Journal of Educational Change

, 10:295 | Cite as

External efforts at district-level reform: The case of the National Alliance for Restructuring Education



Non-government interveners have been at the forefront of school-level change for over a decade, yet little is known about their capacity to foster change at the district level. This paper develops a theoretical frame for analyzing district-level intervention and applies it to the National Alliance for Restructuring Education. The frame highlights three factors that are salient for reformers’ efforts to enhance district capability: (1) a design for change that elaborates goals, processes, and the overall change process; (2) the social and political environments that shape interveners’ capacity to sustain effective district-level intervention; and (3) the capability of the intervener’s own organization. Applying this frame to the National Alliance for Restructuring Education, a district and state-level intervention that was active in the 1990s, reveals a fundamental dilemma that district-level interveners must manage in order to sustain their efforts. Designs that provide more intensive guidance are more potent instruments for improving districts, but designs that are less detailed place far less pressure on the intervener organization by requiring less human and fiscal resources. A consequence of this is that the logic of improving districts and the logic of organizational survival can be in direct conflict with one another.


District intervention Design Reform 


  1. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, W. M. (1979). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. 8. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  2. Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools’ scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  3. Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2005). Promoting a management revolution in public education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School and Harvard Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2006). Educational innovation and the problem of scale. In B. L. Schneider, & S.K. McDonald (Eds.), Scale up in education: Vol. 1: Ideas in principle. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, D. K., Gates, K., Goldin, S., Glazer, J. L., & Peurach, D. J. (2008). Improvement by Design. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  6. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reforms be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 3(72), 433–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 96–124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997a). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. New York: Teachers College Columbia University.Google Scholar
  9. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved January 18, 2008, from
  10. Glazer, J. L. (2005). Educational professionalism: The development of a practice-centered frame and its application to the America’s Choice School Design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  11. Hightower, A. M. (2002). San Diego’s big boom: District bureaucracy supports culture of learning. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, Document R-02–2. University of Washington.Google Scholar
  12. Jehl, J., & Payzant, T. W. (1992). Philanthropy and public school reform: A view from San Diego. Teachers College Record, 93(9), 472–487.Google Scholar
  13. Jennings, J., & Renter, D. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 2(88), 110–113.Google Scholar
  14. Kronley, R. A. (2000). Learning from each other: Questions and answers about the Clark, Panasonic and Rockefeller foundations’ long-term investments in comprehensive education reform. Grantmakers for Education.Google Scholar
  15. Kronley, R. A. (2004). The Panasonic Foundation and school reform: 20 years of corporate commitment. The Panasonic Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Kronley, R. A., & Handley, C. (2003). Reforming relationships: School districts, external organizations, and systemic change. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, A. (1994). Systemic reform in action: Case studies from the National Center on Education and the Economy. Rochester, New York: National Center on Education and the Economy.Google Scholar
  18. Madda, C. L., Halverson, R. R. &, L. M. (2007). Exploring coherence as an organizational resource for carrying out reform initiatives. Teachers College Press, 109:8, 1957–1979.Google Scholar
  19. May, H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2006). Capturing the cumulative effects of school reform: An 11-year study of the impacts of America’s Choice on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Alliance for Restructuring Education. (1990). Proposal for core support. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.Google Scholar
  21. National Alliance for Restructuring Education. (1991). A Proposal to the new American schools development corporation. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.Google Scholar
  22. National Alliance for Restructuring Education. (1992). Schools—and systems- for the 21st Century. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.Google Scholar
  23. Patel, V. L., & Kaufman, D. R. (1995). Clinical reasoning and biomedical knowledge: Implications for teaching. In J. Higgs, & M. Jones (Eds.), Clinical reasoning in the health professions (pp 117–128). Oxford, England: Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  24. Peurach, D. J. (2005). Designing and managing comprehensive school reform: The case of Success for All. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  25. Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3–4), 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Barnes, C.A. (2004). Benefiting from comprehensive school reform: A review of research on CSR implementation. In C. Cross (Ed.), Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research. Washington DC: NCCSR.Google Scholar
  27. Rowan, B., & Miller, R. (2006). Organizing schools for instructional improvement: A longitudinal study of three CSR models. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco: CA.Google Scholar
  28. Spillane, J. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies and programs. Teachers College Record, (104)3. Retrieved January 16, 2008, from
  29. Spillane, J., & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local educations agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(19), 185–203.Google Scholar
  30. Teitel, L. (2005). Supporting school system leaders: The state of effective training programs for school superintendents. Working Papers Center for Public Leadership, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  31. Tucker, M. (2004). Reaching for coherence in school reform: The case of America’s Choice. In K. Glennan, S. J. Bodilly, J. R. Galegher & K. A. Kerr (Eds.), Expanding the reach of education reforms: What have we learned about scaling up educational interventions? Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Rothschild FoundationAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations