Abstract
This case study of school district educational reform in the United States adds to the knowledge base of macropolitics of federal, state and local governing bodies and private sector agencies in formulating educational policies: It also contributes to our understanding the microplitics of policy implementation. Middle managers’ political acquiescence and resistance to district-wide decentralization and distributive leadership initiatives were studied using a longitudinal, ten-year (1998–2008) case study method. Middle managers were faced with a dilemma when the school district implemented a state sponsored decentralization policy that included adoption of distributed leadership and Total Quality Management (TQM). On the one hand, middle managers risked termination if they failed to implement legislated reform policies and the superintendent’s directives. On the other hand, if they succesfully implemented such policies their positions would become redundant. Initially responses of middle managers ranged along a continuum from acquiescence to resistance however as implementation of the decentralization initiative accelerated, middle managers’ political resistance increased in scope and intensity. Findings from the case study discussed in this article that superintendent’s success at implementation of district-wide decentralization policies is related to the nature and structure of microplolitics at the middle management level of the organization. In addition, findings suggest that internal evaluation processes used to assess the success of the district change process were compromised by miropolitics. Understanding that those who implement policy have the capacity to reshape and even prevent implementation as intended by officials at higher levels may contribute to reframing program evaluation methods as well as enhancing understanding of the politics of the superintendency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ball, S. J. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. New York: Methuen.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond expectations. New York: Free.
Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. (2003). New Amerrican Schools: District and school leadership for whole school reform. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons form school reforms (pp. 109–134). Thousand Oakes: Corwin.
Björk, L. (2008). The Micropolitics of superintendent-school board relations. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), Relevancy and Revelation: The Future of School Board Governance (pp. 61–80). Lanham: R & L Education.
Björk, L., (2005a). Superintendent-Board relations: An historical overview of the dynamics of change and sources of conflict and collaboration. In Peterson, G., & Fusarreli, L. (Eds.). The district superintendent and school board relations: Trends in policy development and implementation, (pp. 1–22). Information Age Publisher, Inc.
Björk, L. (2005b). The politics of school governance. In J. Hoyle, L. Björk, V. Collier & T. Glass (Eds.), The superintendent as ceo: Standards-based performance (pp. 35–58). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Björk, L. (2001a). Institutional barriers to educational reform: A superintendent’s role in district decentralization. In C. C. Brunner & L. Björk (Eds.), The new superintendency (pp. 205–228). Amsterdam: JAI Elsevier Science Ltd.
Björk, L. (2001b). The role of the central office in decentralization. In T. Kowalski & G. Perreault (Eds.), 21 st century challenges for school administrators (pp. 286–309). Lanham: Scarecrow.
Björk, L. (2000). The transformative role of superintendents: Creating a community of learners. In P. Short & J. Scribner (Eds.), Case studies on the superintendency (pp. 41–60). Lancaster: Technomic.
Björk, L., Kowalski, T., & Young, M. (2005). National reports and implications for professional preparation and development. In L. Björk & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 45–70). Thousand Oakes: Corwin.
Blase, J. (1991). (Ed.). The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Blase, J. (1998). The micropolitics of educational change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 544–557). Great Britain: Kluwer.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). The micropolitics of instructional supervision: A call for research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 6–44.
Blase, J. & Björk, L. (2009). Micropolitics of Educational Change and Reform: Cracking open the black box. (pp). 2 nd Handbook of Research on Educational Change.
Bondy, E., Ross, D., & Webb, R. (1994, April). The dilemmas of school restructuring and improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Boyd, W. L. (1991). Foreword. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. vii–ix). Newbury Park: Sage.
Brinkman, L (1987). The functions of program theory. In Brinkman, L. Using theory in program evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, no. 33 (Spring 1987). Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Cibulka, J. G. (2001). The changing role of interest groups in education: Nationalization and the new politics of education productivity. Educational Policy, 15(1), 12–40.
Conley, D. (1996). Are you ready to restructure? A guidebook for educators, parents, and community members. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Denzin, N. (1970). The research act. Chicago: Aldine.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Duke, D. (2004). The challenges of educational change. Pearson-Allyn and Bacon: Boston.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington: The Albert Shankar Institute.
Filstead, W. J. (1979). Qualitative Methods: A Needed Perspective in Evaluation Research. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oakes: Corwin.
Glaser, B. G., & Stauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 46–72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hoffman, L., & Burrello, L. (2004). A case study illustration of how a critical theorist and a consummate practitioner meet on common ground. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(2), 28–289.
Honig, M. (2003). Building policy form practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative educational policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292–338.
Kowalski, T. (2006). The school superintendent: Theory, practice and cases. Thousand Oakes: Sage.
Laswell, H. (1990). Who gets what, when and how. New Haven: Yale University.
Mawhinney, H. B. (1999). Reappraisal: The problems and prospects of studying the micropolitics of leadership in reforming schools. School leadership & Management, 19(2), 159–170.
Murphy, J. (1990) (Ed.). The Educational reform movement of the 1980’s: Perspectives and cases. Berkeley: McCutchan.
Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2003). Leadership lessons form comprehensive school reforms. Thousand Oakes: Corwin.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport: Praeger.
Rusch, E. (2005). Institutional barriers to organizational learning in schools systems: The power of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 83–120.
Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scriven, M. (1993). Hard-won lessons in program evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, no. 58 (Summer1993). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Skrla, L., Reyes, P., & Scheurich, J. (2000). Sexism, silence, and solutions. Gaining access to the superintendency: Head hunting, gender, and color. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 44–75.
Smylie, M. A., & Crowson, R. L. (1993, April). Principal assessment under restructured governance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Weiss, C. (1972). Evaluation research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Björk, L.G., Blase, J. The micropolitics of school district decentralization. Educ Asse Eval Acc 21, 195–208 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-009-9078-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-009-9078-y