UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

7. Course Purpose/Catalog Description: Purpose and scope of administration, schools of thought in administration, processes of administration, and functions of administration.

8. Teachers Academy Conceptual Framework Mission Statement: The mission of professional education at UNCG is to prepare and support the professional development of caring, collaborative, and competent educators who work in diverse settings. This mission is carried out in an environment that nurtures the active engagement of all participants, values individual as well as cultural diversity and recognizes the importance of reflection and integration of theory and practice. UNCG's professional education programs are guided by shared commitments to: (a) equity and excellence in teaching, research, and service; (b) professional integrity and ethical deliberation in dealing with students and colleagues (university-based, school-based, and community-based); (c) the construction of a professional knowledge base through collaboration and collegiality; and (d) the dissemination of professional knowledge, skills and dispositions through the preparation and continuing professional development of teachers, principals and other school personnel.

9. Course Goals and/or Objectives/Student Learning Outcomes: Instructor's statement of learning outcomes OR goals/objectives from state or national professional standards (please identify the organization, e.g. DPI, CEC, etc.)

Schools are one of the most common and enduring types of formal organization in American public life. To work effectively in and with schools, especially in the role of administrator, it is important to be able to see deeply into how and why schools are organized as they are and how they could be different. Thus, in this course, we will think carefully and critically about schools as organizations. We will use key analytical and theoretical perspectives to address practical issues and problems in the organization and administration of public schooling. We will focus especially closely on the experiences that persons from diverse backgrounds have in schools and how schools could be organized more effectively for these persons.

The primary goal for this course is to help students become more interested in and adept at observing, interpreting, and managing organizational and administrative problems in schools, in order to help schools meet the needs of the students who learn in them, the teachers who work in them, and the broader society that relies on them. By developing fuller understandings of present conditions in schools, and by imagining possible futures for schools, students will be invited to create their own approach to administrative practice.

10. Teaching Strategies: lecture, class discussion, group work, conferences, student presentations, electronic chat room, etc.

11. Evaluation Methods and Guidelines for Assignments:

Course grades will be determined as follows: organizational analysis of a school case -- 50%; diversity case analysis – 30%; class participation -- 20%. Your course grade, and the overall success of the course, will depend upon a high level of group and individual participation in the following activities.

Readings and Related Class Activities

A significant component of our work together is our collective encounter with the assigned readings. The readings are an important class resource, and they deserve your careful attention. Students should be prepared to read the journal articles and book chapters prior to the sessions for which they are listed, to develop questions and commentary on the readings, to reflect on experiences in their own backgrounds which relate to the readings, and to be actively engaged in class discussions and activities pertaining to the readings.

Part of your grade will be based on your class participation. For this I am looking for steady attendance, evidence that you have indeed read the assignments, and your contributions to class discussions and other activities.

School Organizational Analysis

In this course, you will have the opportunity to explore organizational dynamics in schools through the study of cases. We will have multiple opportunities in class to read brief case studies of schools, to analyze them, and to consider implications for administrative practice.

Each student will also write an original, extended organizational analysis of a school case. For this assignment, you will choose a school with which you are familiar and present a thorough description and analysis of how it works as an organization and how it could be improved. Although you should use true information from a real school, the case write-up should be anonymous, so that the identities of the school and its personnel cannot be determined by a typical reader.

The case description and analysis should include at least the following components (total length should be about 20-30 pages):

§ A very general introductory description of the school – type of school, location, brief history, number of students and staff, other descriptive information

§ A general description of the school’s performance and a general assessment of the school’s strengths and weaknesses (or successes and problems), using ABC data, school attendance and dropout figures, your own impressions of the school, parent or student comments, and so on

§ A description and analysis of the goals and purposes of the school

§ A description and analysis of the structural dimensions of the school

§ A description and analysis of the human resource dimensions of the school

§ A description and analysis of the political dimensions of the school

§ A description and analysis of the cultural dimensions of the school

§ A description and analysis of the school’s relationships to its external environment(s)

§ A summary discussion of suggestions for improving the school, including an action plan that might guide the work of the school’s administrator

The case will be written in stages. You will write each section after the topic has been discussed in class, and you will have the opportunity to receive feedback on your drafts from the instructor and/or other students.

It is important for you to remember that you should provide evidence and justification for all of the comments and analyses you include in your case. Available data and written records from your school, interviews with school personnel, and observations you make can be used as sources of information. It would be helpful if you included various formal documents in your report, for example summary tables of ABC test scores for the school. (These documents will not count towards the suggested page length of the report, however.) Impressionistic opinions generally do not offer sufficient warrant for the depth of analysis you will need to provide in your case.

This assignment is intended to articulate with assignments in other courses in the MSA core sequence, to help you integrate what you learn in separate courses. If you are enrolled in Dr. Williamson’s course on the principalship, you may use the school culture analysis which he assigns as part of your case analysis (provided, of course, that you are writing about the same school). If you enroll in ELC 694 (Organization and Governance of Public Education) next term with Dr. Riehl, you will be able to combine this term’s organizational analysis with the governance/policy analysis for that course, to produce a comprehensive school case analysis.

Each component of the organizational analysis, and the overall assignment, will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

Evaluative Criteria for School Organizational Analysis

Criterion	High Quality Work	Low Quality Work
Choice of case	There is much evidence that you have thought carefully about how this school could help you examine and understand organizational dynamics	It appears that you are writing about this school merely because you have some familiarity with it
Range and depth of observations made in description and analysis	In each section of the report, you have covered all of the most significant aspects of the topic and have made many relevant and insightful observations about the school	You have provided just one or two examples for each section of the case analysis
Reliance upon strong evidence and logical justification	You have used empirical data (reports, observations, interviews, etc.) as a firm basis for your comments and analysis, and have built an argument about the school using clear and reasonable logic.	You have provided scant evidence to justify your comments and analysis, and have written only a sketchy, impressionistic account of the school.
Connection of your own reflections on the school with the concepts and issues talked about in class	You use terms, concepts, and frameworks gleaned from class readings and discussions, in ways that show you have thought deeply about them. There is evidence of an ongoing interaction or conversation in your own mind between what you are doing in class and what you are observing in your school.	Your use of terms, concepts, and frameworks from class is limited, perfunctory, and not very thoughtful.
Creativity and integrity of the final analysis and suggestions for change	You have gone beyond merely reporting on what you see and what you read; you have truly integrated the two and added your own creative and thoughtful insights to your analysis	Your analysis and suggestions for change are limited in scope and not very inventive or exciting.
Quality of the writing	You have made proper use of spelling and grammar, and proper use of the APA format for reference citations. Your case study is clearly organized and persuasive; you have a logical flow of sentences and paragraphs, and evidence of attention to the musicality of the language	Your paper has spelling or grammar errors, shows a lack of organization, doesn’t flow smoothly from one idea or section to the next. You have not cited your references properly.
Overall quality of the case study	Your case study gives a general impression that you know what you’re talking about and have expressed it well	Your paper just doesn’t seem to shine.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

College of Education

ELC 691: Principles of Administration

Professor Carolyn Riehl

Evaluation Form for School Organizational Analysis

Student: _______________________________________

Criteria

Poor

Avg.

Very Good

Choice of a rich and appropriate case

Range and depth of observations made in description and analysis

Reliance upon strong evidence and logical justification

Connection of your own reflections on the school with the concepts and issues talked about in class

Creativity and integrity of the final analysis and suggestions for change

Quality of the writing

Overall grade for the case study

Comments:

Diversity Case Analysis

Each student will also prepare a shorter analysis (about 8-10 pages) of their school that specifically addresses the issue of diversity. This analysis will focus on the experiences of a particular individual or group within the school, how the school organization contributes to those experiences, and how the organizational dynamics could be altered so that the educational experiences of the individual or group might be improved.

For this assignment, you will choose a particular person or group to study, preferably one who is different in important ways from you. (Ideally, the person or group will be situated in the same school you used for your organizational case analysis.) You will describe that person/group’s experiences in school, drawing primarily on their own perspective but adding some of your own. To do this, you will need to talk with them, their teachers, their parents, and any others who can help you gain an “insider” perspective on their experiences. It might also be helpful for you to hang out with them for a while, to observe their life in school and try to see it from their vantage point. You will also report on your own perspective, based on your observations and impressions, and on any “objective” information you may have such as test scores or grades. In this section, you may include discussion of topics such as:

· Who is this person (or group)? What are they like? How do they see themselves?

· How does the school see this student/group, and their particular qualities?

· How is the student’s home culture related to the school?

· What learning resources does the student have access to – special teachers, special curriculum, etc.? What learning tasks does the student get to do?

· How well is this student doing in school? How aware is the school of the student’s progress? How does the school assess this student’s performance?

· What is the quality of the student’s relationships and experiences with teachers, other students like and unlike herself, other school staff, etc.?

· Does the student have friends?

· Does the student participate in extra-curricular activities?

· How does the student experience the authority system of the school; is the student frequently punished, etc.?

· How does the student “fit in” to the school, and why?

Then, with this information in mind, you will do an organizational analysis of the school. How do the school’s purposes and goals, structural features, human resource dimension, political dynamics, and culture influence what happens to this student? You will conclude with suggestions for change. How could the school organization be altered to help provide a more effective education for the student?

It is very important that you write this diversity case analysis anonymously, protecting the identity of the individual and/or group of students you discuss.

This assignment will be graded according to criteria similar to the larger case analysis, using the following rating sheet.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

College of Education

ELC 691: Principles of Administration

Professor Carolyn Riehl

Evaluation Form for Diversity Case Analysis

Student:_______________________________________

Criteria

Poor

Avg.

Very Good

Choice of an appropriate and significant group/person to study

Range and depth of observations about the student/group and their experiences in the school

Range and depth of observations about the organizational dynamics of the school and how they affect the student/group

Reliance upon strong evidence and logical justification

Connection of your own reflections on the school with the concepts and issues talked about in class

Creativity and integrity of the final analysis and suggestions for change

Quality of the writing

Overall grade for the diversity case study

Comments:

12. Required Text(s)/Readings/References: Use full citations

There is a coursepack of readings, available at Copy Postal One (801 W. Lee Street, in the mini-mall just east of Tate Street). Their telephone number is 273-0644. There are also two required books, available at the University Bookstore or from an online vendor:

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1995). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Earle, Jason, and Kruse, Sharon. (1999). Organizational literacy for educators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

13. Topical Outline: This might also be your calendar. The course outline should contain sufficient detail to permit assessment of agreement between actual content and stated objectives and catalog description.

Weekly Schedule

Week 1 (August 22): Course Introduction and Overview

Key Questions:

§ What are some important questions regarding how schools are organized and administered and how they could be changed?

§ When you look at a school, what do you “see”?

§ How does skill in organizational analysis fit into the North Carolina school administrator competencies?

Recommended Readings:

Schlechty, Phillip C., & Joslin, Anne Walker. (1984). Images of schools. Teachers College Record, 86(1), 156-170.

Morgan, Gareth. (1997). Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Grant, David, & Oswick, Cliff. (Eds.) (1996). Metaphor and organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Week 2 (August 29): The School's Foundation: Purpose and Task

Key Questions:

What starting point would you use for designing and administering an exemplary school? Why?

Can you articulate your foundational ideas and ideals to others?

What should the tasks of teaching and learning look like in public schools?

If schools are intended to be places of education and socialization, what does this imply about their core tasks?

Note: For today's class, bring in your favorite resources and ideas about the core tasks of schooling.

Readings:

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1995). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chapter 4: "Teaching and Learning for Understanding," pp. 96-147.

Ohanian, Susan. (2000). Goals 2000: What’s in a name? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 345-355.

Greene, Maxine. (1995). Art and imagination: Reclaiming the sense of possibility. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(5), 378-382.

Recommended Readings:

Greene, Maxine. (1986). In search of a critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 427-441.

Meier, Deborah. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press. Chapters 6-10.

Marx, Ronald W., Blumenfeld, Phyllis C., Krajcik, Joseph S., & Soloway, Elliot. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341-358.

Rowan, Brian. (1990). Applying conceptions of teaching to organizational reform. In Richard F. Elmore and Associates. (1990). Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform (pp. 31-58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

May, 1999 issue of The Elementary School Journal. Theme issue on non-subject-matter outcomes of schooling.

Newmann, Fred M., & Wehlage, Gary G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Joseph Murphy. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press.

Starratt, Robert J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in schools. Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.

Brown, Ann L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-12.

John Seely Brown, Allan Collins, and Paul Duguid. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Andrew C. Porter. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9-15.

Battistich, Victor, Watson, Marilyn, Solomon, Daniel, Lewis, Catherine, & Schaps, Eric. (1999). Beyond the three R's: A broader agenda for school reform. Elementary School Journal, 99(5), 415-432.

Elmore, Richard F., and Associates. (1990). Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Week 3 (September 5): The School's Foundation: Purpose and Task (cont’d.)

Key Questions:

§ How might schools be designed around the needs of different students?

§ How might you incorporate more than academics into a school’s purpose?

Readings:

Nieto, Sonia. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational Review, 64(4), 392-426. (Reprinted in Working together toward reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review, 1996).

Smyth, John. (2000). Reclaiming social capital through critical teaching. Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 491-511.

Recommended Readings:

Starratt, Robert J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185-202.

Week 4 (September 12): Core Dimensions of Organizations; The Metaphor of Bureaucracy; The School as a Bureaucratic Organization

Key Questions:

What images or metaphors best capture what American public schools are like? How are these images helpful to school administrators?

What is an organization?

What are the essential features of organizations?

What are the different kinds of organizations?

What are the typical features of a bureaucratic organization? Does this portrait fit schools?

How does a professional organization differ from other forms of bureaucracy?

Readings:

Earle, Jason, and Kruse, Sharon. (1999). Organizational literacy for educators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Chapter 1 (Organizational literacy and social patterns) and Chapter 2 (Bureaucratic social patterns and schools).

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1995). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chapters 1-3, focusing especially on Chapter 2: "The Limits of the Education Bureaucracy," pp. 37-68.

Recommended Readings:

Bolman, Lee G., & Deal, Terrence E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chapters 1-2.

Oakes, Jeannie. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 12-21.

House, Ernest R. (1981). Three perspectives on innovation: Technological,

political, and cultural. In Rolf Lehming and Michael Kane (Eds.), Improving

schools: Using what we know (pp. 17-41). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Callahan, Raymond E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Week 5 (September 19): The Metaphor of Community; The School as a Communal Organization

Key questions:

What are the essential features of a communal organization and a community? Do these portraits fit schools?

How are the core dimensions of organizations reflected in communal organizations?

How can the different models of organization co-exist in productive tension?

Is it possible for schools to shift from one dominant organizational model to another?

Readings:

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. (1994). Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 214-226.

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chapter 3.

Recommended Readings:

Westheimer, Joel. (1999). Communities and consequences: An inquiry into ideology and practice in teachers' professional work. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 71-105.

Deborah Meier. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press. Chapters 1-5.

Westheimer, Joel. (1998). Among school teachers: community, autonomy, and ideology in teachers' work. New York: Teachers College Press

February, 1999 issue of Educational Administration Quarterly. Theme issue on school as community.

Furman, Gail C. (1998). Postmodernism and community in schools: Unraveling the paradox. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 298-328.

Timperley, Helen S., & Robinson, Viviane M. J. (1998). Collegiality in schools: Its nature and implications for problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(Supplement), 608-629.

Westheimer, Joel, & Kahne, Joseph. (1993). Building school communities: An experience-based model. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 324-328.

Stinchcombe, Arthur L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In James G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142-193). Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.

Bryk, Anthony S., & Driscoll, Mary E. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual influences and consequences for students and teachers. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Week 6 (September 26): Organizational Structure

Key Questions:

How can schools be designed to accomplish their tasks effectively?

How might administrators recognize and help solve structural-technical problems in schools?

What patterns of school organization and administration have we inherited from the past?

Can and should these patterns be changed?

Readings:

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1995). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chapters 5 and 6.

Stevenson, Harold W., & Stigler, James W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Simon & Schuster. Chapters 7 and 9.

Hornbeck, David. (2000). Service-learning and reform in the Philadelphia Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 665.

Weah, Wokie, Simmons, Verna Cornelia, & Hall, McClellan. (2000). Service-learning and multicultural/multiethnic perspectives: From diversity to equality. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 673-675.

Maguire, Sue. (2000). A community school. Educational Leadership, 57(6), 18-21.

Klonsky, Susan, & Klonsky, Michael. (1999). Countering anonymity through small schools. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 38-41.

Little, Thomas S., & Dacus, Nannette B. (1999). Looping: Moving up with the class. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 42-45.

Schnitzer, Denise K., & Caprio, Michael J. (1999). Academy rewards. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 46-48.

Zahorik, John A. (1999). Reducing class size leads to individualized instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 50-53.

Fashola, Okatokunbo S., & Slavin, Robert E. (1998). Schoolwide reform models: What works? Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 370-379.

Recommended Readings:

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chapter on the German school.

Wood, George H. (1992). Schools that work: America’s most innovative public education programs. New York: Dutton.

Introduction to the December, 1997 issue of Educational Administration Quarterly; theme issue on what will replace the comprehensive high school.

Odden, Allan. (2000). The costs of sustaining educational change through comprehensive school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 433-438.

Bolman, Lee G., & Deal, Terrence E.. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Chapters 3-5.

Berends, Mark, & King, M. Bruce. (1994). A description of restructuring in nationally nominated schools: Legacy of the iron cage? Educational Policy, 8(1), 28-50.

Weick, Karl E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.

Rowan, Brian, Raudenbush, Stephen W., & Cheong, Yuk Fai. (1993). Teaching as

a nonroutine task: Implications for the management of schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 479-500.

Mason, DeWayne A., & Stimson, Janet. (1996). Combination and nongraded classes: Definitions and frequency in twelve states. Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 439-452.

Siskin, Leslie Santee, & Little, Judith Warren. (Eds.). (1995). The subjects in question: Departmental organization and the high school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Siskin, Leslie Santee. (1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 134-160.

Monk, David H. (1996). Resource allocation for education: An evolving and promising base for policy-oriented research. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 216-242.

Stockard, Jean, & Mayberry, Maralee. (1990). School environments and student achievement: Toward a framework for understanding environmental influences. Advances in Research and Theories of School Management and Educational Policy, 1, 123-150.

Hedberg, Bo, Nystrom, Paul, & Starbuck, William. (1976). Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 41-65.

Week 7 (October 3): Human Resources in Organizations

Key Questions:

How can schools promote the meaningful participation of teachers, students, and others who are part of the school?

What organizational issues are raised by efforts to increase teacher professionalism in schools?

What can school principals, department chairs, and other educational administrators do to promote teacher development and high-quality teaching?

Readings:

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1995). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chapter 9.

Kruse, Sharon, Louis, Karen Seashore, & Bryk, Anthony. (1994). Building professional community in schools. Issues in Restructuring Schools, Issue Report No. 6, pp. 3-6. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Lieberman, Ann. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 591-596.

Wineburg, Sam, & Grossman, Pam. (1998). Creating a community of learners among high school teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 350-353.

Bridges, Edwin M. (1992). The incompetent teacher: Managerial responses. Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Chapter 6.

Recommended Readings:

Newmann, Fred M., Wehlage, Gary G., and Lamborn, Susie D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In Fred M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). New York: Teachers College Press.

Bolman, Lee G., & Deal, Terrence E.. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chapters 6-8.

Watson, Robert S. (1994). The role of professional development in restructuring schools. Journal of Staff Development, 15(2), 24-27.

Louis, Karen Seashore, Kruse, Sharon D., and Associates. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Talbert, Joan E. (1996). Primacy and promise of professional development in the nation's education reform agenda: Sociological views. In Kathryn M. Borman, Peter W. Cookson, Jr., Alan R. Sadovnik, and Joan Z. Spade (Eds.), Implementing educational reform: Sociological perspectives on educational policy (pp. 283-311). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Wagner, Jon. (1997). Discourse innovations in a restructuring elementary school: Perspectives on linking research and practice. Elementary School Journal, 97(3), 271-292.

Little, Judith Warren. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340.

Little, Judith Warren. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.

Richardson, Virginia. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10-18.

Richardson, Virginia. (1992). The agenda-setting dilemma in a constructivist staff development process. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3), 287-300.

Hamilton, Mary Lynn, & Richardson, Virginia. (1995). Effects of the culture in two schools on the process and outcomes of staff development. Elementary School Journal, 95(4), 367-85.

Popkewitz, Thomas S., & Lind, K. (1989). Teacher incentives as reforms: Teachers' work and the changing control mechanism in education. Teachers College Record, 90, 575-594.

October 10: Fall Semester Break. No Class.

Week 8 (October 17): Politics in Organizations

Key Questions:

What micro political processes influence schools and their members?

What macro political processes influence schools as organizations?

How can educational administrators harness political resources in constructive ways to improve schools?

Readings:

Earle, Jason, and Kruse, Sharon. (1999). Organizational literacy for educators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Chapter 3: Political social patterns and schools.

Wells, Amy Stuart, and Serna, Irene. (1996). The politics of culture: Understanding local political resistance to detracking in racially mixed schools. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 93-118. (Reprinted in Working together toward reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review, 1996).

Recommended Readings:

Bolman, Lee G., & Deal, Terrence E.. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chapters 9-11.

Marshall, Catherine. (1991). The chasm between administrator and teacher cultures: A micropolitical puzzle. In Joseph Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 139-160). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Ball, Stephen J. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Toward a theory of school organization. New York: Methuen.

Blase, Joseph, & Anderson, Gary L. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dunlap, Diane M., & Goldman, P. (1991). Rethinking power in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(1), 5-29.

Lieberman, Ann. (1988). Teachers and principals: Turf, tension, and new tasks. Phi Delta Kappan, 648-653.

Elmore, Richard F. (1987). Reform and the culture of authority in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(4), 60-78.

Smylie, Mark A., & Brownlee-Conyers, Jean. (1992). Teacher leaders and their principals: Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 150-84.

Smylie, Mark A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision making: Assessing willingness to participate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 14(1), 53-67.

Smylie, Mark A., & Denny, Jack W. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 235-59.

Bacharach, Samuel B., & Mundell, Bryan L. (1993). Organizational politics in schools: Micro, macro, and logics of action. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 423-452.

Week 9 (October 24): Organizational Culture

Key Questions:

What is the internal culture of a school?

How does school culture affect school members?

How does school culture influence technical processes in schools?

How do schools relate to the wider social and cultural environment?

What can administrators do to improve school culture?

Readings:

Firestone, William A., & Louis, Karen Seashore. (1999). Schools as cultures. In Joseph Murphy and Karen Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration, 2^nd ed. (pp. 297-322). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Earle, Jason, and Kruse, Sharon. (1999). Organizational literacy for educators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Chapter 4: Communal social patterns and schools.

Recommended Readings:

Maehr, Martin L., Midgley, Carol, & Urdan, Timothy. (1992). School leader as motivator. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 410-429.

Bolman, Lee G. & Deal, Terrence E.. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Chapters 12-14.

Firestone, William A., & Wilson, Bruce L. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improve instruction: The principal's contribution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 7-30.

Acker, Joan. (1992). Gendering organizational theory. In A. Mills and P.

Tancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (pp. 248-260). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publications.

Week 10 (October 31): – Consolidating the Organizational Analysis

· Class will not meet

· Use this time for independent work

Week 11 (November 7): Organizational Environments; Organizational Sensemaking

Key questions:

How can schools be understood as "cognitive accomplishments"?

· What are the key dimensions of schools’ relationships with their external environment?

How can school leaders influence the way persons make sense of school?

Readings:

Tyack, David, & Tobin, William. (1994). The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479.

Recommended Readings:

Metz, Mary Haywood. (1990). Real school: A universal drama amid disparate experience. In D. E. Mitchell and M. E. Goertz (Eds.), Education Politics for the New Century (pp. 75-91). London: Falmer Press.

Weiss, Carol H. (1995). The four "I's" of school reform: How interests, ideology, information, and institution affect teachers and principals. Harvard Educational Review, 65(4), 571-592.

Tyack, David, & Cuban, Larry. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of educational reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weick, Karl E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Weick, Karl E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652.

Weick, Karl E. (1996). Fighting fires in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(4), 565-578.

Meyer, John W., & Rowan, Brian. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.

Meyer, J. W., and B. Rowan. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. W. Meyer (Ed.), Environments and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey‑Bass, 1978.

Meyer, Marshall W., & Zucker, Lynne G. (1989). Permanently failing organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Week 12 (November 14): Creating Pluralistic and Inclusive Schools: Introduction, Purposes and Goals

Key questions:

What are our schools really doing to different students?

Readings:

Earle, Jason, and Kruse, Sharon. (1999). Organizational literacy for educators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Chapter 5 (Patterns of inequality: Earlier critical approaches to schooling) and Chapter 6 (Patterns of inequality: More recent critical approaches to schooling).

Farrell, Edwin. (1990). Hanging in and dropping out: Voices of at-risk high school students. New York: Teachers College Press. Chapter 7: Boredom.

Friend, Richard A. (1993). Choices, not closets: Heterosexism and homophobia in schools. In Lois Weis & Michele Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools (pp. 209-235). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Recommended readings:

Earle, Jason, and Kruse, Sharon. (1999). Organizational literacy for educators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Chapter 7 (Patterns of inequality: Feminist approaches to schooling).

Week 13 (November 21): Creating Pluralistic and Inclusive Schools: Structure and Human Resources

Key questions:

How can schools be organized differently to accommodate diverse students?

Readings:

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory into Practice, 31(4), 312-320.

Knapp, Michael S., & Associates. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Chapters 1 and 2.

Pinar, William F. (1993). Notes on understanding curriculum as a racial text. In Cameron McCarthy and Warren Crichlow (Eds.), Race, identity, and representation in education (pp. 60-70). New York: Routledge.

Lawrence, Sandra M., & Tatum, Beverly Daniel. (1997). White educators as allies: Moving from awareness to action. In Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, Linda C. Powell, and L. Mun Wong (Eds.), Off white: Readings on race, power, and society (pp. 333-342).

Recommended Readings:

Delpit, Lisa D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298.

Foster, Michele. (1995). African American teachers and culturally relevant pedagogy. In James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (pp. 570-581). New York: Macmillan.

Louis, Karen Seashore, & Smith, BetsAnn. (1992). Cultivating teacher engagement: Breaking the iron law of social class. Chapter 5 (pp. 119-152) in Fred M. Newmann (Ed.), Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Week 14 (November 28): Creating Pluralistic and Inclusive Schools: Culture and Politics, Environment

Key questions:

· What can principals do to promote pluralistic and inclusive schooling?

Readings:

Riehl, C. (2000). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1).

Lipka, Jerry, & McCarty, Teresa L. (1994). Changing the culture of schooling:

Navajo and Yup'ik cases. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 25(3),

266-284.

Kingston, Maureen A. (1993). "Ante up": The essential ingredient for social

change. Urban Education, 27(4), 413-429.

Week 15 (December 5): Wrap-Up and Course Evaluation

Recommended Readings:

Greenfield, William D., Jr. (1995). Toward a theory of school administration: The centrality of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 61-85.

Brouillette, Liane. (1997). Revisiting an innovative high school: What happens when the principal leaves? Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(Supplement), 546-575.

14. Other Information: Any other items you normally include on your course syllabus such as Academic Honor Code, Attendance Policy, Additional Requirements, etc.

Schedule for Written Assignments

Fall Term, 2000

Assignment

Due Date

Organizational Analysis of a School Case:

· Introductory description; discussion of school performance and strengths/weaknesses (draft)

· Discussion of school goals and purposes (draft)

· Discussion of structural dimensions (draft)

· Discussion of human resource dimensions (draft)

· Discussion of political dimensions (draft)

· Discussion of cultural dimensions (draft)

· Discussion of school-environment relationships (draft)

· Suggestions for improving school; action plan (draft)

· Final revision of entire case analysis

Diversity case analysis:

· Draft version

· Final revision

· September 12

· September 19

· October 3

· October 17

· October 24

· November 7

· November 14

· November 21

· December 5

· November 7

· December 5

15. Recommended Text(s) and/or Readings: A bibliography or list of references highlighting recent scholarship (pedagogy and research) in the subject area

Another book which I strongly recommend for you, but which is not required, is:

Bolman, Lee G. & Deal, Terrence E.. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

16. Alignment with State and National Standards: Attach a matrix aligning the course goals/objectives with INTASC and/or NBPTS, DPI guidelines or competencies, standards of your professional organization (CEC, NCTM, NCTE, NCSS, NASD, etc.). See the CUI 553 matrix as an example. If these were included as part of the course goals/objectives listed #9, you do not have to repeat them in a matrix.