| A central challenge in education reform today is how to take examples of best practice to scale. In large school districts, this problem is particularly acute as central office administrators balance the need for system-wide solutions with site-based discretion.;Much of the discourse around this topic has historically been polarized with those calling for either decentralized authority to individual schools, allowing them to adapt to the particular needs of their students (Bennett, Finn & Cribb, 1999; Ouchi, 2003), or for a more robust role for the central office in bringing coherence and accountability for improvement to scale (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; Togneri, 2003).;More recently, the emerging literature focuses on a "both/and" strategy of coupling integrated and differentiated practices, allowing school districts to leverage organizational learning across the central office and schools (Elmore & Burney, 1997; Cuban, 2007; McFadden, 2009).;In this study, I examined the management practices of the Southwest Independent School district in the area of math instruction. More specifically, I explored how instructional decisions were determined individually and/or jointly by central office administrators, school administrators, and classroom teachers and the degree to which these decisions were part of a coherent system-wide approach to improvement.;The primary source of data in this study was subject interviews with 35 participants that included central office administrators, principals, instructional coaches and classroom teachers. I also examined district policy documents, curriculum outlines, and instructional resources as supplementary sources of data.;My findings suggest that there were a range of couplings that existed within SISD that framed the management and delivery of math instruction. Taken together, the varied practices that existed within and between staff at the central office, school, and classroom levels were rarely purposeful and were driven more by idiosyncratic elements than by a coherent district-wide approach to management tied to a broader improvement strategy. The lack of a "strategic function" (Childress, Elmore & Grossman, 2006) driving these varied practices resulted in fragmented support for improved instruction and, in some cases, continued to insulate teaching practices that were not aligned with the district leaders' vision for high-quality math teaching. |
