackled. The value of being able to see what their experiences are or
even their first ideas can really kind of help shape what you are going to do
or if you are already trying something then it kind of leap frogs something
else that is part of your program and already extends what you are doing. So
I don’t think you can really get too far in isolation without checking and
collaborating with other schools.

When interviewees were asked if there were any negatives from networking
together, the consensus was that none existed that were evident or problematic. As
one teacher stated:
The worse that I think could happen is you could meet with people and
discuss your ideas and not necessarily like the ideas that other people share
with you and then choose not to use them, but I don’t know how… I don’t
think so.

Teacher Incentives
There are a number of teacher incentives that can be identified from the data
gathered for networking. Some incentives for teachers include an increased
opportunity to build knowledge and skills and solve problems, to feel more
empowered, and to have access to resources and support. First, as the interviewees
shared, when colleagues network together, whether formally or informally they
138
increase their opportunity to learn something new and solve common problems
together. As one teacher states:
I mean I’m a believer, have been forever, in the idea that when we get people
together, we come up with solutions that have more likelihood of being
successful that reflect a kind of integration of creative ideas and best
practices and also reflect the reality of what people feel is possible.

Another teacher shares a similar view about why it is important to get together and
network:
Yeah, and I just think it to really exciting to get together with other teachers
to see what they are doing. It is really hard to be in a classroom, I mean I
never get to see other classrooms or seeing what other people are doing. So,
how do you know if you are doing it right or wrong, other than test scores.

Yet another interviewee had this to share as well about the benefit of networking for
teachers:
Well, it just again a matter of creating a wealth of ideas and experiences and
using that experience to work together for benefit of the whole instead of
using… you know each school is like basis for competition instead of as a
basis for cooperation.

There are numerous examples that have been provided previously that support the
benefits that teachers have when networking with one another, whether that be on a
specific project like the Columbia Reading and Writing Project, the 21
st
Century
Classroom, or just coming together to address a curricular issue. All interviewees
reported that there have been numerous ways in which they have been able to build
their knowledge and skills and solve problems collectively.
Another teacher incentive that comes for some from networking together is
the feeling or sense of empowerment. As one interviewee explained:
139
You know there are years where we feel like we all do that right and the
scores are going to go up and then the API scores stay the same or drop, so
you know…. I would say when you network and you have more information,
you are always going to be more empowered, sometimes the results might not
reflect that for whatever reason, but I definitely… I think the more we work
together the more empowered we are definitely.

Another teacher felt that being able to network with her colleagues on common
issues and problems helped her to be a stronger teacher, she states, “Yeah, so to be
able to do that is very energizing to me. I have to do that or I’d go crazy.” As another
teacher concurred:
The other thing is that when you start sharing ideas, you create more energy
and I think this is just a really challenging job that kind of wears people down
at times and I think it is well document that why the teachers leave the
profession is because of burnout, but when you start providing opportunities
with networking or sharing of ideas, it energizes things.

Another teacher when asked to reflect on the purpose of networking stated the
following:
Well, because you probably would be more of a community and I think that
any kind of teaching where you share and even if you get together to grip
together for over cocktail. It is so therapeutic and it just makes you feel more
energized. When you are going to conferences around the country, that is so
energizing.

Another incentive that teachers readily identified from networking together
involved the increased opportunity for support and additional resources that were
available to them because of their increased connections with other colleagues. As
one interviewee explained when asked why she thought networking was beneficial,
“I see a lot more support for teachers and a lot more interesting programs offered for
us.” Another explained as well that there is a great deal of opportunity in the district
140
to share learning experiences at the district buy back days as well as other workshops
that are made available district-wide. Lastly, a teacher explained why she enjoyed
networking with her colleagues, she replied:
It was great to create and share best practices. What works well for you, what
didn’t work well for you. You know, what materials have you acquired?
What information, what resources and everything was shared and it’s great.

A common thread seen throughout the interviews was the way in which teachers
have become connected to teachers in ways they would not have anticipated. As one
teacher explains about her experience joining the 21
st
Century classroom program
this year:
It has been good. I never would have the contact with the middle school and
high school, between that and working on the CAG
5
board, I you know have
a lot more understanding of what is going on at the middle school and high
school, which I certainly wouldn’t have had that much involvement with.

Teachers repeatedly commented about the wealth of resources and support they had
available to them in Oak Park which helped to make them more successful as
teachers.
Teacher Leadership
Although teacher leadership has been addressed previously as a structure in
the district, it is also an outcome from networking. As has been noted, Oak Park
places a great deal of focus on the role of teacher leadership in the district and finds
ways to provide opportunities to build leadership skills and teacher capacity
throughout the district. Rather than seeking individuals from outside their school

5
CAG-California Association for the Gifted
141
community to take over part-time positions which are small and provide needed
support services, the district instead builds up teachers within their school district to
take over the positions and provides coverage or stipends for them. The benefit for
this type of arrangement is that it supports the district’s need for experts/specialists
and uses personnel that are already in the field working with other colleagues that
can lead to stronger buy-in as the expert is not someone removed completely from a
classroom setting. The support positions for GATE and Science are K-12 so they
provide a mechanism or vehicle in which information can be shared throughout the
district. In addition, the numerous staff development opportunities provided to
teachers create an avenue for teacher leadership to naturally evolve as teachers
become trained in specialized skills and in turn become teacher trainers for others in
the district.
Linkage of Curriculum
Another outcome that can be seen for teachers and students is the linkage of
curriculum across the district. Linkage refers to way in which curricular materials are
offered and utilized across levels within the district so that teachers are presenting
similar content across all the elementary schools, and teachers within the middle
school and high school are providing similar content across subject areas. In
addition, because of networking practices, teachers from elementary to middle and
middle to high school can stay abreast of the curricular content and focus so that it
provides a cohesive experience for all students in the district. One teacher, when
asked about whether or not she had seen a shift in the way instructional practices are
142
done due to an increase in networking, shared the following, “I feel there is a lot
more depth in sophistication in the teaching than it used to be. It is more demanding.
The curriculum is much more demanding than it used to be… I know it is a lot
harder to be a teacher than it was 20 years ago.” When the superintendent was asked
to respond to the question of how networking fits into the district’s overall reform
effort or agenda he replied:
It is absolutely critical part of it. If you look at some of the different efforts
that you have explored in your interviews, the Columbia Reading and
Writing Project for examples, we have really made sure that all the
elementary schools have been involved in that, not just one as a pilot
program. So that is really essential, so that those teachers can work together. I
think with differentiated instruction again has been an overall theme and we
have allowed for a differentiated way for that to be done. So some of the
schools do it differently but we use similar common models. And then with
technology which is our latest effort we have made sure that there are the
21st Century classrooms that we have, they are all of our schools K-12. And I
think that is a good model, those teachers get together regularly and
collaborate and are working on similar goals. So it’s not like a different thing
going on at one of the schools versus another one. It is appropriate for the
grade levels but it is a common thrust.

As a way to foster equity for students across the district, the linkage of
curriculum across schools has an impact or creates an anticipated outcome for
students as well. The importance of keeping curriculum linked from site to site at the
elementary level is explained by a teacher:
You know what, I think that and you said it earlier, you really can’t do it as
an isolated school. We have kids even as small as we are who do move from
one area to another even though we are very small. I imagine in a larger
school in a larger district you see even more of this. So, if someone was
moving from one of our elementary schools to the other elementary school,
they are not going to find a repeat because the teachers have networked
together. We have… in that schools… we have within the school a whole
networking in place.
143
In addition, a former site administrator explained what had been done at the middle
school to support student’s curricular needs:
I think it was really effective because we had agreements that quality needed
to be consistent, that meant that everybody in a department teaching the same
subject would be teaching the same stuff and that people who came in needed
to be up to speed with what everybody else was doing so we had a process
for what everybody else was doing. Not just text book assignments but the
entire course was put into notebooks, which we then kept in the teachers
library of the middle school so when a new teacher came in, they got the
notebook and the notebook was revised every summer with grants people
were given and not only revised but improved. So if somebody had a good
idea to change writing in 7th grade and everybody in the department agreed
to it then would agree to implement it, the people who were writing and
doing the work in the summer would make the changes and everybody got it.
Instant change across the organization and consistent quality. That summer
work piece became an institution. We haven’t had as much of it recently, I
think its kind of, people have been pretty satisfied with what they have been
doing and have found some other ways besides summer work to implement
the consistent quality, they meet regularly throughout the year and things like
that. It is going on but the summer work is not the king pin of how it is done
anymore. What you will find at least in many of the departments, you will see
the same instruction going on in the same classes.

Another teacher shared how staff at the elementary work to support the needs of all
students at their grade level, not just their own class of students:
I definitely think our students benefit from teachers sharing ideas because
they can’t all have all the answers for everything. We share even… we even
have SST [Student Study Team] where we meet at our grade level teams
without a student before we bring it into student study meetings. So you just
are able to support the students on both ends of the spectrum, enrichment kids
and low achieving kids. In fourth and fifth grades they actually differentiate
for reading one does it for reading and math does it for reading, where they
actually pretest each unit and then divide their 100 kids up that way. And so,
I mean that have to benefit those far end spectrum kids. The low kids are not
being asked to do an entire page. They get to do 10 correctly and the high
kids don’t have to waste time because they already know how to do more
problems solving things are created. So just the fact that teachers are able to
connect, talk agreed to work together, to plan out a 100 kids work instead of
144
just around 30 kids benefits the teachers and their time and students and their
abilities.

When asked to identify outcomes for students from the increased networking
across the district one teacher shared that “there is more unified curriculum across
the district now.” Another teacher shared the following:
I think the best thing that I have seen that you know it has come out of all of
that is you know using fluid grouping and doing better job with
differentiation for different levels of students and we do have that a lot more
in mind than we have ever had before.

There is even a common linkage in the curriculum or skills that are being
developed in the area of technology. The district is looking at the NETS
6
, the
National Educational Technology Skills. The district is focusing on the NETS
standards and defining them across the board district-wide. They are approaching
them as a unified front so that there is no discrepancy in terms of skills as students
move from elementary to high school. In addition, they have 21
st
century teachers on
all the curriculum committees so that technology information is shared across the
different curricular areas.
Linkage of Resources
Another outcome that can be seen for teachers is the linkage of resources,
whether that be materials or personnel throughout the district due to networking
practices. As a teacher explains regarding the power and connection that comes with
networking:

6
National Educational Technology Skills developed by the International Society of Technology in
Education. Standards have been developed for students, teachers, administrators, and district
coordinators.
145
You know I think and I believe that it gives you strength as a teacher.
Networking is all the different capacities. Networking with other districts,
networking with other schools, networking with other grade levels in the
same department, networking with other departments, with like and unlike
teachers, it gives you strength. Which is what we do with our kids strength’s
and then it leads to student success. I really truly believe in student success.

Another teacher shared how she sees her colleagues as resources to one another:

We are all resources here, we are all a wealth of knowledge for one another.
You have to have teacher buy-in but you are living in a bubble if you don’t
look at other things. I loved going to University Elementary School [at
UCLA]. I love to see what is going on there, it is so different. ..if you don’t
get out you are isolated.

Another interviewee commented on how all teachers benefit from networking, “I
think it fits, it is all incorporated. The ability to network, to share information and to
create new information benefits everyone because we get all the good stuff.” In
addition, another teacher had this to say about what networking allows, “It allows us
to share ideas, share curricular ideas, share evaluation tools, share strategies.”
Because of structures in place for formal networking it has led to the outcome of
increased informal networking within the district for individuals with mutual
problems or concerns. Use of technology has aided in this as well.
Equity, Uniformity, and Opportunity for Teachers and Students
A number of teachers interviewed shared that the equity and consistency of
curriculum within grade levels, especially at the elementary level, across the district
provided benefit for the teachers in terms of planning to minimize reinventing
lessons and saving time. Additionally, teachers felt it also had a benefit for students
in terms of creating a positive outcome for achievement. As noted before, the district
146
strives to provide educational opportunities for all its students that are equitable
across the district. Although much is done to create authentic learning experiences
and curriculum is differentiated to meet the unique needs of students there is little
disparity in curricular opportunities from site to site. In addition, teachers are given
the opportunity to participate in staff development experiences across the district and
are not excluded from doing so. If a new initiative is being tried for example at the
elementary level, one school does not pilot it, they all have the chance to use the
program and receive the training. One teacher explained how it used to be as
compared to now:
[In the past] the superintendent was very much site based and so there was a
lot of disparity especially between the elementary schools, and now what
they are trying to do is to get… I noticed that the most at the elementary
schools because there is 3 of them…while allowing for differences among the
schools there are not the discrepancies that would come up that did cause
friction between the elementary schools sometimes, well how come they get
this money and we don’t. Or how come they are allowed to do this and we
don’t, how come they got this program and we didn’t. If there is a program
that is going to be offered, its offered to everyone. If there is in opportunity it
is offered at all three sites, it is absolutely flat out required at all 3 sites,
which is only fair.

One teacher shared the following when asked how the culture of the school had
changed due to increased networking practices:
The bottom line is we do this for student success. We want our kids to be
successful, that’s what we do everything for. … I see the kids being able to
network because they are all doing about the same thing at the same time.
Our expectations are the same. So, what I am expecting in my class is going
to be the same expectation in another class. So, if they have questions, they
can come to me and I have had kids from other classes come to my study
session. It is ok because we are all doing the same thing. Well, I will teach
the same lesson they have… the kids have more opportunities, more adult
interaction. They have interaction between themselves. We have a lot of
147
multiples here in our district and that helps families with the multiples, the
twins, the triplets because what I am doing in my class they are going to be
doing in the other classroom and when kids come home, they have that
commonality also. So, I think that one of the changes you see are…the
students themselves being…successful.

When asked to further elaborate on measurable outcomes such as increased
Academic Performance Index
7
(API) scores the teacher commented that as a district,
they are “always trying to progress with their students academically.” The teacher
noted that although API numbers are somewhat arbitrary in terms of telling teachers
what is working or not, the district utilizes a number of assessment tools district-
wide to measure progress and student success such as the writing test, Scholastic
Inventory Reading
8
(SRI) scores, and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills
9
(DIBELS). In addition, this middle school teacher explained how she uses
data to evaluate student progress and identify students that need assistance:
In fact, I do our SRI. I take the SRI scores from the kids and compare and
triangulate their scores on SRI with their STAR
10
scoring and their CAT
11

scores that they have and take a look at those who are at the below or far
below basic scoring to make sure that we have something in place for them to
assist them and remediation if they need it. We have READ 180 for our kids.
Also, that is our basal level reader in language arts.

7
Academic Performance Index (API) is a numeric index which measures academic performance and
growth in California schools annually.
8
Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) is a research-based computer adaptive reading assessment (K-
12) that measures students levels of reading comprehension.
9
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills are a set of standardized, individually administers
measures of early literacy development.
10
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) is the term used for the state’s testing program for
students K-12 in California.
11
California Achievement Test (CAT) is one of the tests administered to students annually in
California as part of STAR.
148
When asked to explain how Read 180
12
is implemented for students at the middle
school level the teacher indicated that there is an intervention teacher at the school
who teaches a READ 180 class for sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students.
Students receive READ 180 as a pull out Language Arts class and then the students
are interspersed back into general education history classes. When interviewed,
teachers from the secondary sites repeatedly commented that staff are able to
dialogue and network easily with the teachers from the elementary schools and
gather information on students needs and address them quickly which is also a
benefit or positive outcome for students. Moreover, due to common assessment tools
and curriculum within the district, staff understand where students are academically,
as they are all speaking in the same language and terms.
As a way to identify anticipated or real outcomes for students, interviewees
were asked if they felt that the district’s strong academic performance on API was
influenced by networking. Although many stated that it would be hard to extrapolate
the influence of networking on the finding, the majority of interviewees concurred
that networking had a positive benefit or impact on their work and in turn had a
positive benefit for students, they could just not easily quantify or measure the effect
in terms of points on a test. As another teacher shared about networking with others,
“It helps us to understand more and to understand more we can go on and move
forward to be able to help students.” When asked to describe any changes observed
in terms of student achievement or student expectations due to increased networking,

12
READ 180 is an intensive reading intervention program by Scholastic that targets adolescent
illiteracy and special needs students.
149
one teacher reported the following, “The technology has made a big difference in the
children’s enthusiasm, focusing, and learning opportunities in the classroom.”
Another teacher who is participating in the 21
st
Century classroom reported the
following when asked about student outcomes:
Well, I think the more technology that we have incorporated in to learning
has really changed the way students learn. They are very much infatuated
with the SMART board which I don’t have on right now, but I kind of like it
because it is sort of l a coordinated effort. You know when I can’t figure out
something, they might figure out what is going on out there and they love
working with the SMART board. I think we do things that are probably a
little bit more motivating, more interesting than we used to do.

It is obvious that as teachers have increased opportunities to learn and develop their
skills as educators that students will receive an increase in the learning experiences
and opportunities as well.
Summary on Outcomes
In sum, a number of significant outcomes were identified from the findings
for both teachers and students due to networking practices district-wide. These
include unity of common purpose, teacher incentives, teacher leadership, linkage of
curriculum and resources, and equity, uniformity and opportunity for teachers and
students. A positive outcome noted from networking was the way in which
interviewees repeatedly stressed how they had a common purpose for students. They
did not see themselves as separate from their colleagues as they all had the same goal
in mind, student success. In addition, because of networking, a number of teacher
incentives came to light which include increased opportunity to build their
knowledge and skills and problem solve, a feeling of being more empowered as a
150
teacher, and the increased support and resources that became available to them.
Teachers felt that by building their knowledge and skills and increasing their
opportunities to try new innovative strategies or practices that ultimately students
would benefit. This was readily seen with the use of technology in the 21
st
Century
classrooms this year. In addition, because there is a more consistency with
curriculum across the levels and from school to school, students are able to receive
more equitable instruction and authentic experiences. In addition, both teachers and
students have benefited from the increased opportunities that networking has
provided. This year students in 43 classrooms across the district (K-12) are in 21
st

Century classrooms and are able to experience learning in a different way due to the
increased amount of technology that has been made available to them due to their
teacher’s participation in the program.
Major Findings Related to Research Question Three
Evidence suggests that:
1. Numerous outcomes for the district, teachers, and students can be
identified when networking practices are in place district-wide.
2. Staff understand and share a common purpose that unifies them toward
their shared goals.
3. Teachers receive a number of incentives from working closely with their
peers.
4. Teachers and students benefit from equity and uniformity of curriculum
and resources that are linked or tied together across a district.
151
5. Teachers and students have increased opportunity to innovate and try new
things due to the increase amount of resources, materials, and information
at their disposal when others network together.
Conclusion
This chapter represents the identification and analysis of a wealth of data on
how and why Oak Park USD networks its schools together. The overarching research
question focused on examining how and why a district chooses to networks its
schools together. The sub questions focused on the identification of specific
structures or features that were evident to support networking practices and
examined the impact that culture has had on networking as well as outcomes
achieved for the district, teachers, and students. After collecting and analyzing all of
the data, a number of significant themes were extrapolated and tied to the specific
research questions of this study. Findings were then further detailed according to the
pertinent or relevant themes around each research question in this study.
A number of specific structures were identified that provide support and
facilitate networking practices across the district in Oak Park. This includes the
organizational structure of the district and the formal and informal structures that
support it as well. The organizational structure of the district has shifted from a
former site-based model of management to a collaborative model that put a great
deal of focus on lateral capacity building, shared-decision making, and leadership for
both administrators and teachers. The role of the superintendent on networking
practices and the influence and impact he has had on the district are significant.
152
Every interviewee had something to share about the positive influence the
superintendent has had on the district’s vision, direction, and practices. Under the
superintendent’s guidance, the district has embraced current best practices in the
field of education and worked collaboratively to develop an organizational model of
governance that is rooted in its moral imperatives which are structured around:
Teaching and Learning, Organization and Shared Leadership, and Finance, Budget,
and Facilities. The district has implemented significant changes in its technology
infrastructure to allow for greater connectivity and user capacity which can serve
teachers’ need to network and innovate with technology and allow for connections,
for information and resources to support student needs, that go well beyond the
boundaries of their classroom or district. The district has a variety of structures that
foster networking, both formally and informally, which include the use of relevant
and rigorous curriculum, shared decision-making practices, allocation and use of
time and resources, a variety of communication methods to convey information to
teachers, parents, and the community, and the extensive presence of informal
collaboration that exists district-wide.
Although Oak Park has a variety of distinctive features to support networking
practices in the district, one key finding is the role that the small size of the district
and close proximity play in the process of networking for them. Networking has
been readily embraced and fostered in this district in part, due to the culture that
existed before it began. Moreover, the district’s culture has been further impacted
since networking practices began based on the feedback staff have shared about
153
changes they have witnessed district-wide. Teachers and administrators indicated
that networking has helped to create an environment or district-wide culture that is
more unified in their purpose and more cohesive than before. Many teachers shared
how fortunate they felt they were to work in a district that allowed for so many
opportunities for professional growth and innovation. Teachers also felt very
supported by the district and felt that access to the district and assistance was always
readily available when needed.
Some additional themes which emerged from the data that speak to the
culture of the district include a willingness to share and collaborate, an attitude of
trust amongst individuals, an openness to change, and an attitude of high
expectations. As was noted before, the district’s focus on lateral capacity building
and network practices has produced a number of positive outcomes for the district,
its teachers, and students. These outcomes include a unity of common purpose,
teacher incentives, teacher leadership, linkage of curriculum and resources, and
equity, uniformity and opportunity for teachers and students. It was interesting to
find that competition was non-existent with the staff interviewed. There is a
prevailing attitude district-wide that all the staff are working toward the same goal of
student learning and success. Teachers do not speak in isolation about their own
students but collectively about the needs of the students in Oak Park. In addition,
because of networking, a number of teacher incentives came to light which include
increased opportunity to build their knowledge and skills and problem solve,
empowerment as a teacher, and the opportunity for increased support and resources.
154
Teachers were excited about having the chance to building their knowledge and
skills, they weren’t afraid of learning and change, and felt that any new skills they
developed would help students be more successful. Teachers also noted how students
are able to receive more equitable instruction and authentic experiences due to the
networking that they have done with each other. Although there was some
trepidation at the beginning of the school year for teachers just starting out in the 21
st

Century classroom program, the teachers involved have seen how the increased
technology in the classroom has sparked new learning experiences for students and
has served to motivate and energize them in the classroom.
It is evident based on the findings gathered, that Oak Park School district
provides a rare glimpse into a district that has figured out how to create the structures
and supports that help facilitate and foster networking practices for their school
community district-wide. They have a number of features that contribute to a climate
or environment that enhances networking and lays the groundwork for positive
teacher and student outcomes to be achieved.
155
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
Introduction
The ongoing efforts to find strategies and approaches that can address the
need for system-wide reform efforts that build capacity system-wide has lead to the
discovery and use of networks in school settings. The purpose of this study was to
explore how and why one school district used networking to build lateral capacity to
improve teaching and learning as a means to increase student achievement for all
students district-wide. As has been noted, the use of networks has been increasingly
used in government, business, and some organizations to serve as a vehicle or
mechanism to build capacity system-wide.
Although there has not been an extensive amount of research in the use of
networks in the school setting, networks have been used as a powerful tool in other
business and government arenas. One issue or question that arises is, “Why has the
use of networks in educational settings not been more fully explored considering the
potential benefits that can be had from its use?” One possible reason why this has not
been explored in depth in school settings is that educators have not understood the
power of networks and how they can be used within an organizational system. Many
of the reform efforts that have been attempted in the wake of No Child Left Behind
mandates, have placed the focus on improvement at the school level not district
level. Energy has been put into schools, within districts, that are underperforming yet
the practices have generally been site specific and have not readily taken advantage
of the success being achieved at neighboring schools, often even schools in their own
156
district (Fullan, 2005). Although, some examples of district-wide reform efforts were
discussed previously, districts have had a great deal of difficulty achieving
measurable progress and sustaining it system-wide.
This study involved in-depth analysis of the structures, features, culture, and
outcomes in one school district, to examine specifically how they network schools
together district-wide and for what purposes. The method of data collection was in
the form of on site case study interviews, document review, and meeting observation.
The majority of data collected came from the case study interviews with the
documents and observational data serving as a mechanism to validate and triangulate
the findings. As noted previously, the district has intentionally developed and
embedded a set of moral imperatives as part of their current organizational design,
which lays the groundwork for networking practices district-wide. The district has
established hiring practices that facilitate identification and placement of individuals
that are highly collaborative and innovative in their schools and district level
positions to support their district vision. Practices have been put in place to provide
equity and opportunity for all staff to become highly qualified in the latest innovative
practices. Teachers have set high expectations for themselves that are internally
driven and they seek out staff development training to continually build on their
knowledge and skills. Teachers are very open to innovation and change and eagerly
embrace the need for technology and other innovative practices to bring the best
experiences forward for their students (Schmoker, 2004; Fullan, 2003). Staff readily
enjoy sharing ideas and best practices with one another and eagerly collaborate,
157
whether there is formal time to do so or not. The district understands the need for on-
going resources and support to maximize student learning and success and
continually seeks out funding mechanisms to make that a reality. Due to the vital
need for a better information system district-wide and the latest technology for its
teachers and students, they have acquired the resources to develop a new technology
infrastructure for the district as well as 21
st
Century classrooms which assist teachers
in networking practices and helps students increase learning opportunities. The
district has high expectations for all staff. Schools are not viewed as separate entities
or islands unto themselves. They share the same vision and goals and are seen as one
united force for all students in the district, (Fullan, 1999; Fullan, 2000b). Staff,
district-wide feel supported by their colleagues and district personnel. There is a
prevalent attitude of good will and trust amongst colleagues across the district and a
noticeable lack of competition, between individuals or schools. Teachers receive a
number of incentives from working closely with their peers. In addition, there is
consistency and equity in curriculum which provides equal opportunity and access to
learning for all students. Teachers and students benefit from curriculum and
resources that are linked or tied together across a district. Teachers and students have
increased opportunity to innovate and try new things due to the increase amount of
resources, materials, and information at their disposal when others network together.
As can be seen from the findings gathered, Oak Park School district has
successfully incorporated networking practices into their district. They have
developed structures, both formal and informal, that facilitate the use and success of
158
these networking practices. Although there efforts to increase lateral capacity
building across the district are relatively recent, in the past three to four years, they
have reaped a number of observable benefits for their teachers, students, and the
district as a whole.
Connections to prior research
The findings of this study have provided a great deal of information on the
topic of networks that can be connected to the prior literature in this area. In this
section, linkage to the literature in Chapter two will be examined in the areas of:
network applications, organizational structure and design, building organizational
capacity, reform efforts, and networks.
Network Applications
The network applications section of the literature review provided or
identified ways in which networks can be utilized by individuals for different reasons
and across a variety of settings. The research showed that networks mean different
things to individuals or groups within an organization depending upon why they are
formed. As Frost & Sullivan (2006) reported, the amount of technology and
communication methods that are now available for people to connect on a variety of
levels is changing the way in which people relate with one another. As the evidence
has shown, the staff and employees of Oak Park are part of one large social network.
Individuals feel that they are part of a collective whole and use their resources, the
people in their network to get what they need quickly and effectively. Due to the
ease with which communication is facilitated and fostered, many individuals have
159
gone on to create their own smaller “network” groups within the organization to
meet their specific needs or to solve problems together. Networking with one another
face to face in social contexts is becoming an embedded process in Oak Park that
additional technology being put into place in Oak Park is only going to further
enhance, not limit (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).
Organizational Structure and Design
The organizational structure and design section of the literature review
identified or analyzed ways in which organizational structure can be utilized to
establish the basis or foundation for networks that can in turn be used to foster
innovation and change across an organization. The research showed that changes in
organizational structure are needed to make this happen. A pure hierarchical, top
down approach does not work well (Reilan, 1996; Milward & Provan, 2006).
Networked forms of governance. Just as business and government have
worked to change their organizational structure to maximize and harness knowledge,
resources, and opportunities in response to the global market, schools need to adapt
and change to help prepare students for their future in a global society. As Milward
and Provan (2006) note, government can no longer rely on the traditional
organizational structure founded on a hierarchy of control and management as these
type of structures, which are top down, created silos of information and resources
they could not be effectively tapped into to solve the complex problems that
government faces today. Instead, government and business leaders alike are finding
that they need an organizational form that can operate horizontally and vertically
160
which integrates the talents, skills and resources that other entities can provide to
each other (DeSeve, 2007; Arganoff, 2003). They have made changes in their
structure to support the use of networks as a way to address and solve their complex
problems. Businesses are moving away from ego-centric (hierarchical) systems of
organization to a network-centric model which allows organizations to band together
to serve as value networks to one another (Gurbaxani & Plice, 2004). In addition,
some businesses are moving to a heterarchical type of organizational structure which
allows members in the organization to be connected together in the problem solving
and decision-making tasks needed for the entire entity.
As evidence clearly demonstrates from data gathered, Oak Park has
intentionally moved away from a site-based decision making model for their district
to one that more closely resembles a flatter heterarchy, not hierarchy structure and in
turn changed the governance structure for the district (Fullan 1995, Wohlstetter,
1994). Decisions are not made utilizing a top down model and a great deal of time
and energy is put into the shared decision-making process that the district values as
one of its crucial moral imperatives. Teachers have a strong voice in the district and
instructional decisions are made globally to provide for equity and consistency
across the district for all students. As Togneri (2003) has noted, districts that make
changes at the structural and systems level are better able to maximize social capital
and resources that already exist in their context and use them differently to make
improvements in instruction.
161
Business networks and technology. As has been previously noted in chapter
two, technology is changing the face of business today. Much research and study has
been done on the way in which businesses are adapting and making changes to their
organizational structure and design and increasing the type of technology available
for its employees so they can network and interface with their colleagues and
customers within a building or across the world (Frost & Sullivan, 2006). Businesses
that choose to stay competitive and cutting edge need to be able to work beyond their
boundaries and maximize their two most important resources, their human capital
and information, if they want garner more value from their assets (Brantle & Fallah,
2006). As evidence shows, Oak Park understands and embraces the need for
innovation and change regarding the amount and type of technology needed for their
staff and students to utilize as part of their experience in schools. Support and
resources for technology are on the forefront of the district and communities agenda
as was seen by the strong support for a bond in 2006 which generated 17 million
dollars for technology in the district. The district is striving to make sure that they
have the capability and capacity to handle the current and potentially future demands
for information and connectivity for their teachers and students to access. They
started the 21
st
Century Classroom project this year, with the goal to have all
classrooms in three years equipped with the state of the art equipment and teachers
trained in how to utilize it for student success.
162
Building Organizational Capacity
The building organization capacity section of the literature review identified
ways in which building organizational capacity lends itself readily to the facilitation
of networks. The research showed that efforts are needed to build organizational
capacity system-wide (Stoll et al., 2006; Senge, 2000).
Transfer of business practice to educational setting. As has been noted
before, much can be learned from business regarding how to maximize personnel
and resources to stay competitive, productive, profitable and sustainable in the
marketplace as they have worked to continuously improve their practices and
innovate to meet the needs of their customers (Wenger et al., 2002). Companies that
were unable to adapt and change with the marketplace demands are no longer
operational. Although schools and districts are a different type of organization, much
has been learned from the way in which business practices have increased their
organizational capacity. One of the ways in which businesses have been able to build
their organizational capacity is by utilizing the existing knowledge and skills of their
employees to facilitate and foster innovation and change. As Lieberman (1999)
points outs networks can be used in schools to build knowledge, skills, and the
capacity of their organization by using existing personnel. Evidence shows that Oak
Park has taken steps to actively create networks for the Columbia Reading and
Writing Project and the 21
st
Century Classroom project, to name a few examples, as
a means to build the knowledge, skills, and capacity of its teaching staff across the
district.
163
Learning organizations. Many organizations exist that serve a variety of
purposes or functions, but not all organizations are designed to be learning
organizations. Research has shown that when organizations can become learning
organizations they are better able to create, acquire, and transfer knowledge and
change their behavior based on new knowledge and insight. (Garvin, 1993). The
reason why learning organizations are touted is that they are very effective at helping
employees to complete the following types of activities: systematic problem solving,
experiment with new approaches or techniques, learn from their experiences and past
history, learn from best practices of others, and efficiently transfer knowledge
throughout the organization. It is evident from the data gathered during this study in
Oak Park that they have created a culture and climate district-wide that fosters the
environment needed for a learning organization to develop and sustain itself. As
referenced before, the districts moral imperatives stress the need for all individuals in
the organization to take an active role to develop the highest level of skills and
talents needed to work together to address and solve issues that pertain to student
success in Oak Park . Teachers and administrators are expected to collaborate and
share their knowledge and skills with others and be ready and willing to learn about
best practices and innovations that will help them to stay on the cutting edge of
education. As Kruse (2000) noted, when schools are seen as organizations that are
capable of learning and adapting to new instructional practices and are open to
innovations that are directed toward student learning, accountability, and
improvement, the work that teachers are able to do becomes a vital piece needed for
164
reform to occur and be sustained. It is clear that Oak Park sees the value in having
teachers become highly trained in the latest educational practices and innovations to
increase student learning and achievement across the district. In addition, Oak Park
is following the practices of Elmore (2002) who recommends that teachers need to
have the opportunity to be connected to sources of information outside their own
workplace and connect people within the workplace to develop knowledge and
skills.
Communities of practice. The concept of communities of practice, as
described in the literature, has a connection to the work that is being done within
Oak Park School district. Based on the work of Supovitz (2002), communities of
practice have the following characteristics: groups need structures that provide them
with leadership, time, resources, and incentives to gather for instructional work; they
need to develop a culture of instructional practice that encourages them to
continuously identify instructional practices that show promise for students; and
professional development opportunities to hone their skills and strategies. As can be
seen in Oak Park, there are numerous opportunities that are provided for teachers to
meet within specific groups to engage in work that improves their professional
practices. Some examples include opportunities for teachers to be involved in classes
at UES as part of the Early Literacy Project with UCLA, the training that teachers
have done at Columbia University and the University of Connecticut, and the local
staff development that high school teachers have engaged in with English teachers in
neighboring similar schools.
165
Professional learning community. As Dufour & Eaker (1998) note, one of the
most exciting strategies for creating an environment which can sustain school
improvement is the development of a professional learning community within the
school. The notion of professional learning communities is that there has to be the
ability for a group of teachers to work collectively together to solve problems within
the school site. If teachers are not willing or able to see themselves as members of a
collective group of individuals with similar goals and purposes it is very difficult to
make instructional changes or sustain efforts for improvement system-wide. As one
can readily see based on examples provided, schools in Oak Park operate as PLCs.
They have a collective purpose and goal in mind, to make sure that all students are
successful, and have created at each school not only the time to meet as PLCs, during
their banked or collaborative time but also have worked hard to create a work
environment and culture that supports the successful implementation of PLCs.
Collaboration as a strategy for improving schools.
As Wohlstetter et al. (2003) points out, the strategy of using collaborative
practices to build capacity within and between schools has been used as a tool to
improve groups of schools within a district. Although many educators speak of the
concept of collaboration frequently, true collaboration of individuals within a school
or as schools across a district need some facilitation and structure to make them
effective. Ainscow, Muiji, & West (2006) in their study of schools that had been
connected within a network of schools, found that school-to-school collaboration can
serve as a effective and strong tool to strengthen the capacity of schools that are
166
struggling or facing difficult challenges. In addition, Howes and Ainscow (2006)
found that schools that collaborate together can more easily transfer existing
knowledge and help to create or facilitate new knowledge and skills. As the evidence
readily suggests, Oak Park has used both formal and informal structures to facilitate
the use of networks in the district to build lateral capacity across the district.
Numerous examples have been provided regarding ways in which staff comes
together for meetings or less formally to collectively address issues and solve
problems that they could not do as effectively on their own.
Reform Efforts
The reform efforts section of the literature review identified ways in which
efforts have been attempted at both the school and district level to make instructional
changes that could be effective at addressing student needs and sustainable. The
research showed that although many reform efforts have been tried, existing models
have not been highly effective in their ability to sustain reform over time, especially
district-wide.
Challenges to school and district reform efforts. In the past, as Fullan (1999)
notes, little was done to look at changes needed system-wide when reform efforts
were attempted. Instead the focus was on individual school sites and the role of the
district was seen as a hindrance to progress due to the traditional top-down hierarchy
structure that would get in the way of new approaches or ideas being attempted.
Also, districts did not have the mechanism or structure in place to scale-up reform
efforts across the district (Coburn, 2003). At this time, the role of the school district
167
is seen as a crucial factor in the ability for reform efforts to have the support needed
to be implemented and sustained. In Oak Park, evidence shows that the district is
firmly behind every program offered at each level. There is a concerted effort to
make sure those resources and supports are in place and that teachers are given
training to make implementation of new instructional strategies effective and
sustainable. Through the use of networks, they have been able to scale-up and
consistently implement changes across the organization in a timely and efficient
manner.
Effective district practices. As Togneri (2003) identified in the literature cited
in chapter two, there are a number of effective district practices and factors that
enabled districts to successfully implement changes in instructional practices and
increase student achievement. Evidence was found in the data that supports Oak
Park’s use of these successful practices which include: district decisions are based on
data, adoption of new approaches to professional development involved a coherent
and district organized set of strategies to improve instruction, leadership roles in the
district are redefined, and a commitment to sustain reform efforts over time are
present.
Networks
The networks section of the literature review described and defined networks
according to their typology, structure, purpose, effectiveness, and usefulness as a tool
for change. As the literature in chapter two describes, the need for and use of
networks is becoming more important as the need for additional reform strategies
168
and ideas are sought which can build capacity across an organization or district. As
Wohlstetter and Smith (2000) note, research suggests that schools working together
to build organization capacity may be more effective than schools that work in
isolation. As observed in England, the use of networks has become an important tool
in their efforts to reform schools as it increases the amount of information and ideas
available to individuals (Chapman & Allen, 2006). There a variety of different types
of networks that can be used dependent upon need. Networks, as discussed
previously, can also be structured in a variety of different ways as well dependent
upon the group and their function. The purpose and benefit of using networks is that
they can serve as a link between organizational structures (schools) in a horizontal,
vertical, and lateral manner (OCED, 2003; Chapman & Aspin, 2002).
As the evidence suggests from the data gathered in this study, staff in Oak
Park are using both formal and informal networks and for a variety of purposes.
Some district networks, which have been mentioned, are the Columbia Reading and
Writing project, the 21
st
Century Classroom program, various shared-decision
making committees formed to solve curricular issues in the district, etc. Many
informal networks have also developed with teachers in the district around shared
purposes and goals due to the collaborative culture and environment that fosters
networking together. Teachers readily gather colleagues together across the school or
district to solve common problems, build instructional practices, plan curriculum and
instruction, review assessment data, and innovate). Staff has also reported that the
169
use of networks has served to build more cohesiveness in the district and helps
everyone to see that they are connected together for a unified purpose.
New Insights from the Findings
A number of new insights – taking us beyond the existing literature -- were
gained from this study of Oak Park School District and will be examined in further
detail. These include: the role of leadership, structures that facilitate networking, and
district-wide outcomes.
The role of the leadership taken by the superintendent was identified as a
major influence and catalyst in the development and sustaining of practices that are
facilitating networking in this district. Although much has been shared in the
literature about the need for teacher leadership and teacher buy-in to make
networking or any reform effort successful, the findings suggest that the
superintendent has a tremendous amount of power and influence that can be
instrumental in making networking not only happen district-wide but to sustain it.
The superintendent has the ability and position, through his relationship with the
school board, to push for initiatives and best practices that he desires the school
community to embrace. In Oak Park, there is a positive and supportive relationship
between the superintendent and the school board and respect for the superintendent’s
opinion about the direction the district needs to move in. The superintendent’s
influence carries well beyond his relationship with the school board and is an integral
part of the relationships he has with district staff and teachers alike. He is a trusted,
vested member of the district and he has much latitude to use his influence as it
170
relates to what is best for students. Although this superintendent is only in his fourth
year, he has longevity with the district and no plans to leave. Many superintendents
move after 3-5 years to another district and the limited time in the position may
impede their ability to develop the same type of relationships in a school district.
Another significant finding in the data was related to the way in which Oak
Park made changes to the organizational structure and design of the district to help
facilitate networking practices district-wide. As has been noted in the research,
efforts to build organizational capacity are more effective if changes in
organizational structure can be made (Reilan,1996; Milward & Provan, 2006). Much
of the research on district-wide reform efforts that have had some success, focus a
great deal of attention on establishing clear expectations and goals, making changes
in instructional practices, providing alternative forms of staff development for
teachers, and encouraging collaboration (Supovitz, 2002; Massel, 2002). Although
these are necessary steps and create opportunities for teachers, these actions in
themselves do not foster networking on their own. As was seen in Oak Park, a
number of organizational changes to its governance structure were made which helps
to provide the foundation or support for networking. The superintendent worked
closely with the school board and other key stakeholders to develop and implement
the moral imperatives. The moral imperatives changed the focus of the district away
from a site based model to a more collaborative one which encourages shared
decision-making and teacher leadership. The district has also changed the way it
structures its meetings at the district level to involve K-12 members when possible
171
and has used its resources effectively to increase staff development opportunities and
experiences that have networking embedded as part of the process (i.e. Columbia,
21
st
Century Classroom, etc.). In addition, they have changed their district
technology infrastructure to allow staff to become highly networked with one
another and individuals outside the boundaries of the district. As was noted before,
they have also established a hiring practice which helps to create the right people
structure within the organization to make networking flow more readily.
In addition, another powerful insight gathered was the role that networking
had on the culture of the district in terms of building a more unified, cohesive
environment district-wide. In Oak Park they are fortunate to already have a group of
people that feel a positive culture district-wide was already in existence before
networking began. It is interesting to note the changes in culture that teachers and
staff commented on repeatedly about what networking has done for them. The
prevalent feeling and finding which is significant is the impact that networking has
had on their perceptions about the connectedness, cohesiveness, synergy, and unity
that these networking practices have created for them as a group of individuals. So
much of the present research has focused on schools networking with one another or
with groups of other schools in an organization and little has been done regarding the
impact that networking can have on a district, not just a group of schools.
Implications for further research
There need to be additional studies to measure and evaluate the effectiveness
of network uses in the school setting and the impact networks have on the district
172
system-wide. Although there has been some research that has examined the impact
on teacher perceptions about networks, little has been done to examine and measure
the true outcomes regarding the amount of knowledge and skills that teachers gain or
the impact on student achievement as an outcome of networking. Moreover, there are
numerous other areas for further study, as noted below:
 Analyze the impact of networking on a district as an organizational
system. Do certain structures (i.e. use of moral imperatives, shared
decision making, teacher leadership) or features (i.e. size) have to be in
place to make it work? Is there one specific structure or feature that
provides more value or benefit to networking practices in a district than
another?
 Conduct deeper analysis of teacher perceptions as it relates to networking
practices in their school or district. To what degree does networking
enhance teacher knowledge and skills as it relates to the outcome for
increased student achievement? Can this increase in skills and knowledge
be quantified or measured in some way for teachers or for students? Also,
it would be interesting to investigate how willing new and veteran
teachers would be willing to try new things and innovate without the
opportunity to network teachers together? As an example, in Oak Park,
further study could be conducted regarding teachers perceptions around
the Columbia Reading and Writing Project or the new 21
st
Century
classrooms project. Would teachers have been able to implement them
173
successfully to enhance student learning if they were just given the
materials and no opportunities to formally and informally network with
other teachers utilizing the same materials?
 Analyzing or examining the impact of networks on students and their
academic achievement. It would be beneficial to see how the use of
informal and formal networks for teachers and staff, across the district,
increases the amount of student learning opportunities and overall student
achievement. Although this may be difficult to set up, two school
districts could be compared on some identical measures to assess student
performance following a similar course of study or instruction over a
period of time. For example, two districts could be compared using one
district that has been actively networking across the district, as compared
to a similar school district that has not implemented networking practices.
Do students perform the same, better, or worse when teachers share ideas
as part of formal or informal networks?
 Exploring and analyzing the various models of networking in a school
district setting. Is informal networking as effective on student
achievement as intentional network groups?
 Analyze the types of training that are beneficial to help staff understand
the role and power of networking and how it can be used across schools
in a large district. Do teachers need specialized skills or training to
174
assume teacher leadership positions or are there specific characteristics
inherent to individuals as “teacher leaders” that can be tapped into?
 Analyze and examine the role of technology in the use of networks in a
district. Are there certain types of technology or technology applications
that make connectedness or accessibility easier for staff or is the use of
email enough to facilitate it?
 Examining how much time teachers need to network effectively to solve a
problem or innovate together. Should more time be allocated for formal
networking meetings or is informal networking sufficient once a group of
individuals has been intentionally brought together as a group? How
much time is enough? Who should facilitate and monitor it? Is there more
buy-in if the networking is teacher driven?
Implications for Policy and Practice
As a way to foster and implement the use of networks in a school district or
organization, it is clear that structures and supports need to be in place to facilitate,
not only their use, but to provide on-going assistance which can help to sustain them.
Role of Personnel
Superintendent. The school board and school community, should consider
and identify the role of key personnel, particularly the superintendent, in the
implementation and facilitation of networking practices in a district. The amount of
energy and investment the superintendent has in seeing that networking practices are
embedded within the district’s reform agenda and everyday practices will have an
175
impact on how well networking is received and embraced by others in the district. In
addition, the superintendent should be someone that staff can believe in, that is
vested in providing the needed structures and supports to make networking effective.
Teacher leadership. Another implication of policy and practice that needs
consideration is the role that teachers can play in the implementation and facilitation
of networking practices in a district. The district, under the guidance of the
superintendent, as part of its structure, should define how they view teachers in their
organization and the valuable role they have not just as instructors, but as leaders
within the district with a responsibility to support the needs of all students and
continually innovate and share best practices with others. In addition, as part of the
organizational structure or features, teachers should be given the opportunity to
develop their leadership skills by taking on additional responsibilities outside the
classroom (i.e. Serving as a Science Mentor, GATE coordinator, etc.) and having the
opportunity to attend staff development training that will further their skills as
leaders. Providing opportunities for staff to continue to develop skills, not just within
their local area, but with experts in the field that are research based in instructional
best practices, often fosters an interest for teachers to share what they have learned.
Hiring Practices. Another implication of policy and practice involves the use
of hiring practices to identify the right personnel for the district. The superintendent
should work closely with the human resources staff and all site administrators to
establish a set of goals and expectations for teachers to be hired district-wide. A
process should be established for hiring that involves extensive screening and follow
176
up of applicants at the district level to “find the right people” and make sure that they
agree with and support the district vision and expectations. Interviewees should
participate in multiple interviews that involve district personnel, the site
administrator, and some teachers if possible. Interviews could be conducted at both
the district and site level. Without careful oversight, teachers can be hired to fill a
vacancy at a school for the moment, with some site based input from teachers that
push to hire someone that fits their ideal team or grade level. Often this practice is
not sufficient enough to identify someone who is able to be flexible and work outside
of their comfort zone if a teacher’s grade level needs to be changed or a given school
site. Teachers need to be hired that have the skills and talents to work under the
expectations of the district’s vision and goals and have the flexibility to try new
things and innovate. It is not enough to hire “good” qualified teachers. It is key to
find staff that embrace and support working as a team and collaborating hold the
common goals and vision of the district. Also, staff are needed who are willing to
embrace opportunities for teacher leadership and continuous improvement. It is
imperative that organizations get the right people on the bus that are interested and
willing to work together, problem solve, seek out ways to develop their skills and
knowledge, and innovate (Collins, 2001). Many people are qualified to teach, but
more than that is needed to foster and sustain a positive culture and climate for
networking to achieve the maximum benefit for students. As Fullan et al. (2004)
explain, for the right people to get on the bus, the right structure needs to be in place
in the district or organization to get the job done. Some elements that make this
177
happen include a common direction or purpose, an intense focus on teaching and
learning for both teachers and adults, and an alignment of structure and roles or make
this happen.
Organizational Structure and Design
Change in organizational structure and design. School board members, the
superintendent, and key leaders in the district should examine the governance
structure of the district and identify ways it can be changed or adapted to move away
from a traditional hierarchical structure and to a flatter network centric structure
which allows for more input and involvement of all the stakeholders in the district.
As part of that structural change they would also need to identify the roles and
responsibilities of all the stakeholders in the district and develop a process for
outlining their beliefs and expectations and how they plan to achieve their goals as
an organization.
Develop moral imperatives. The superintendent and district office personnel
should work closely with the school board and district stakeholders, teachers,
parents, and community members, to form a committee which identifies and
develops a set of moral imperatives that can serve as the foundation for the district’s
vision and goals for the district. In addition, they should develop a set strategic goals
and action plan for all stakeholders to be accountable to. Districts could take the lead
and indicate from a school district policy perspective that building of capacity of
staff district wide is a priority. Oak Park has made it a part of its mission/vision
178
moral imperatives and although words alone do not make it happen, it is something
that administrators and teachers can set goals upon.
Streamline district practices. The superintendent, district office personnel,
including classified managers, administrators, and teachers should work together and
identify obstacles that hinder programs or practices from being implemented quickly
and work to solve this problem creatively to streamline actions from the district to
the site level as efficiently as possible. The committee should consider processes that
can be changed or adjusted so that teachers are able to do their jobs as effectively as
possible with the resources needed in a timely manner. It is also important to find
ways to make district personnel accessible to staff and responsive to problems that
arise. In addition, district staff and administrators should structure meetings for
efficient dissemination of information so that decisions made can be acted upon
quickly.
Use of Resources
Staff Development and Training. The superintendent and the Assistant
Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction should work with site administrators to
develop and provide specific training on what networks are, both formal and
informal, and the different ways that they can be utilized in a school and district
setting. If possible, have teachers visit schools that are actively networking staff
together and solicit ideas about how it has been used and what benefits they have
seen.
179
Time. The superintendent and administrators should work with the school
sites to establish a set time for professional learning community time each week.
Schools can work under the direction of the district to add instructional minutes to
their day or bank minimum day time so that staff can have a common PLC time
across the district. Ideally, it would be best to have some common PLC time
throughout the year for all levels, elementary, middle, and high schools to meet
together in collaborative groups to network and share ideas and innovate. Also, the
superintendent, district administrators, and principals should utilize management
techniques at the district and site level which allow teachers to participate in both
formal and informal structures within the organization.
Technology. The school board with guidance from the superintendent and a
group of key stakeholders (teachers, parents, community members) should form a
committee to analyze their current technology levels and capacity district-wide and
determine what would be needed to upgrade their technology to create a technology
infrastructure that can allow for easier networking of staff and provide the needed
capacity for students to increase their learning opportunities and skills using the
latest technology available.
Money. The district superintendent and school board should examine ways
that funds can be obtained for the district in terms of a school bond or parcel tax to
improve the physical structures of the school campuses and provide the needed
technology to provide teachers and students with the best resources and equipment
possible to allow networking and innovation flow easily. The district superintendent
180
or assistant superintendent should actively seek out ways to build school-business
partnerships to obtained resources and technology for the schools. In addition,
district personnel can use a grant writer to help them obtain funds to provide needed
staff development opportunities or specialized training that can allow teachers to
build their knowledge and skills and share those with others.
Conclusion
The way in which Oak Park School District has been able to successfully use
networks to build lateral capacity across their school district provides an excellent
example of a district-wide reform effort that shows much promise and practical
application for other school districts. By demonstrating that changes can be made to
a district’s organizational structure and design, which is focused teacher leadership
and shared decision-making practices, they have been able to increase their
knowledge base for information and innovation to serve their students’ needs. In
addition, by moving beyond the more traditional district-wide strategic plan and
mission statement, which often is unknown or not readily used by the majority of
stakeholders, teachers, they instead developed a set of guiding moral imperatives,
with stakeholder input, that set the stage for the creation of specific district goals and
actions to be addressed collectively by all stakeholders. Moreover, they have been
able to tap into resources, both existing and new, that are available to them, to
provide increased opportunities to staff and materials that foster a positive
environment and culture for networking to flourish.
181
Although this study provides valuable information and insight into the
application of best practices using networks as part of the process for reform, more
research is needed to see how these practices can be replicated or transferred into
larger school districts that have additional challenges. In addition, research is needed
to see how a district works to sustain networking practices if top leadership, the
superintendent or other central office personnel, in the organization change, does it
still work if the foundation of teacher leadership is widespread in the district and
solid? Also, research is needed to try to extrapolate measurable outcomes for
teachers and especially students, due to increased networking practices district-wide.
There are a number of significant benefits that were identified for networking
schools together. Many of the ideas shared were cost effective as they used resources
already in existence in the district and allowed teachers to have tremendous buy-in
and say in how decisions were made that affect them all. Many of the practices noted
can be replicated, it is believed, in a larger organization if the stakeholders share a
similar vision and purpose for students and have the leadership and support to make
it a reality.
182
REFERENCES
Agranoff, R. (2003) Leveraging Networks: A guide for public managers working
across organizations. Indiana University-Bloomington, March 2003, IBM
Endowment Report for the Business of Government (check how to cite)

Ainscow, M., Muijs, D., & West, M. (2006). Collaboration as a strategy for
improving schools in challenging circumstances. Improving Schools, 9 (3),
192-202. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Aladjem, D., & Borman, K. (2006). Summary of findings from the longitudinal
evaluation of comprehensive school reform. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA: American Institutes
for Research.

Anderson, S., & Togneri, W. (2005). School district-wide reform policies in
education. In International Handbook of Educational Policy (Editors-Bascia,
Cumming, Datnow, Leithwood, Livingstone) Springer; Great Britain.

Applebaum, D. (2002). The need for district support for school reform: What
researchers say. Research brief for the National Clearinghouse for
Comprehensive School Reform, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.goodschools.gwu.edu/pubs/research/need02.pdf

Astuto, T.A., Clark, D.L., Read, A., McGree, K. and de Fernandez, L.K.P. (1993).
Challenges to dominant assumptions controlling educational reform.
Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for the Educational Improvement of the
Northeast and Islands.

Barbasi, A. (2002). Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and
what it means. New York: Plume.

Barker, R. L. (Ed.). (2003). The social work dictionary (5
th
Ed.). Washington, D.C:
National Association of Social Workers Press.Bodilly, S., Keltner, B.,
Purnell, S., Reichardt, R., & Schuyler, G. (1998). Lessons from New
American Schools’ scale-up phase. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive
school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 73 (2), 125-230.

183
Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, (1).
Retrieved from internet.

Brantle, T., & Fallah, M. (2006). Complex knowledge networks and invention
collaboration. Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey. Retrieved from
the internet on 1/21/08 from:
http://necsi.org/events/iccs6/viewpaper.php?id=69

Chapman, J. (2003). Schooling for tomorrow: Networks of learning. Networks of
Innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and systems, 41-47.
Paris: (OECD).

Chapman, C., & Allen, T. (2006). Collaborative reform for schools in difficulty.
Improving Schools, 9(3) 291-301.

Chapman, J., & Aspin, D. (2002). Networks of learning: A new construct for
educational provision and a new strategy for reform. In Davies, B. & West-
Burnham, J., (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management,
London: Pearson Publishers.

Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting
change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejar & P.D. Pearson (eds),
Review of Research in Education, p. 249-305. Washington, D.C.: AERA.

Collins, J. Good to great. NY, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Crowe, V., Noden, C., & Stott, A. (2006). Evidence from learning networks.
National College of School Leadership. Nottingham, England.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda. Phi Delta
Kappan, 74 (10), 752-762.

Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in
changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly,
41 (1), 121-153.

184
DeSeve, G.E. (2007). Creating managed networks as a response to societal
challenges. Part of Forum on Collaborative Governance from the IBM Center
for the Business of Government. Taken from internet:
http://www.businessofgovernment.org/pdfs/forum07.pdf

Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work, best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.

Eaker, R., Dufour, R. & Dufour, R. (2002). Get Started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2005). What makes a network a learning network. Cranfield,
England: National College of School Leadership

Earl, L., Katz, S. Elgie, S. Ben Jaafar, S. & Foster, L. (2006). How networked
learning communities work. Toronto, Aporia Consulting Ltd. Retrieved from
http://networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/collections/network-research-
series/reports/how-networked-learning-communitites-work.pdf

El Haj, T.A. (2003). Constructing ideas about equity from the standpoint of the
particular: Exploring the work of one urban teacher network. Teachers
College Record, 105(5), 817-845.

Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard
Educational Review, 66 (1), 1-26.

Elmore, R. (2002). Building capacity to enhance learning: A conversation with
Richard Elmore. Principal Leadership. January, 2002.

Elmore, R.F. (2004). Conclusion: The problem of stakes in performance-based
accountability systems. In S.H. Furman & R.F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning
accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Frost & Sullivan (2006). Meetings around the world: The impact of collaboration on
business performance. A white paper sponsored by Verizon Business and
Microsoft. Retrieved on 8-13-07 from:
http://newscenter.verizon.com/kit/collaboration/MAW_WP.pdf

Fullan, M., & Miles, M.B. (1992). Getting the reform right: What works and what
doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 75-752.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer.
185
Fullan, M. (2000a). The three stories of educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan,
81(8), 581-584.

Fullan, M. (2000b). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational
Change, 1, 5-28.

Fullan, M., & Sparks, D. (2003). Change agent. Journal of Staff Development, 24(1),
55-58.

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and Sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). Leading in tough times: New lessons for
districtwide reform, Center for Development and Learning, retrieved on
7/13/2007 from http://www.cdl.org/resource-
library/articles/leading_in_tough_times.php?type=subject&id=36-

Fuhrman, S.H. & Elmore, R.F. (2003). Redesigning Accountability Systems for
Education. NY: Teachers College Press.

Gajda, R. & Koliba, C. (2007). Evaluating the imperative of intraorganizational
collaboration: A school improvement perspective. American Journal of
Evaluation, 28, 1, pp.26-44.

Garvin, R.S. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review,
71(4), 78-91.

Gurbaxani, V. & Plice, R. (2004). A model of network-centric organizatons, (A
working paper) The CRITO Consortium. University of California, Irvine. CA
Retrieved from (get site)

Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: Who needs it.School leadership and Management,
23(3), 267-290.

Hadfield, M., Jopling, M., Noden, C., O’Leary, D., & Stott, A. (2005). The impact of
networking and collaboration: the existing knowledge base. Cranfield,
England: National College for School Leadership: United Kingdom.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in a knowledge society. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
186
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. London: Wiley & Son.

Hargreaves, A., & Giles, C. (2003). The knowledge society school: An endangered
entity. In Hargreaves, A. Teaching in a knowledge society: Education in the
age of insecurity. Maidenhead and Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Hargreaves, D. (2003). Working laterally: How innovation networks make an
education epidemic. Nottingham, England: DfES Publications. Retrieved July
13, 2007 from: http://demos.co.uk/workinglaterally

Hassel, B., & Steiner, L.(2000). Strategies for scale: Learning from two educational
innovations. (Occasional Paper 1-00). Harvard University, John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved on 6/12/07 from
http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/showdoc.html?id=2599

Hatch, T. (2001). Incoherence in the system: Three perspectives on the
implementation of multiple initiatives in one district. American Journal of
Education, 109, 407-437.

Honigmann, J. J. (1982). Sampling in ethnographic fieldwork. In R. G. Burgess (ed.)
Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. London: Allen & Unwin.

Hopkins, D. (2003). Understanding networks for innovation in policy and practice.
In Networks of Innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and
systems. Paris: (OECD).

Hord, S.M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous
inquiry and improvement. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.

Howes, A., & Ainscow, A. (2006). Collaboration with a city wide purpose: Making
paths for sustainable educational improvement. In M. Ainscow & M. West
(eds), Improving Urban School: Leadership and Collaboration.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.

IBM, 2006. Using collaboration to enable the innovators in your organization. IBM
Global Services, November. Part of the CIO implications series. Retrieved
from: check site http://www.-
935.IBM.com/services/us/imc/pdf/wp_using_collaboration.pdf

187
Jackson, D., & Temperley, J. (2007). From professional learning community to
networked learning community. In L. Stoll & K.S. Louis (Eds), Professional
learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Maidenhead: Open
Press University.

Kaplan, G.R., & Usdan. M.D. (1992). The changing look of education’s policy
networks. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 664-672.

Kirst, M.W., Meister, G., & Rowley, S.R. (1984). Policy issue networks: Their
influence on state policymaking. Policy Studies Journal, 13(2), 247-263.

Kruse, S. (2001). Creating communities of reform: Continuous improvement
planning teams. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 359-383.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated leaning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American education.
Teachers College Record, 98, 7-45.

Lieberman, A. (1999). Networks. Journal of Staff Development, 20 (3). National
College for School Leadership: United Kingdom.

Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities. Journal of Teacher
Education, 51(3), 221-226.

Lieberman, A. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1992). Networks for Educational Change:
Powerful and Problematic. Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (9), 673-677.

Lieberman, A. & Wood, D. (2002). From network learning to classroom teaching.
Journal of Educational Change, 3, 315-337.

Little, J.W. (1993). Professional development in a climate of reform. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.

Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
Retrieved from
http://www.doe.k12.de.us/SchoolImprovement/SI%20Resources/District%20
Role%20Building%20Capacity.pdf

McDonald, J., & Klein, E. (2003). Networking for teacher learning: Toward a theory
of effective design. Teachers College Record, 105(8), p. 1606-1621.
188
McLaughlin, M.W. (1991). The RAND change agent study: Ten years later. In A.
Odden (ed), Education Policy Implementation, p.143-155. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.

McLaughlin, M.W., & Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based
theory: Going deeper and going broader. Journal of Educational Change,
2(4), 301-323.

McLaughin, M.W., & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and
learning. Stanford, CA: Context for Teaching and Learning in Secondary
Schools.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2003).
Networks of Innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and
systems. Paris: OECD.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. (2
nd
ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. (3
rd
ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pennell, J.R., & Firestone, W. (1996). Changing classroom practice through teacher
networks: Matching program features with teacher characteristics and
circumstances. Teachers College Record, 98(1), 46-76.

Pennell, J.R., & Firestone, W. (1998). Teacher to teacher professional development
through state-sponsored networks. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 354-357.

Racine, D. (1998). Replicating programs in social markets. [On-line]. Retrieved from
http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/127_publication.pdf

Reid, K.S. (2002). Community groups looking to run Philadelphia schools,
Education Week, 6 February, 16-17.

Reihlen, M. (1996). The logic of heterarchies: Making Organizations competitive
for knowledge-based competition. Working Paper 91 presented at the II
CEMS Academic Conference at the Universita Bocconi, Milan , Italy He is a
doctoral student at University of Colonge.

189
Reeves, Douglas. (2006). Of Hubs, Bridges, and Networks. Educational Leadership,
May, 32-37.

Robertson, P.J. (1998). Interorganizational relationships: Key issues for integrated
services. In McCroskey, J. & S.D. Eidbinder, Universities and Communities:
Remaking professional and interprofessional education for the next century,
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive
instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85 (6), 424-432. Retrieved on
February 25, 2007 from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0402sch.htm

Schorr, L. (1997). Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods to
Rebuild America. New York, NY: Anchor Book Doubleday

Schon, D.A. (1973). Beyond the stable state. Public and Private learning in a
changing society, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. NY: Doubleday.

Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators,
parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N.A. (2003). Success for All: Roots & wings summary of
research on achievement outcomes. Baltimore: John Hopkins University,
Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

Sliwka, A. (2003). Networking for educational innovation: A comparative analysis,
in Networks of Innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and
systems, 49-63. Paris: OECD.

Smith, A. (2002). Social capital in school networks: Building capacity for school
improvement. Dissertation. University of Southern California.

Smith, A. & Wohlstetter, P. (2001). Reform through school networks: A new kind
of authority and accountability. Educational Policy, 15(4), 499-519.

Smylie, M. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace. In T.R. Guskey & M.
Huberman (eds), Professional development in education: New paradigms
and practices. New York: Teachers College Press.

190
Steiner, L. (2000). Comprehensive School Reform: A review of the literature on
scaling up in education. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory:
Learning Points Associates.

Stoll, L. (2004). Networked learning communities as professional learning
communities. Background paper for Aporia Consulting Ltd. expert seminar
on networked learning, San Diego.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional
leaning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational
Change, 7, 221-258.

Supovitz, J. (2002). Developing Communities of Instructional Practice. Teachers
College Record, 104(8), 1591-1626.

Talbert, J., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1994). Teacher Professionalism in Local School
Contexts. American Journal of Education, 102, 123-53.

Togneri, W. (2003). Beyond islands of excellance: What districts can do to improve
instruction and achievement in all schools-A leadership brief. Learning First
Alliance, Baltimore, MD: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Urbanski, A., & Erskine, R. (2000). School reform, TURN, and teacher
compensation. Phi Delta Kappan, January. Retrieved from
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kurb0001.htm

van Aalst, H. (2003). Networking in society, organizations and education. In
Networks of Innovation: Towards New Models for Managing Schools and
Systems, 33-40. Paris: OECD.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and
Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Synder, W.M. (2002). A guide to managing
knowledge: Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.

Wenger, E. (1998a). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. NY:
Cambridge University Press.
191
Wenger, E. (1998b). Communities of practice learning as a social system. Systems
Thinker, 9(5). Retrieved on 2/11/07 from http://www.co-i-
l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml

Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Networks: What we have learned. Paper. Center on
Educational Governance. University of Southern California.

Wohlstetter, P., & Smith, A.K. (2000). A different approach to systemic reform:
Network structures in Los Angeles. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(7), 508-515.

Wohlstetter. P., Malloy, C., Chau, D. & Polhemus, J. (2003). Improving schools
through networks: A new approach to urban reform. Educational Policy,
17(4), 399-430.

Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
192
APPENDIX A: DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Notes: I will begin the interview by sharing with the interviewee my background and
the purpose of my study. I will state that the interview will be tape recorded and later
transcribed and that their responses will be kept confidential. I will provide an
opportunity for the interviewee to make off the record comments as well if they are
so inclined if they indicate their preference as questions are asked.

Background:
1. How long have you been an administrator? How long have you held this position?
What other administrative positions have you held? How long have you worked in
this district?

2. Prior to your experience in Oak Park, have you ever worked in a school or district
that focused on networking or lateral capacity building strategies directly? What did
that look like?

History and of district’s efforts to network schools and purpose for networks:
1. Please briefly describe the history of the steps taken by the District to network
schools together.
Probe:
A. Could you be more specific about the background of current reform
efforts.
B. What prompted the shift in reform efforts?

2. How does networking fit with the district’s overall reform agenda?

3. What is the purpose of networking schools together?

Structures in place for networking schools (Sub question 1)
1. How did the district superintendent and other central office personnel prepare
staff and site based personnel to encourage their participation and openness to these
reform efforts/changes?

2. How do the district features such as: size, configuration, levels contribute to these
structures?

3. How do you, as district administrator facilitate the network process at a school
site?

4. What are the expectations for principals? What are the expectations for teachers?

193
5. What are the primary vehicles (formal and informal mechanisms) by which
networking occurs?

6. Describe a networking meeting that might occur. Who attends? When does it
happen? How often?
A. Do you give them options about use of this time, or is an agenda or some
other guidance/structure provided?
B. Do teachers provide you with minutes or other evidence of their analyses
and discussions?
C. How do you provide this time (i.e., staff meeting time, substitute release
time, etc.)

7. Do you provide teachers with on-going training in the use of networks? Describe.

8. Does someone at the district level take responsibility for the facilitation and
oversight of these networking events district-wide?
If yes: Please describe what that person does.
If no: How do these events occur?

District’s cultural influence on networking (Sub question 2)
1. How has the culture of the district changed due to networking practices? Explain.

2. What changes or outcomes have you observed since this process has been in
place?

3. What was the district like before networking?

Anticipated outcomes for networking teachers and students (Sub question 3)
1. Please tell me about your district’s performance in light of your networking
efforts, what outcomes have you observed, how has it been measured? (research
question 1, indirectly)
Probes:
• How has the district’s API progressed and have targets been met?
• To what do you attribute differences observed at the school level, are targets
being achieved more readily?
• If targets have been met/progress has been made: To what do you
attribute individual school and district growth to the network and capacity
building process?

2. What are the expected outcomes to be achieved?

3. Describe positive or negative outcomes that you have observed for students due to
this process?
194
4. Describe positive or negative outcomes that you have observed for students due to
this process?

Notes: I will conclude the interview by thanking the interviewee for his/her
time, effort and input. I will ask if I can contact them if I need to clarify answers
or ask additional follow up questions.

Research Question:
How and why do districts network schools?
Sub questions: (ask questions about these as well)
1. What structures are in place for networking schools? What district features
(e.g. size, configuration, level) contribute to these structures?
2. How does the district culture influence networking, and vice versa?
3. What are the anticipated (or realized) outcomes of networking for teachers and
students?
195
APPENDIX B: PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Notes: I will begin the interview by sharing with the interviewee my background and
the purpose of my study. I will state that the interview will be tape recorded and later
transcribed and that their responses will be kept confidential. I will provide an
opportunity for the interviewee to make off the record comments as well if they are
so inclined if they indicate their preference as questions are asked.

Background:
1. How long have you been a principal? How long have you held this position? What
other administrative positions have you held? How long have you worked in this
district?

2. Prior to your experience in Oak Park, have you ever worked in a school or district
that focused on networking or lateral capacity building strategies directly? What did
that look like?

History and of district’s efforts to network schools and purpose for networks:
1. Please briefly describe the history of the steps taken by the District to network
schools together.
Probe:
A. Could you be more specific about the background of current reform
efforts.
B. What prompted the shift in reform efforts?

2. How does networking fit with the district’s and school’s overall reform agenda?

3. What is the purpose of networking schools together?

Structures in place for networking schools (Sub question 1)
1. How did the district superintendent and other central office personnel prepare staff
and site based personnel to encourage their participation and openness to these
reform efforts/changes?

2. How do the district features such as: size, configuration, levels contribute to these
structures?

3. How do you, as site administrator facilitate the network process at a school site?

4. What are the expectations for principals? What are the expectations for teachers?

5. What are the primary vehicles (formal and informal mechanisms) by which
networking occurs?
196
6. Describe a networking meeting that might occur between this school site and other
school sites in the district, including the district office? Who attends? When does it
happen? How often?
A. Do you give them options about use of this time, or is an agenda or some
other guidance/structure provided?
B. Do teachers provide you with minutes or other evidence of their analyses
and discussions?
C. How do you provide this time (i.e., staff meeting time, substitute release
time, etc.)

7. Do you provide teachers with on-going training in the use of networks? Describe.

8. Does someone at the school site level take responsibility for the facilitation and
oversight of these networking events district-wide?
If yes: Please describe what that person does.
If no: How do these events occur?

District’s cultural influence on networking (Sub question 2)
1. How has the culture of the district changed due to networking practices? Explain.

2. How has the culture of the school change due to networking practices? Explain

3. What changes or outcomes have you observed since this process has been in
place?

4. What was the district like before networking? What was the school like before
networking?

Anticipated outcomes for networking teachers and students (Sub question 3)
1. Please tell me about your district’s performance in light of your networking
efforts, what outcomes have you observed, how has it been measured? (research
question 1, indirectly)
Probe:
a. How has the district’s API progressed and have targets been met?
b. To what do you attribute differences observed at the school level, are
targets being achieved more readily?
c. If targets have been met/progress has been made: To what do you
attribute individual school and district growth to the network and capacity
building process?

2. What are the expected outcomes to be achieved?

197
3. Describe positive or negative outcomes that you have observed for students due to
this process?

4. Describe positive or negative outcomes that you have observed for students due to
this process?

Notes: I will conclude the interview by thanking the interviewee for his/her
time, effort and input. I will ask if I can contact them if I need to clarify answers
or ask additional follow up questions.

Research Question:
How and why do districts network schools?
Sub questions: (ask questions about these as well)
1. What structures are in place for networking schools? What district features
(e.g. size, configuration, level) contribute to these structures?
2. How does the district culture influence networking, and vice versa?
3. What are the anticipated (or realized) outcomes of networking for teachers and
students?
198
APPENDIX C: TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Notes: I will begin the interview by sharing with the interviewee my background and
the purpose of my study. I will state that the interview will be tape recorded and later
transcribed and that their responses will be kept confidential. I will provide an
opportunity for the interviewee to make off the record comments as well if they are
so inclined if they indicate their preference as questions are asked.

Background:
1. How long have you been a teacher? How long have you held this position? What
grade do you teach? What other grades have you taught? How long have you worked
in this district?

2. Prior to your experience in Park, have you ever worked in a school or district that
focused on networking or lateral capacity building strategies directly? What did that
look like?

History and of district’s efforts to network schools and purpose for networks:
1. Please briefly describe the history of the steps taken by the District to network
schools together.
Probe:
A.Could you be more specific about the background of current reform efforts.
B.What prompted the shift in reform efforts?

2. How does networking fit with the district’s and school’s overall reform agenda?

3. What is the purpose of networking schools together?

Structures in place for networking schools (Sub question 1)
1. How did the district superintendent and other central office personnel prepare staff
and site based personnel to encourage their participation and openness to these
reform efforts/changes?

2. How do the district features such as: size, configuration, levels contribute to these
structures?

3. How do you, as a teacher facilitate or participate in the network process at a
school site?

4. What are the expectations for principals? What are the expectations for teachers?

5. What are the primary vehicles (formal and informal mechanisms) by which
networking occurs?
199
6. Describe a networking meeting that might occur between this school and other
sites in the district, including the district office. Who attends? When does it happen?
How often?
A. Are you given options about use of this time, or is an agenda or some
other guidance/structure provided?
B. Are you provided with minutes or other evidence of the groups analyses
and discussions?
C. How are you provided with the time to participate (i.e., staff meeting time,
substitute release time, etc.)

7. Are you provided with on-going training in the use of networks? Describe.

8. Does someone at the school site level take responsibility for the facilitation and
oversight of these networking events here? district-wide?
If yes: Please describe what that person does.
If no: How do these events occur?

District’s cultural influence on networking (Sub question 2)
1. How has the culture of the district changed due to networking practices? Explain.

2. How has the culture of the school change due to networking practices? Explain

3. What changes or outcomes have you observed since this process has been in
place?

4. What was the school like before networking? What was the district like before
networking?

Anticipated outcomes for networking teachers and students (Sub question 3)
1. Please tell me about your district’s performance in light of your networking
efforts, what outcomes have you observed, how has it been measured? (research
question 1, indirectly)
Probes:
a. How has the district’s API progressed and have targets been met?
b. To what do you attribute differences observed at the school level, are
targets being achieved more readily?
c. If targets have been met/progress has been made: To what do you
attribute individual school and district growth to the network and capacity
building process?

2. What are the expected outcomes to be achieved?

200
3. Describe positive or negative outcomes that you have observed for students due to
this process?

4. Describe positive or negative outcomes that you have observed for students due to
this process?

Notes: I will conclude the interview by thanking the interviewee for his/her
time, effort and input. I will ask if I can contact them if I need to clarify answers
or ask additional follow up questions.

Research Question:
How and why do districts network schools?
Sub questions: (ask questions about these as well)
1. What structures are in place for networking schools? What district features
(e.g. size, configuration, level) contribute to these structures?
2. How does the district culture influence networking, and vice versa?
3.What are the anticipated (or realized) outcomes of networking for teachers and
students?
201
APPENDIX D: MEETING OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
The following questions will be considered in preparation of the attendance and
observation of a district or site meeting to observe the networking process at Park. I
will take field notes of the meeting to review later and tape record, if allowed.
Questions were adapted from Merriam (1998, p.97) for elements in observation to
consider.

Physical setting:
Is the networking meeting taking place at a school site or the district?
What objects, resources, and types of technology are available in room to facilitate or
document the meeting?

Participants and Purpose: Describe who is in the scene and why
Who are the participants in the networking meeting? Is it clear why they are
networking together?

Is there a facilitator of the networking meeting or an open discussion by all
members?

Do the participants have a specific role in the networking meeting and follow up
activities?

What is the purpose of the networking meeting? Is there a set agenda or goals?

How do the people interact with each other during the networking meeting? How are
the people connected or interrelated from the school sites or district –either from the
participant’s point of view or the researcher’s point of view?

Do the participants feel this type of interaction has had a positive impact on the
culture of the district or the schools?

What norms or rules structure the networking activities and interactions?

Is it a typical activity, or unusual?
Additional questions to consider:
What is the frequency of this type of networking meeting?

Were the meeting objectives or outcomes achieved?

202
How did the participants relate and respond to one another? Free flowing dialogue
versus question/answer format?

Were documents given and utilized by members of the networking group?

Were minutes written and obtained?

Observer notes:
Plan to quote directly if possible, paraphrase or summarize.

Note silences and non-verbal behavior.
203
APPENDIX E: DATA CODES
History
Culture
Culture change
Culture openness
Culture opportunities
Culture sharing
Culture willingness
Expectations
Feature community
Feature demographic
Feature district leadership
Feature equity
Feature physical
Feature resources
Feature staff dynamics
Feature teacher leadership
Feature willingness
Leadership
Network purpose
Outcome district capacity
Outcome district leadership
Outcome students
Outcome teachers
Outcome teacher leadership
Structure formal
Structure formal time
Structure informal
Structure resources
Structure teacher leadership
Vision

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Schools and districts continue to struggle with reform efforts that are difficult to implement and hard to sustain. Based on increasing demands from NCLB the need to address the achievement gap systematically at a district-wide level versus just school by school is becoming increasingly necessary. The primary purpose of this study was to examine how and why a district deliberately uses networking to build capacity system-wide for large scale educational reform to improve instruction and student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Scaling up charter management organizations: understanding how policies, people and places influence growth

PDF

Charter schools, data use, and the 21st century: how charter schools use data to inform instruction that prepares students for the 21st century

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

An investigation of standards-based education under the auspices of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: a case study of one small rural school district

PDF

Organizational relationships in supplemental educational services (SES) and SES-type programs

PDF

How improving schools allocate resources: a case study of successful schools in one southern California urban school district

PDF

Work relations and team work in a division of Student Affairs

PDF

Making the Golden State glitter again: how the evidence based adequacy model can save struggling schools in difficult times

PDF

Parent compacts in urban charter schools: an exploration of contents and processes

PDF

Traditional and nontraditional urban school superintendents in the age of accountability

PDF

Designing school systems to encourage data use and instructional improvement: a comparison of educational organizations

PDF

A community struggling to create a charter school: a rural case study

PDF

Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement

PDF

How districts prepare site administrators for data-driven decision making

PDF

In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?

PDF

Better is as better does: resource allocation in high performing schools

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

Do we really understand what we are talking about? A study examining the data literacy capacities and needs of school leaders

PDF

How professional learning communities use student data to increase achievement

PDF

The middle college high school: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Lanphere-Ames, Teresa (author)

Core Title How and why does a district network schools?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/24/2008

Defense Date 05/01/2008

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

Tag collaboration,lateral capacity building,networking,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Datnow, Amanda (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee member)

Creator Email lanphere@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1394

Unique identifier UC1100362

Identifier etd-LanphereAmes-20080724 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-199547 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1394 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LanphereAmes-20080724.pdf

Dmrecord 199547

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lanphere-Ames, Teresa

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu