Chinese American Educational Research and Development Association
 |
Educational Research & Development Journal
Vol 17, No 1 (2014)
New Roles School and District Administrators Play In the Georgia Charter System Models |
| Laura E. Lashley |
Abstract |
| As the amount of decentralization in school district governance reforms increase, so does the necessity for new ways of thinking about leadership, at both the district and school levels. Redistributions of power and governance require educational leaders to meet new expectations of adaptability and problem solving that may not have been present before in the traditional school district models where they received their training. Virtually every area of decision-making for schools and districts is affected by decentralization in governance, and leaders must stand at the ready to adapt their own methods and take full advantage of the flexibility and new opportunities they have been granted. (Hassel, 2003). This article examines Georgia’s decentralized and distributed governance reform models and provides contextual advice to leaders at both the school and district levels for effective educational leadership in the new era of increased autonomy and flexibility. Power in the educational landscape is changing hands. More and more education reforms are targeting the traditional structure of the school district and its accompanying educational hierarchy that has dominated the educational landscape for the last century. The school district’s central office is, in many cases, no longer the epicenter of the district’s decision-making. The local board of education may no longer exercise the usual amount of discretion in traditional areas of board oversight, with governance reforms requiring boards to hand over more and more authority to the superintendent as well as to school leaders directly in crucial areas of district management, such as curriculum, human resources, and finances. Decentralization in school district governance stems from the powerful realization that effective leadership in education is critical to the success of students (Garda, 2013). This maxim is nothing new, but governance reforms that seek to redistribute decision-making authority are premised on the idea that effective leadership should be localized and customized to the needs of the individual schoolhouse. In traditional districts, school leaders are often treated as conduits for the implementation of district-level initiatives, divested of the power to be creative and invest in solutions tailor made for their own schools (Hassel, 2003). Conversely, school leaders in districts that are experimenting with decentralization reform are often authorized to exercise a great deal of control over a wide range of school-level decisions that previously were reserved for central office staff (Smith, 2003). This shift in decision-making authority from traditional power structures in education, such as the local board and superintendent, to site-based school leaders and local school councils has created a new set of requirements and considerations for effective leadership, for leaders at both the district and school levels. For many school systems, the days of top-down leadership are now gone. Boards must learn how to relinquish their grip on district management issues, superintendents must learn how to delegate meaningful authority to school leaders and shift their own focus to central office efficiency, and school leaders must learn how to exercise real autonomy and flex their creativity in their newly deregulated school environment (Smith, 2003). This article will begin by reviewing a range of site-based autonomy reform models for school districts, as well as their implications for educational leadership. From the examination of these models, a list of concrete recommendations and advice for how to effectively navigate the shifting power dynamics of decentralized districts for educational leaders, at both the district and school level, will be provided. |
| Full Text: PDF |
ISSN: 1526-8659