About the Author: Dr. Bradley Balch is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at Indiana State University. He has K-12 teaching experience in Indiana public schools and has served as an assistant principal, and superintendent. He can be reached at eabalch@isugw.indstate.edu.

Should the school students attend dictate the quality of their education? As a district superintendent, this question permeated my vision for teaching and learning. And while the question has been pondered by many regarding fiscal issues, it aims at the heart of school improvement.

In 1999, Indiana's General Assembly enacted Public Law 221 (PL 221), a school improvement mandate with a focus on local accountability. Student achievement gains and essential professional development were intimately tied together as a local responsibility and a means of accountability. PL 221 also begged a fundamental question of Indiana school leaders: Regardless of the school in which a student attends, should not every district strive to align school improvement capacities to benefit all learners? Under PL 221, school improvement initiatives and the capacities to support them now had serious implications for district-level leaders.

Random Acts of Greatness

While Indiana districts and schools were busily developing capacities for school improvement under the PL 221 framework, a phenomenon was occurring I called "random acts of greatness." These random acts of greatness were schools within a district possessing unique gifts and talents that supported school improvement. My district was experiencing a similar phenomenon. Each school was forging wonderful capacities for school improvement as the law was implemented; however, the capacities were emerging in isolation. While one building focused on a culture of change, another formalized a professional development plan that was responsive to key improvement initiatives, and yet another school organized for school improvement initiatives by identifying a diverse core of internal and external school stakeholders. Sadly, these capacities were emerging discretely with little opportunity for each school to share among the other district schools. While providing leadership from the district level to support these isolated school improvement initiatives, I realized the need existed to explore a district-wide school improvement framework that would align and strengthen these great acts.

Several years earlier as a student of math and physics, I struggled with the systems concept of "the sum of the parts is greater than the whole." A host of inanimate examples in my undergraduate classes could not convince me that this principle truly existed. Yet, district leadership provided me the authentic experience I needed to fully understand this systems-theory approach. Each school's capacity for improvement was as unique as the climate and culture that permeated the teaching and learning, yet the schools were inexorably tied together by the district governance structure. I rationalized that if the district could provide the schools a venue to share their capacities for improvement as well as learn from one another, and if all students benefited as a result of these efforts, then the sum of all buildings' school improvement activities would be greater than if they occurred in isolation throughout the district.

Considerations

The first step toward a district-wide school improvement framework involved a thoughtful understanding of the mission and vision of the district and each school. As a simple ground rule, district stakeholders agreed that the vision was considered the dream for teaching and learning and the mission was the means by which to achieve the vision. The schools had no formalized visions, and the missions were uniquely different. While one school embraced lifelong learning, another stood for democratic principles, and yet another believed in the power of meeting high expectations through rigorous standards. The district itself had codified a vision and mission, but their meaning and purpose were only understood and valued by the district administration and the board of trustees. In fact, the district's vision and mission did not necessarily align with each school's mission nor was it wholly supportive of the teaching and learning that was occurring throughout the district.

Absent aligned visions and missions, the district as a whole lacked a unique identity. In many ways the district was composed of separate buildings with teaching and learning occurring independently of one another. As a result, school-community stakeholders identified with individual buildings not with the district as a whole. These issues were compounded by the growing momentum for choice alternatives (e.g., charters, vouchers, transfer agreements). Indiana schools had entered an era of choice that included a host of competitive alternatives, and I realized our school-community stakeholders might not have fully understood our district and what we had to offer.

Steps

From a vision, mission, and identity perspective, I knew the school district must embrace a framework for improvement that permeated its complex culture and placed district-level leadership at the heart of meaningful, effective, and sustained capacity growth. I turned to Indiana's North Central Association office. As a first step, the date director suggested two fundamental considerations for success. First, invest in exemplar building and district improvement committees. Such committees are diverse, include a variety of stakeholders, and have clear and well-defined charges to support school improvement. Second, take time to develop vision and mission statements that become central to school improvement processes.

Additional conversations with Indiana's state director for NCA affirmed core assumptions I believed to be true about district accreditation. The most important assumption affirmed was that district models focus on a "systems" approach to school improvement. The NCA model supported each school's uniqueness yet provided a systemic framework for seamless and articulated learning from school-to-school. Additionally, if I were to lead school improvement changes in my district, I wanted the changes to be meaningful and sustained. The NCA model provided an essential framework for systemic change. It was designed with a clear understanding of the competing nature of change and recognition that change does not occur in isolation nor is change a discrete function of schooling. In other words, making change has multiple implications for a school or district. While one change may advance an intended objective, it may hinder something else indirectly.

Discussions with the board of trustees regarding the NCA model ensued. Time was taken to engage board members in school improvement decision-making. Recognizing that school governance can look very different across districts and states, I worked with board members to adopt ground rules that defined their school improvement roles and responsibilities. As a basis for my leadership, I used the principles of leadership-governance recommendations from NCA (http://www.ncacasi.org/standard/emsu/vl.adp). These efforts ensured a leadership-governance structure that would endure stakeholder changes and support long-term school improvement activities. After several months, the board agreed to support the NCA district-wide model for school improvement and committed to assuming an active role in school improvement through a leadership-governance structure.

While building support with the board of trustees, I was having similar discussions with diverse stakeholders, including building administrators, teacher leaders, union representatives, and school-community members. Much to my surprise, there was hesitation on most fronts. The high school staff noted they had been an NCA accredited school since their inception and, because they were comfortable with the current school-based model, were hesitant to work with others who had no NCA accreditation experience. The elementary and middle school staffs also expressed hesitation, believing the model might call for extraordinary measures since they had no prior experience. Parents and community members largely supported the effort from the onset as an opportunity to improve teaching and learning. External stakeholders such as parents and community members were crucial to the discussion and dialogue surrounding school improvement. As we continued to discuss the merits and concerns of defining school improvement from a district and systems perspective, I repeatedly pledged my support to align resource allocation and policy development from a district-wide perspective.

In time, consensus was reached to proceed with the NCA district-wide model. Immediately following stakeholder consensus, I encouraged each school to develop appropriate steering committees. From the school committees, members were recommended for the district committee. In addition to school representation, I also added a school board member and one at-large community member not serving on any building committees. Our district committee was composed of three members from each school (i.e., one administrator, one teacher, and one parent/community member), one board member, the superintendent, and an at-large member. Recognizing that decisions of the district committee must represent diverse opinions, it was agreed to use external committees, task forces, and expert testimony to inform decision-making rather than enlarge the committee. Further, I selected a co-chairperson to work with me in providing leadership for the district committee. Initiating a district model for school improvement required much energy and sharing the responsibilities proved beneficial and minimized boss-led initiatives.

While completing the administrative and procedural requirements of NCA, we focused our first district-wide task on the development of district and school vision statements. Third party professional assistance was utilized for development of the district vision to ensure a process that allowed for diverse input. Once a district vision was agreed upon and supported by the board, building visions that supported the district vision and captured each school's own uniqueness were crafted. All visions were then presented to the board and a formal pledge of support was requested in the form of a vote. The vote of support was unanimous.

With clear and well-supported visions, the challenging work of capacity assessment, data collection, and eventual mission and goal development were ahead. While pondering these daunting tasks, a sense of ownership and enthusiasm permeated stakeholders who had united around the NCA district-wide framework for school improvement. Thus began an accreditation journey focused on the continuity of student learning, collaborative planning, and value for diverse perspectives.

Reflections

Having reflected on the implementation efforts for district-wide accreditation, four themes emerged that might assist others in their efforts to align school improvement processes. These include the role of "cheerleader," connecting with other districts, developing a common language, and the win-win proposition.

I assumed the primary role of "cheerleader" for the district-wide initiative. This included modeling enthusiasm, facilitating change, and supporting diverse perspectives. At times, my leadership was assertive but necessary if the district was to genuinely embrace the spirit of school improvement. Our work was not scripted. NCA provides a framework but not the answers. NCA values and recognizes the uniqueness that exists in each school and district. Frustration was a natural part of this process, as is the case with many change initiatives, as stakeholders searched for answers using the NCA framework. The framework provided tools to address school improvement, but the answers required difficult and often competing decisions. Throughout this process, the role of cheerleader was crucial for developing the capacity for change.

From a statewide perspective, it often felt lonely being only one of a few districts pursuing district-wide accreditation. In fact, I was not aware of others who were seriously considering this model. Before leaving the district, I recommended to the NCA state director that a consortium or advisory group be established specifically for the district-wide accreditation framework. Two immediate charges would include the further refinement of the framework as it relates to PL 221 and the formation of a support structure for interested and participating districts. The concept of aligning greatness (i.e., district accreditation efforts) from a state perspective would seem to prove a powerful conduit for broader and more meaningful participation.

At times throughout the organizational and vision development phases, collaboration and consensus were challenging to achieve. At first I rationalized this was predictable organizational behavior (e.g., group dynamics, personal agendas, stress, conflict, power); however, I later realized it was the distinct languages used by educators from varying levels. While the elementary framed change and improvement around four block and intensive early interventions, the middle school described changes in adolescent students and its new hybrid master schedule, and the high school discussed its advanced placement courses and competing elective opportunities as a school improvement imperative. These wide frames related to teaching and learning had fostered vocabularies that were unique and different. Not recognizing this from the onset, it became a barrier for district-wide advancement. Once vocabulary and frame-of-reference differences were revealed, I was very thoughtful in my efforts to develop a common language that could be understood by all stakeholders.

This was truly a win-win proposition for the community and school district, and our visions were being realized. Over time, the improvement became meaningful, understood by school and community stakeholders and a shared responsibility.

Epilogue

Two years following these implementation considerations, NCA continues to permeate the climate and culture of school improvement in the district. School-community stakeholders now speak the language of alignment, collaboration, and the centrality of student learning. These unique characteristics define an identity that is clearly focused on student performance. For now, a greater reliance on the building accreditation process is utilized while the district committee seeks to clarify and strengthen the district-wide framework as it relates to Indiana's PL 221.