. I . «I .53 1.334%... 1 1 Au xhwqmm‘..wvw_V1hunfiu v. 4.. n .A f .D. st. , .rltv A. 1 i. affiufifif .. A Way“. . . , . , vv 4...? 1.. 2 :3. I: y. . . A a fizz? if. 3 4mm}, 4...“ .. m. , In“. . L“... , , . Lfiai am. e . . .A . . 54.. 1 . ”0-“. A A ... 3. r... :V 1...! r0...” . A 5. 52.31% In. “zit...” .. 3 is an“. «r. . iruulviuufir .: .3; A. ' .. «a . . a 3 i 5....“ d .. ‘ 2....5. .. . ‘ . DA . 53:39.: . . . libn. ,5; :2. :‘r 1 ‘ A 5. . .1. .i o A . far. . . attrafla. . Has}. .51.. 1..“ A I 5!. , .uuwmmuwwm. 11:21:; PA. :17 w ,L.....‘.q.x.. n9 . A V ii. A 5.?! )4... Jr-.. J“ v.5 3i. HO. wt Ly '(V‘ I ,1 - .I‘f 933% o'r'wj 9:232:79 l UBDARY Michiga . state University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled ERESTS OF COMPETING PERCEPTIONS AND INT ENT SCHOOL SYSTEM ACTORS REGARDING STUD MOBILTIY presented by Magane Koshimura has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD. degree in K-12 Educational Administration #___— PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 cJClRC/DateDue.p65 Passivity Achievement Routines Stable community Stability In response, some teachers sought mediating strategies to reduce the tensions. In fact, many teachers turned to Quadrant 3 strategies (Transition), drawing on external support such as tutors, mentors and parents support. By using parent or volunteer tutors to provide students with additional instructional help, teachers responded to their multiple concerns related to student-mobility problems. This strategy is particularly helpful when students enter a school through choice. Parents who proactively choose a new school are more likely to volunteer. Teachers also reach out to the community for support on mentoring and tutoring. Often, external supports in the form of more parental and 134 community involvement in classroom and school activities are utilized to help teachers ease the tensions created when teachers try to carry out instructions according to plan while trying to integrate new students into the classroom. Incoming students create a new classroom dynamic and teachers may need to adjust instruction. Parents and community support represent resources that can moderate this transition process. Additionally, teachers used creative and innovative teaching and learning methods and activities including buddy systems, and cooperative and collaborate learning to deal with the transitional process (Transition). With extra help from mentors and tutors, incoming students could maintain their learning. Additional help increases the likelihood of students’ achieving at higher levels. Finally, because tutors are addressing the special needs of newly arrived students, the teacher is able to maintain the scheduled pace of instruction. Innovative teaching methods and activities also help students to keep on track academically, and help them to integrate into the classroom socially, as new students have a greater interaction with stable students. These strategies mediate tensions that teachers have, helping to integrate children while maintaining classroom stability. Although only a few teachers prepared a packet and materials for new students, such preparation represents the use of external support to help new families feel welcome in the classroom community (Transition), which thus helps teachers to go through the transitional stage of classroom teaching and organization. Integrating Analysis with Theory Parsons’ three levels of the organization 135 Teachers work at the technical level where they mainly focus on teaching and students’ learning. They are primarily responsible for internal affairs. As Parsons’ job- related functions predict, teachers’ perceptions and responses to student mobility reflect the values of equity and preservation. Loose coupling—the proximity to the issue and Parsons’ three levels Teachers are closest to the issue of mobility so the frequency and magnitude of dealing with student mobility is high and big. Whenever students arrive or leave for a new school, teachers need to deal with the change created by student mobility. As they deal with it on a daily basis, they need to adapt by using strategies that are small-scale and accommodative. For example, when one new student anived, teachers made time to diagnose her academically and to provide adequate educational and psychological services while adjusting their instructional time or their before- or after-school schedule. Loose coupling—bounded rationality and sensitive sensing mechanism Teachers are most concerned about incoming students. They are responsible for accepting and educating whoever comes into their classrooms. They are also aware of the negative effect on their instructional and lesson plans, and classroom dynamics, from new students who come in during the acaderrric year. Thus, their perceptions of student mobility and how they respond to student mobility are directly related to how student mobility affects their classroom teaching. An inflow of students primarily creates a disruptive teaching situation, compared to outgoing mobility. Teachers needed to adjust their routine instructional and lesson plans to overcome disruptions. 136 Loose coupling-Adaptability Situated on the CVF, equity and preservation concerns differ along the flexibility and stability continuum, and so represent a tension teachers dealt with regularly. If teachers only focused on equity through adapting instruction for students’ needs, their classrooms would be at a risk of losing the stability and continuity of the familiar forms of teaching and learning. If teachers solely focused on preservation, new students might never be integrated and teachers would stagnate in their own norms. In practice, teachers did not choose either one value or another, something Weick (2001) acknowledged would be neither economical nor sustainable. Rather than selecting one approach or the other, teachers embraced the tensions in the situation, and incorporated individualized approaches with regular classroom routines. Teachers in this study tried to utilize both strategies to find a balance of flexibility and stability in their classrooms, although the data suggest they were geared more toward the stability of the classroom. Resource dependence theory-achievement Pressures on teachers to meet the new standards indicate that the institution was influenced by an external environment in which state-mandated standardized tests were implemented and public opinion about school performance was influential. The resource dependence theory suggests that teachers were also affected by expectations to meet the standards in order to maintain a good reputation for student and classroom performance. Teachers did not have power to directly negotiate with the state or public because they did not work at the institutional level. But, in order to survive, they were reaching out to external supports such as parents, tutors and mentors, as well as adjusting lesson plans to 137 meet the standards in a classroom with a large number of mobile students. As the pressure for accountability increases, productivity values might shift the balance of teachers’ primary values away from equity and preservation. Chapter 8 explores principals’ perspectives on student mobility in four different areas: 1) their perceptions of the causes of student mobility; 2) priority of the issue of student mobility; 3) the effects of student mobility on principals; and 4) strategies to address student mobility. At the end of the chapter, an analysis of principals’ perceptions, responsibilities and responses to student mobility is made using the CVF. 138 Chapter 8 Principals’ Perspectives and Responses to Student Mobility In this chapter, principals’ perspectives and responses to student mobility are explored and examined in the following four areas: 1) their perceptions of the causes of student mobility; 2) priority of the issue of student mobility; 3) the effects of student mobility on principals; and 4) strategies to address student mobility. At the end of the chapter, an analysis of principals’ perceptions, responsibility and responses to student mobility is made using the CVF. Principals’ Perspectives of Causes of Student Mobility Due to their role, principals appear to be in a position to have a clearer understanding of the distinct sources of mobility. They have more direct information allowing them to identify family, white flight or market mobility. Overall, half of the principals perceived market-reform motivated transfers as prominent, whereas the remaining half of the principals perceived housing and family-related factors to be important causes of student mobility. Their perceptions were based upon what was happening in the school and in their community. Thus, principals’ perception of the cause of mobility is very local, changing in its nature, circumstances and effects from school to school. Consequently, there is no pattern of perceptions across schools for the causes of student mobility. Family-motivated transfers All seven principals except Stratton, the Timberland principal, commented that family factors caused student mobility, but only half of the principals perceived family- motivated factors as the most prominent reasons why students moved. This may indicate 139 that principals are more aware of other factors affecting student mobility because they have more accurate information about the reasons for student mobility. School motivated transfers—white flight White flight was not the primary cause of student mobility for most of the principals. For example, the Lynden, Akers and Kirkland principals did not perceive race as causing student mobility. As Kirkland and Lynden have high rates of students of color (90 percent and 76 percent, respectively), it might be hard to recognize the effect of race on mobility in schools where the majority of students are of a racial minority. This perception that race has no effect on student mobility might also be related to the fact that three principals are black, but there is no evidence to support this assumption. The Timberland and Royal principals, however, mentioned the role of race in student mobility. Stratton, the Timberland principal, mentioned that her school, which has a legally enforced racial makeup, motivated some mobility from the neighborhood. Instead of using the term “white flight,” Stratton identified upward mobility among fairly well-to-do families moving to suburbs where the population is predominantly white. Those who were moving out of the neighborhood were usually white. Mason, the Royal principal, also stressed the phenomenon of white flight in student mobility. The area where Royal is located used to be predominantly white, but its demography has been changing over time and it now has many residents of color. Royal’s principal recognized this demographic change and suggested its effect on student mobility. School-motivated transfers—market reform Half of the principals perceived that market reform factors were creating greater student mobility. Principals deal with external factors such as market reform policies 140 including charter schools and inter- and intra—district schools of choice policies. As a result, they were more aware of the external policy triggers on student mobility. Through market-based reform options, parents and students are given more opportunities to choose schools than before. The magnitude of the effects of market reform policies on student mobility remains unclear. Most principals had an impression that some parents did not actively choose a better school situation for their children. Instead, parents chose to take their children out of a school in reaction to something that had happened and selected a new school for convenience. This type of reactive choice created student mobility—particularly revolving mobility. These principals experienced increasing administrative and communication duties due to market-reform motivated transfers. All principals except Mason from Royal claimed that school choice led to increases in student mobility. The principals at Lynden, Timberland, and Elmwood in particular, perceived that schools of choice and charter-related transfers were prominent. As Timberland and Elmwood have high rates of choice students (35 percent and 45 percent, respectively), the principals easily noticed the effect of market reform on mobility-paperwork goes through their office, and they meet all new students and their parents or guardians. Although Lynden has lower rates of choice students than the other two schools, the rate of choice students increased from 11 percent in 1996-97 to 19 percent in 00—01. With such a huge shift in the number of choice students, the effect of choice options on mobility was noticeable. The Milford and Elmwood principals actually encouraged incoming mobility through market reform options. Both schools recently experienced a decline in 141 enrollment, so they worked to increase enrollment. The Milford principal’s strategy to increase enrollment by luring choice students by promoting the school’s unique before- and after-school programs, actually increased student mobility during the school year. But Elmwood’s case was different from Milford’s. Although the principal acknowledged that market options increased mobility, the school’s clear vision attracted new families and their children and many stayed during the academic year. Thus, Elmwood maintained low mobility rates. These two principals used the market reform options to increase enrollment, but its effect on mobility was different. Royal’s principal had a different understanding of the effect of market on student mobility. From her point of view, schools of choice options actually stabilized outgoing mobility. Her experience was apparently contradictory to what other principals experienced. Family-related mobility would normally take students out of the school. However, when these students’ parents chose to exercise their market options, they were able to keep their children in the school. Thus, the fact that the school balanced outgoing mobility by schools of choice options. There appears to be no pattern of principals’ awareness of the effect of market on student mobility and high or low mobility rates. Some principals in schools with a small number of choice students spoke of no significant effect of the market on student mobility, while some principals in schools with a large number of choice students spoke of little profound effect of the market on mobility. Summary of principals’ perspectives of the causes of student mobility Principals appeared to have more direct information on the reasons for student mobility because of their roles and position. Thus, they could identify more clearly what 142 caused mobility. All principals except one acknowledged that market options increased student mobility. Half of the principals perceived that market-refonn motivated transfers were creating greater student mobility, but the remaining half commented that family- related factors were the primary reason why students moved. The Milford and Elmwood principals utilized market options to increase school enrollment to survive, but other principals did not capitalize on it. This strategy increased incoming mobility in Milford, but student mobility rates remained relatively low in Elmwood. Royal’s principal was the only one who did not perceive market reform options as increasing mobility. Instead, she seemed to see the schools of choice policy actually stabilizing the outgoing mobility. Although white flight was not seen as the primary cause of mobility by most of the principals, two—Timberland and Royal-expressed the role of race in mobility. Three principals who did not identify race as a factor affecting mobility are black and their ethnic background might somewhat affect their perceptions of the effect of race on mobility. Principals’ perception of the cause of student mobility is regional because their perceptions depend upon what is happening locally. Thus, another primary finding here is that there appears to be no pattern of perception of the causes of student mobility across schools because the cause of mobility is perceived locally. Is Mobility a Priority Issue for Principals? Principals’ attention to the issue of student mobility was low. Only one principal identified student mobility as a leading priority. Since student mobility is a low priority, principals had a passive attitude toward it and as they “go with the flow.” In order to go with the flow, they did not make major changes to reduce mobility or its negative effects, 143 but they did make some minor, flexible adjustments in their daily routines. For example, a principal called a school a new student had previously attended to get the student’s record. Most of the principals were aware of the negative effects of student mobility, but other administrative duties were seen as higher priority. Even though half of the principals perceived school—motivated transfers as prominent, they seemed to reluctantly accept the power of the market, over which they felt they had little control. With that passivity toward the effect of market on mobility, the issue, enhanced by market reform, was not a priority for the majority of principals. Naughton at Akers, a school with very high mobility rate of 70 percent, was the only principal who identified mobility as one of the major issues in school. Akers had the highest mobility rates in the district and, consequently, the issue of was easily recognized. Mobility was caused by both family- and school-motivated factors. Akers students created revolving mobility between Akers and its nearby charter schools. Such revolving mobility was easily recognized because it usually created a disruptive situation. Naughton explicitly raised the issue of student mobility within a school and invited teachers into a dialogue so that the mobility was openly recognized and discussed. Mobility was not a major issue for other principals. Stratton at Timberland recognized that students moved in and out all the time, but she seemed to perceive this as a fact of life. Maybe it was because the principal thought that she had no control over high revolving mobility created by the students who were bused in to create racial balance under a federal court order. Hughes at Lynden also identified student mobility as a significant concern that should be taken into account when assessing test scores. She 144 explained that school characteristics and the pattern of mobility were similar to Akers, in that mobility was created by both family- and school-motivated factors. That created all types of mobility-incoming, outgoing and revolving. But Hughes, similarly, seemed to accept it as a given and had become acclimatized to it. “I think the building is so used to having such mobility rates that it doesn’t affect [us] one way or another. It’s just OK that a child is there. We’ve got to go with what we have and go from there.” Summary of a priority issue Student mobility is not an important issue for any of the principals but one. Even though the majority acknowledged student mobility’s negative consequences, they presented passivity toward the issue. Although the Timberland and Lynden principals acknowledged that student mobility created some disruptive situations academically and socially, their attitude toward mobility was, in general, passive because they perceived mobility as a fact of a life. The Akers principal was the only one who identified student mobility as a leading priority because mobility negatively affected the learning environment, which resulted into low test scores. Effects of Student Mobility on Principals Areas that were affected by student mobility are mainly in the principals' administrative, coordination and communication duties. Principals identified mobility as negatively affecting the following: 1) making a year-long plan; 2) creating a cohesive school community; and 3) meeting the new standards. They also identified two positive effects of mobility on them: 1) more parental involvement in helping to create a cohesive 145 school community when parents were proactively choosing a school; and 2) creating a more clear school vision to attract and keep parents. Difiiculty making a year-long plan One of the major effects of student mobility on principals was difficulty planning grade configuration and multi-age groups for the year without knowing the concrete number of students. Particularly when the deadlines for schools of choice were extended, it was hard to plan for the year without a clear picture of how many students were enrolled. Danforth, the principal in Elmwood where there were a large number of schools of choice students, explained how difficult it was to make plans such as multi- grade groups and grade configuration based on student registration because schools of choice deadlines were not firmly set. “What happened was that those closing dates [for choice students] got postponed or new ones were created. I have to do my planning for my staff for next year in May or June. By the time I lose teachers in June, I need to have programs in place. But, all of sudden, you are told that June lSt is no longer the cutoff date for schools of choice and it’s going to be August 15. Because the number of schools of choice students changes, the planning programs such as multi-age group don’t work accordingly. I think rules need to be established. Time lines need to be held.” Hughes, the Lynden principal, also indicated that halfway through the school year, she needed to add another first/second grade split class and hired two new teachers because of the large influx of first grade students after school started. Her story reveals the difficulty of advance planning and budgeting, specifically because of student mobility. 146 “Mobility has affected us. We ended up having to open another classroom in February [2000] ...[A] first and second grade classroom because we had such a big influx of first graders and some second graders. So, February 20th was the day that we opened the new classroom. . .A long-term sub came in. In fact, we ended up having two new teachers come here from another building because the numbers went up. Actually, yeah, the first grade and kindergarten teachers and the long-term sub for first-second split came in February. So, we ended up having two new teachers this year. First grade and kindergarten.” She needed to coordinate with the district to open another classroom in the middle of the school year, adding work for her to deal with. What Hughes said; however, contradicted what she previously said-the building was so used to having such mobility rates that it did not affect the school one way or another. The evidence is that mobility definitely affected the school. This contradiction might tell us that Hughes wanted to believe that mobility did not affect her school on a superficial level, but on a deeper level, it evidently did. Difficulty building a sense of school community Principals mentioned that another major effect of student mobility on them was that it undercut their efforts to build a sense of school community. The majority of principals commented that lack of parental involvement and satisfaction in the school was detrimental to school community. A strong sense of school community was founded on the stability, bonding and commitment of school members. Student mobility was detrimental to these factors, and, consequently, principals faced difficulties creating a sense of community when there was significant student mobility. 147 Wehlage et a1 (1989) indicate that there are four components necessary to create social bonding. Those components are: 1) attachment—social and emotional ties to others, 2) commitment—rational calculation of what one must do to achieve goals, 3) involvement—involvement in the activities of an institution; and lastly 4) belief—faith in the institution. Looking at these components within the framework of student mobility, it is clear that student mobility discourages the presence of all these components necessary to build a sense of community. In Renton, principals characterized families of mobile students as follows: parents of mobile students tend to be detached from rather than attached to teachers and school because they do not actively communicate with teachers. Commitment was undercut because some parents do not send students to school regularly. The parents of mobile students were usually not involved with the school. And the final component—belief in the institution—was often lacking in instances where parents were dissatisfied with the school and were moving back and forth, according to educators’ perceptions, to escape from problems rather than confront them. Given all these ways that mobility works against all the components necessary to create a sense of community, it was extremely difficult to create social bonding and a sense of communal organization. Five principals (Akers, Kirkland, Lynden, Royal and Timberland) addressed the difficulty of creating a school community with an unstable student population and a lack of parental involvement. The finding of this study was similar to the studies done by Kerbow (1992) and Lash and Kirkpatrick (1990). Stratton, the Timberland principal, was concerned about the lack of parental collaboration at the PTA because of the conflict between two diverse parental groups—established members of the community and new, 148 incoming families. She explained how difficult it was to create a sense of community with this kind of diversity, . . [O]ftentimes the PTA is a clique, not open, not always welcoming people as they get so used to doing their own things. They oftentimes don’t reach out to new families who just moved in.” Other research supports that diverse parental groups have difficulty integrating because of different beliefs and cultures. Pressures to meet new high standards One of the major effects of student mobility on principals was to make them accountable for school performance without factoring in how student mobility might affect student academic performance.1 Principals felt pressures to meet high standards even though they experienced student mobility, which might affect student performance. Principals were skeptical of the accountability measurement of standardized test scores and district-level assessment tests. Four principals (Akers, Kirkland, Milford and Elmwood) said the measurements do not accurately represent school performance if the students were not taught for any meaningful length of time at the school where they took the test. Many principals in this study reiterated that statewide standardized and other test scores were not the best measurement of school performance when they included scores of students who had only recently entered the school. Shirk, the Kirkland principal, even returned the scores of new children to the schools they attended previously, because she thought the place where they received their education should be accountable for their scores. She explained the situation as follows: ’ The new state accountability policy does not include test scores of students who are not in school for a certain period of time. But at the time the research was conducted, the new policy was not yet 149 “As far as testing and scores, we have had children moving in the day before the tests start, a week before tests start, and so on. It’s very difficult to have a child ready for the statewide standardized tests as well as other students who have been in the building for some time. Those particular scores [from new students] were included in our evaluation. And that’s a real problem. At one time they came late and I sent back the papers to the other schools (laugh). I did and they accepted them. The reason I did that is because that’s the place they got training at. [But] we found lately that some kids who just moved in our building right before the [statewide standardized] tests would be at previous school for only two weeks and then at another school before for one month and so on. . .So, there is no consistency of education for some children.” Shirk’s comments make two important points: 1) the test scores of a student who moves into a school right before the tests should not represent her new school’s performance; and 2) some mobile students tend to move around so continuously that there is no one particular place that could be deemed accountable for their instruction. As test scores were often used to assess a school’s performance, with awards given depending upon test scores, the inclusion of scores for newly arrived students did not accurately represent how the school did academically. The Royal and Lynden principals, however, were not concerned about meeting the new standards. This might be explained by the fact that Royal had high test scores, so scores may not be that principal’s concern. Even though the Lynden principal said she did not feel pressure to meet the new standards, she contradicted what she had previously suggested-that test scores should be adjusted after factoring mobility rates. This effective. 150 contradiction indicates that she might actually be concerned on a deeper level about meeting the new standards. Positive effects of student mobility on principals One positive effect of student mobility was more parental involvement and satisfaction with school when parents actively chose a school for their children. The principals from Milford, Timberland and Elmwood shared this view. Timberland is one of the popular schools in the district, and there is a handful of parents who proactively chose Timberland and participate in classroom and school activities. Thus, it might be fairly easy for a principal to experience such a positive effect. The other positive effect on principals was a creation of a more clear vision to recruit choice students and families and maintain them. Elmwood is the most popular choice school and has low mobility rates. Although the principal did not indicate that a clear vision reduced student mobility, it successfully recruited many choice students and maintained them. Thus, a clear vision appears to help reduce mobility. Summary of ejfects of student mobility on principals Some principals identified three negative effects and two positive effects of student mobility on them. Both positive and negative effects are on their administrative, monitoring and communication responsibilities. Principals’ responses varied and there are no patterns of the effects of student mobility on principals across schools. This finding also indicates that the issue of mobility is very local-their perceptions of the effects vary because their experiences with the issue of mobility are different across schools. 151 Negative effects include: difficulty making a year-long plan; difficulty in school community-building; and pressures to meet high standards. Two principals—Elmwood and Lynden—struggled to set grade configuration or multi-grade groups without a fixed number of enrollment. Difficulty of school community building was an issue for principals from Akers, Kirkland, Lynden, Royal and Timberland. Akers, Lynden and Timberland have high mobility rates while Kirkland and Royal have low mobility rates. Thus, there might be no correlation between mobility rates and perceptions of the effect of mobility on difficulty of community-building across schools. A large number of principals felt pressure to meet the new standards regardless of the negative effects of student mobility on acaderrrics. They mentioned that standardized tests would not be the best measurement for school assessment. The Royal and Lynden principals did not feel pressed to meet high standards because Royal showed relatively high test scores. But what the Lynden principal said previously might indicate that she was concerned about meeting high standards on a deeper level. There appears to be no correlation between math satisfactory rates and principals’ pressures to meet the standards across schools. Half of the principals perceived parental involvement and satisfaction as positive for community-building when parents proactively chose a school. Principals from Milford, Timberland and Elmwood shared this view. The Timberland principal saw that Timberland was a popular school in the district, and a relatively large number of parents proactively chose it and got involved in school activities. Thus, it might be fairly easy for a principal to experience the positive effects of mobility as parental involvement. The other positive effect was that a school created a more clear vision. The Elmwood 152 principal indicated that his school created a more clear vision in order to recruit and maintain students. The data indicate that Elmwood has the highest rates of choice students in the district and low mobility rates. This clear vision might attract many choice students and families, and some choose to stay there. Strategies to Address Student Mobility The strategies principals used to address student mobility were not specifically formulated for student mobility. Although principals were aware of negative effects of student mobility on administrative duties, school management and school dynamics, there were almost no strategies specifically designed for dealing with it. The following are some examples of general strategies that principals used to deal with student mobility, even though they were not designed exclusively for mobile students. Since principals are responsible for administrative services and communications with mobile students and their families, their responsibilities include: working with a student assistant provider (counselor); working closely with parents; establishing an open initial meeting for parents; setting statewide standardized test-preparation sessions, assuring that new students had all school materials such as books; making a packet containing information on school and classroom regulations; and obtaining student records for teachers. Their strategies were created more in terms of administration and mediation duties. Stratton was the only principal who balanced the transient and stable kids in a classroom so that none of the teachers would be overburdened with high student mobility. “I try to balance out the transient population in classrooms. It’s harder to have a classroom that never gets new students and another classroom that gets new 153 students all the time. Once you have a transient population, sometimes one classroom changes constantly. Once you get a constantly changing population, you always get new kids because you always lose kids to keep the number balanced. Right now we are doing a placement. It’s important for me to know who is likely to move in and out and keep the balance of the transient population. We have three first grade classes. And I know that the six families are likely to move out, so I balance those out. So that each one of teachers has influx of children.” At Timberland school, it appeared relatively easy to identify which families were likely to move. The school covered two different attendance zones to maintain the racial balance and students who were bused in to maintain the racial balance were more likely to move. A temporary shelter in school’s attendance zones also created student mobility in and out of the school. Thus, it benefited Stratton to make a plan beforehand, whereas most other principals could not predict which families were likely to move, and absent advance knowledge, were less able to balance transient population in a classroom. Principals also used strategies including: provision of testing to new incoming students (Kirkland, Lynden, Elmwood and Royal) and provision of tutoring and mentoring services (Kirkland and Royal). These responsibilities fell under their instructional leadership role. The majority of principals (except those from Elmwood and Timberland) paid attention only to incoming students. This indicates that the majority of principals perceived incoming mobility as normally creating more negative effects than outgoing mobility. If principals wanted to reduce student mobility or reduce the negative 154 consequences of student mobility, it might be best if they paid more attention to outward mobility, trying to keep families and students in the school. There were two principals who paid attention to outgoing mobility. Danforth at Elmwood said he felt it was his responsibility to talk to parents when they were leaving. He believed that some parents sent their children to other schools to escape rather than confront the realities, including behavioral and academic problems, retention, and special needs. Danforth wanted to communicate to parents that working on the issues would be more effective than moving out of the school and enrolling a child elsewhere, especially since moving often damaged children’s learning, social and psychological development. Stratton, the Timberland principal, also mentioned she sometimes informed a new school’s student assistant provider of a student. That way, the assistant provider knows about the student and can more efficiently work with her. This seems to reduce student mobility’s negative consequences. Summary of strategies The principals had no strategies specifically designed for student mobility; and their primary focus was on incoming students, not outgoing students, because incoming mobility was perceived to create more negative effects on principals. If their intention was to reduce student mobility or reduce the negative consequence of student mobility, they could pay more attention to outward mobility, trying to prevent families and students from moving. Only two principals out of seven spoke of their responsibilities for outgoing students. Principals’ strategies for mobility were more focused on administration, monitoring and communication. Additionally, some principals also responded to mobility by providing testing, mentoring and tutoring that reflected their 155 instructional leadership role. There were no patterns of similarities or differences in strategies across schools. Analysis of Principals’ Perspectives and Responses to Student Mobility In this section, principals’ perceptions, responsibility and responses to student mobility were analyzed to bring to the surface the values related to their role-related responsibilities by using the Competing Values Framework. As the CVF suggests, the principals demonstrated all four values. But the principals’ perceptions and responses to student mobility primarily reflected their values of transition and preservation. They also had a productivity value to meet the high standards and an equity value to be an instructional leader supporting teachers’ responsibility. Insight, expansion and external support Principals’ values in the transition quadrant are related to adaptation and expansion. Three types of transition values were identified as: 1) insight; 2) external resources and growth; and 3) external support. The major finding in the principals’ perception of the cause of mobility is that half demonstrated some insight into market- reforrn motivated transfers. As principals work at the administrative level, they deal with external affairs, so they are more sensitive to the impact of external forces. Additionally, they have more direct, accurate information on the reasons for student mobility because of their position. For example, principals know which students moved in by school choice options because they are responsible for processing student documents and meeting new students and their families. They are also aware of the deadline and rules for choice-related transfers, so they are more tuned in to detecting the school choice- related reasons for transfers. The principals’ perception of market-reform-motivated 156 transfers indicates their sensitivity to the impact of market force on student mobility (transition). In their administrative role, principals needed to have insight into the influence of market forces on student mobility. The Elmwood and Milford principals used market reform options to increase enrollment (external resources and growth). An Elmwood principal created a more clear vision to attract new students and families and maintain them. Elmwood is the most popular choice school and has low mobility rates, because many choice students stay during the academic year. The Milford principal also used schools of choice policies to increase enrollment, which had recently experienced a drastic decline. Well-organized before- and after-school academic and social programs attracted many families. Their strategy was logical because as principals, they have responsibility to make the school survive. Thus, reaching out to external resources-new students-to keep the school in business makes sense to administrators. This represents a transition value (external resources-growth). Lastly, principals reached out to external support such as parents, mentors and tutors to go through the transitional stage. Parental involvement in school activities and their children’s schools was imperative to create a cohesive school community, while mentors and tutors were primarily instrumental in helping mobile students to get academic support. It was necessary to have external support to expand and grow through market reform options. Passivity and administrative routines There were also three types of preservation values—passivity toward the issue of student mobility; maintenance of routines; and creation of stable community. No matter 157 if principals perceived mobility to be primarily the result of market forces or family factors, they responded to student mobility with some measure of passivity. Their passivity suggests that they valued the stability of school and preferred the status quo—a preservation value because they were reluctant to make changes. All principals but one did not perceive mobility as a leading priority, and eventually did not pay much attention to it. Even though they were aware of negative effects of student mobility on their administrative duties, they maintained a passive attitude toward the issue. Their low prioritizing and passive attitude toward the issue of mobility indicate that they preferred to maintain their administrative routines and practices (preservation). Student mobility impedes principals from making a year-long plan and creating a cohesive school community. By expressing this difficulty, principals also indicated that they wanted a firm, predictable structure of grade configuration and multi-grade classes according to certain rules (preservation). This kind of stability is necessary to sustain school functions smoothly. Student mobility makes it difficult to create a cohesive school community. These comments from principals suggest again their value for preserving a stable school community. The Royal principal had quite a different perspective on student mobility related to preservation values. From her perspective, market reform options actually stabilized outgoing student mobility because parents exercised these options to keep their children in the school even after they physically moved. Standards for school perfomrance Two types of productivity were observed: achievement and profit. The principals struggle to meet the new standards, regardless of the impact of student mobility on 158 academic performance, to keep high public opinion of the school. This value for productivity comes in part from their responsibility to address the recent movement to high standards. Principals were not formally punished for not meeting new standards, but they were concerned about the school’s reputations and they wanted to receive monetary awards for high school performance, both for status and survival. A productivity value appears to add stress to the principals’ lives. Additionally, the Elmwood and Milford principals’ use of schools of choice policies to increase enrollment creates profit (productivity) because new students bring in money through state aid, based upon the number of students enrolled. Additional monetary resources help the school and the district to stay in operation. Instructional leadership related to equity value Half of the principals were engaged in providing testing, mentoring and tutoring to teachers for mobile students. These principals were concerned about teachers’ responsibility for working with mobile students as well as mobile students’ academic and social well-being. The principals’ direct involvement in these services indicates they were supportive of teachers and were acting as instructional role models for teachers. Tensions around competing values (See Figure 4) Analysis using the CVF suggests that principals react to student mobility according to their values related to preservation and transition, with preservation pre- eminent. Based on the interviews, all principals except one did not identify student mobility as a leading issue, and as a result, there were no strategies specifically designed for it. The few strategies to address student mobility were made to create stability and 159 routines. Together these facts suggest that principals have a strong organizational preservation value. The preservation and transition quadrants on the CVF compete with each other, as they are arranged on the diagonal. A tension was there; however, the majority of principals (except Elmwood and Milford) chose to place emphasis on preservation. They did not embrace both competing values, but made an either/or choice. They lost the opportunity to capitalize on transition values. The principals’ awareness of the impact of market on mobility (transition-insight) does not interfere with their preservation value because the majority of principals maintained passive attitudes (preservation) toward market-reform-motivated transfers, and eventually did not do much to address that. Thus, the principals’ external antenna detecting the market effect on mobility was part of their job responsibilities, yet they did not transform their perceptions into action to address mobility. Productivity also may create some tension with preservation and transition. A preservation value and a productivity value may compete with each other. For example, test scores may not improve unless principals change their strategies to address student mobility. The Milford principal felt no responsibility for student mobility, but he felt pressed to meet the new standards. Such passive behavior, however, does not do much toward improving test scores. Another example is increase in enrollment through schools of choice options (productivity-profit), creating a large flow of incoming students. Although it helped the organization to survive, his outreach strategy interfered with the stability of the school community and administrative routines (preservation) because it takes some time for new students and families to integrate into the school, and 160 meeting new students and families and processing paperwork creates extra work. A transition value and a productivity value also may be competitive with each other. The Milford principal was increasing enrollment by using schools of choice options. Reaching out to external resources—new students—helped the school to stay in business (transition). But this type of external resource created a large flow of incoming students, and a flow of students creates a disruptive learning environment and may discontinue the instruction. This affects students’ learning (productivity). In order to reduce or solve tensions, principals used external support. Some principals reached out to parents who actively selected a school for cohesive community building (transition-extemal support). Parental involvement helps co-create a cohesive school community with school personnel (preservation) because parental commitment and faith in schooling helps create tight bonding between school and families. When principals closely communicate with parents, it makes the school more accessible and comfortable for parents who want to get involved in school activities. Principals also coordinated testing, tutoring and mentoring to go through the transitional stage of the organization. They coordinated those programs through the district or through local business and community volunteers. External support also helps to improve school performance because tutors and mentors can spend extra time with mobile students who are behind academically to help them meet the standards. Thus, a transitional value can be complimentary and serve to moderate preservation and productivity values. Additionally, among principals who were aware of the impact of the market on student mobility, the Elmwood principal reached out to parents of students who were leaving for a new school, trying to convince them to stay. Reaching out to parents and 161 preventing families and students from leaving a school might be the most effective way to reduce mobility and its negative effects. The Timberland principal also dealt with outward mobility. She contacted a new school when her student moved there, providing information on her so that the new teacher and staff would know more about the new student. That creates better information-processing between schools and also creates an easier transition for a new student. Reaching out to the parents or new school’s staff indicates their good communication skills. Figure 4 Equity Transition - Instructional leader -Insight External resources- growth -Extemal support A Preservation Productivity -Passivity -Achievement -Administrative Routines -Profit Y -Cohesive School Communrty ‘ ’ Integrating Analysis with Theory Parsons’ three levels of the organization Principals function at the administrative level, where they administer school operation, mediate conflicts or dialogue among people, and coordinate school events and programs. They are responsible for both internal and external affairs. Principals’ perceptions of student mobility reflect the values of preservation and transition that were 162 predicted by Parsons’ functionalist view. But the majority of principals’ responses to student mobility were primarily focused on a preservation value. Loose coupling—the proximity to the issue and Parsons’ three levels Principals’ job responsibilities require them to pay attention to both an internal process (what teachers have an emphasis on) and an external process (what district administrators are concerned about). Thus, principals stand somewhere between district administrators and teachers, in relation to the proximity to the issue of student mobility. Only one principal perceived student mobility as a leading priority, which indicates their attention to the issue is as low as district administrators. Even though the majority of principals did not pay much attention to student mobility, they were accommodating to teachers’ needs when needed. They were also making small changes just like teachers, so their responses to student mobility were rather similar to teachers’. Loosely coupled systems—bounded rationality and sensitive sensing mechanisms Two findings are explained by bounded rationality and sensitive sensing mechanisms: 1) schools function as a local unit, allowed to adapt to local conditions; and 2) principals primarily pay attention to incorrring students. First, the principals had fairly accurate, direct information on student mobility because of their position in the organization. Information they had access to was bounded by regional conditions, so how they perceived and responded to student mobility appeared to be driven by local situations. Overall, there was no significant pattern across schools, which suggests that schools were loosely coupled. Each school functioned as one single unit of the organization rather than as an integrated part of the big 163 organization—the entire district. High differentiation and low integration are the primary characteristics of loose coupling systems. Although schools were part of the large organization and under the greater influence of district and statewide policies and regulations, a school was given autonomy to function like an individual organization to a large extent. In a loosely coupled system, local units are allowed to adapt to local conditions (W eick, 2001, p.388). For example, Timberland served two diverse bodies of student population. The principal had information on who might move soon. Based on that information, she balanced the number of mobile students across classrooms so teachers were equally dealing with the issue of mobility. Royal was a relatively popular school. Royal’s principal actually encouraged the farrrilies and their children who moved to utilize schools of choice options in order to stay in the school. Second, the principals were primarily paying attention to the incoming students. They immediately knew when new students arrived because new families and their children came to school and enrolled, and when student records were transferred. But unless parents came in and reported to the office that they were leaving for a new school, principals would not be aware they were going. Furthermore, dealing with incoming students added extra work to their routine administrative and moderation duties. Dealing with incoming mobility interfered with principals’ routine work, so they were more aware of it. Loose coupling—adaptability The principals of Elmwood and Milford schools were not only aware of the effect of market reform options on student mobility, but they also capitalized on it. They used 164 the market options to increase enrollment for school’s survival. Thus, these principals balanced two competing values—preservation and transition—by maintaining administrative routines at the same time they utilized market reform options. These principals gave evidence of opportunities for adaptation to local circumstances (Weick 2001). For example, Milford’s student enrollment was drastically declining over time. The principal was utilizing the school’s unique before- or after-school programs as well as the convenient location for families who commute to work in the city center to attract new families and their children to enroll in the school. Most other principals noticed the effect of the market on student mobility, but they were not capitalizing on it. They primarily maintained the value of preservation. While principals were aware of the possibilities of market options, they did not seek to benefit from them. Their primary sensing mechanisms were directed internally and market-driven possibilities were out of the bounds of their rational planning. From the competing values perspective, these principals chose an either/or approach—favoring preservation—and did not utilize the value of transition to make a good balance. An either/or approach may not be the optimal strategy to deal with a situation like student mobility. It is important to keep a balance between stability and flexibility. Thus, the Elmwood and Milford principals were perceived to utilize both stability and flexibility to deal with the issue of mobility more efficiently than other principals. Resource dependence theory-achievement Pressures on principals to meet the high standards indicate that they were influenced by the external environment—state-mandated standardized tests and public opinions on what made a good school. Although they were not formally punished for low 165 test scores, they wanted to obtain and maintain a good reputation and receive monetary I awards for high school performance. Principals were the heads of the schools, so they were more likely to detect and respond to the influence of such external factors on schools. As principals worked at the administrative level, they were not in a position to negotiate with the public or the state department about the use of standardized tests. But they could negotiate with the district administrators. Akers’ principal reported to the district on the school’s high student mobility rates and its effect on test scores. Some principals had preparatory sessions for standardized tests as well as using tutors and parents as support to improve students’ academic performance. Resource dependence theory—external resource and profit The Elmwood and Milford principals’ strategy to reach out to external resources (new students and new families) indicates that the schools were affected by external factors such as market reform policies. These two principals were actively utilizing external resources to survive. As the resource dependence theory suggests, survival is the major goal for the organization. As building administrators, they felt responsible for keeping the school in business. Chapter 9 explores district administrators’ perspectives and responses to student mobility in four different area: 1) their perceptions of the causes of student mobility; 2) priority to the issue of student mobility; 3) the effects of student mobility on district administrators; and 4) strategies to address student mobility. And the end of the chapter, an analysis of district administrators’ perceptions, responsibilities and responses to student mobility is made using the CVF. 166 Chapter 9 District Administrators’ Perspectives and Responses to Student Mobility Chapter 9 explores and examines district administrators’ perspectives and responses to student mobility in four different areas: 1) their perspectives on the causes of student mobility; 2) priority given to the issue of student mobility; 3) the effects of student mobility on district administrators; and 4) strategies to address student mobility. At the end of the chapter, an analysis of district adrrrinistrators’ perceptions, responsibility and responses to student mobility is made using the CVF. District Administrators ’Perspectives on the Causes of Student Mobility All district administrators identified market reform options as the primary causes of student mobility. This might suggest that district administrators are most sensitive to the external influence on mobility because they work at the institutional level where they negotiate, collaborate and compete on external forces such as market reform options. Only three district administrators indicated that family-motivated issues were the major reason for school transfer. They understood that upward mobility was creating outward student mobility from the district. District administrators evidently put more emphasis on external factors affecting student mobility, and mobility crossing the district boundary (both inward and outward), because these types of mobility create the flow of students and money resources for the district. But it was not clear whether the district administrators perceived mobility as being largely the district’s responsibility or the responsibility of both school and families. F amily-related school transfer-upward mobility 167 Three district administrators (Torias, Ochoa and Goulvitch) mentioned that the city lacked the upper-middle-class housing that created an upward mobility to the suburbs. This kind of residential lack created student mobility out of the district. Interview results suggest that district administrators put more emphasis on out-of-district mobility because this form of mobility creates an outflow of students and resources that might negatively affect the district’s state aid funding and budget. School-motivated transfers-market reform The major finding in district adnrinistrators’ perception of the causes of student mobility is that all district administrators claimed that market reform options led to increases in student mobility. They had a clear sense that charter schools and schools of choice increased mobility and market-reform-motivated transfers were profound. Haggard and Goulvitch stressed the great effect of charter schools on mobility. Charter- school-motivated transfers were a major contribution to declining enrollment in the district and, as such, to an increase in student mobility. They felt charter schools were a threat to the district’s survival. Additionally, Torias said some families used school choice to move to affluent schools without physically moving. Thus, schools of choice policy was another factor affecting the district’s outward mobility. These administrators were clearly focusing more on out-of-district mobility. In other words, their focus was not so much on student mobility from school to school within the school district because such mobility did not create any outflow of students from the district. Thus, interview results might suggest that their focus was on monetary resources across school districts. The resource dependence theory argues that an organization is most critically attentive to those elements in its environment such as 168 charter school and schools of choice policies, which provide the resources important to its survival (McPherson et al, 1986, p.197). The rise in educational mobility was partly the result of the increased opportunity to choose among various options for public schooling (Cookson 1994; Schneider, Schiller and Coleman 1996 in Swanson and Schneider 1999). In a market-based reform, parents and students were given more opportunities to choose schools based on their preferences. This theory explains that recent student mobility in the district was primarily caused by charter schools and schools of choice policies. Three administrators (Torias, Ochoa and Wedmeyer) understood that a large number of school-of—choice and charter-school-related transfer students sought ‘choice’ to escape from reality and such problems as low academic performance, behavioral issues, retention, and dissatisfaction with public schools. They indicated that market reform options appear to be unused by parents, at least as they were intended to be used. Lastly, Wedmeyer claimed that most within-district school-of-choice transfers were not so much education—oriented as oriented toward the convenience of parents or guardians. These reasons include: the school being closer to the parent’s work place; and the school being located in an area where a child’s babysitter lives. Summary of district administrators’ perceptions 0n the causes of student mobility District administrators understood market reform options as representing the most profound factors affecting student mobility. District administrators negotiate, collaborate and compete with other actors on external forces, such as market reform options at the institutional level so they are sensitive to the effect of market force on student mobility. Their emphasis was more likely to be on both inward and outward mobility as it crosses 169 the district boundary—and causes the inflow and outflow of students and monetary resources. They were not emphasizing within-district mobility because this does not create the outflow of financial resources. Even for the three district administrators who mentioned that family-related factors also had created mobility, their focus was on out- of-district mobility—upward mobility to the suburbs. Thus, overall, district administrators paid more attention to the mobility that crosses district boundaries. This finding makes sense, based upon district administrator’s responsibilities of maintaining and increasing students’ enrollment. District administrators understood that the majority of parents who change schools through school-of-choice options choose to reactively escape from the problems or issues at an old school rather than proactively select a new school for their children’s better educational and social growth. Additionally, within-district school transfers were perceived to be more for convenience than for educational purposes. Thus, interview results suggest that schools-of-choice-motivated transfers do not reduce student mobility, but rather increase student mobility. Is Mobility a Priority for District Administrators? It was evident that mobility is not a leading priority for district administrators. When they were asked questions about mobility, they often turned to the issues of enrollment and academic performance. Even though they were fully aware of the market effect on student mobility, mobility itself was not an issue as long as students stayed within the district, although they frequently moved from one school to another within the district. District adnrinistrators’ lack of attention to the issue of mobility might suggest that they have no district-wide strategies solely designed to reduce student mobility. 170 Efiects of Student Mobility on District Administrators District administrators’ primary concern is to meet the standards, regardless of high student mobility, because they believe the public uses test scores to rank and measure the school district. School district ranking affects consumers’ decision-making on where to live and where to school their children. Thus, ranking largely affects the district enrollment and plays a role in district survival. On a superficial level, district administrators commented that mobility did not affect student performance. Instead, they were turning to teachers, saying that they were concerned if teachers used mobility as an excuse to lower their expectations of student performance. As a result, with their low expectations, teachers might not teach mobile students up to the high standards. This eventually affects the overall scores of the school district. Thus, on a deeper level, the administrators were concerned that mobility might affect student performance due to teachers possibly lowering their expectations and not teaching mobile students up to the standards. Pressures to meet the new standards On a superficial level, district administrators did not believe that student mobility affects student performance. These administrators provided research evidence to building principals and classroom teachers that student mobility had no effect on student academic performance. Their intention was to ensure that teachers and principals would not use mobility as an excuse to lower expectations and standards. They wanted to make sure that teachers conducted instructions based upon the aligned cuniculum. They believe the public, particularly the media, uses standardized test scores to rank and evaluate the school district. Based on test scores, the public makes judgments on how good or bad the 171 school district is. Some people decide to stay in the district, move out of the district, or move into the district, depending upon information related to the test scores. Consequently, people’s decisions affect the flow of people, and that of students. As described earlier, the flow of students affects the district’s state aid funding and budget. District administrators intended to improve test scores to have a good reputation for the district in order to attract and maintain families and their school-aged children. There were also some monetary incentives to the schools and district for higher test scores. They were also at risk of a state takeover for low test scores—the result being a loss of autonomy and the freedom of local control. Torias looked at test scores and mobility rates at the building level for the last several years and found there was no correlation between mobility and statewide standardized test scores. Her findings contradicted what Mao et al (1997) claimed about the relationship between mobility and test scores. While Mao’s study was a large-scale statistical analysis, Torias’ findings were gathered through a case study that compared and contrasted data manually without controlling factors. Although her analysis was not scientific, she indicated that regardless of the high student mobility rates at Milford school, students’ reading scores were relatively high. Torias’ finding resembled several research studies (e. g., Heywood, Thomas and White, 1997; Reynolds 1999; Heinlein and Shinn 2000; Bolinger and Gilman 1997) that suggested no relationship between student mobility and academic performance. Although Haggard claimed that there was no correlation between mobility and student performance, she also commented that students who moved to a new school right before statewide standardized tests had lowered scores. She also mentioned that the 172 office did not evaluate the difference in test scores between mobile and stable students, but they planned on doing so in the future. Her statement indicates that, on a deeper level, the district administrator was concerned that student mobility actually affected academic performance. And, her concern was primarily coming from her doubt that teachers adjusted instruction based upon their lower expectation of mobile students. Thus, she was concerned that teachers used mobility as an excuse not to expect the mobile students to meet the standards. She described, “[The research group] did not find and another district also indicated [that] mobility was not necessarily the factor for our schools. There were other reasons why students don’t learn, don’t achieve. It’s not always mobility as the reason. A lot of it has to do with classroom instruction and ability of a teacher to be in touch with the needs of a child.” Summary of the effects of student mobility on administrators District administrators mentioned that their responsibility was to meet the high standards. They were also responsible for making sure that principals and teachers understood-by providing research evidence-that there was no correlation between student mobility and student performance, so teachers and principals would try to meet the new standards. Their focus on high standards comes from a concern that the public would use the test scores to rank and measure the quality of the school district. Based upon the ranking and test scores, some people make decisions on whether on not they stay, move out or move into the district. People’s decisions affect student mobility, particularly the enrollment that is directly related to the flow of financial resources from the state. As district administrators are responsible for external forces such as state-mandated 173 standardized tests and public opinions, they are also sensitive to their need to meet the standards. District administrators believed that there was no correlation between student mobility and test scores, on a superficial level. But, they also claimed that test scores were negatively affected by students who moved into schools right before the test. This comment suggests that district administrators were also concerned about the effect of student mobility on student performance, on a deeper level. Their intention to evaluate the correlation between student mobility and students’ test scores would support the argument that, on a deeper level, they are actually concerned that mobility might actually affect student performance. Strategies to Address Student Mobility Although district administrators did not develop specific strategies for student mobility, they used existing programs to reduce the negative effects of student mobility and to reduce student mobility itself. Strategies for reducing the negative effect of student mobility include: 1) district-wide aligned curriculum, pacing guides and quarterly assessments; and 2) an informal network system to track down mobile students. The main strategy for the reduction of student mobility was the implementation of magnet schools, owing to school’s additional provisions for transportation. Reduction of the negative effect of student mobility The majority of district administrators indicated that the aligned curriculum, pacing guides and quarterly assessments were the major district policies created to help reduce the negative effects of student mobility. Aligned cuniculum had been implemented since the mid-19903, whereas the pacing guide and quarterly assessments 174 were implemented in the year the interviews took place. At the time the interviews were conducted, pacing guides and quarterly assessments were made for math and language arts. Pacing guides tell what and when to teach in an organized way. Quarterly assessments were made based upon the pacing guides, and implemented every nine weeks. Torias was excited when she explained the positive effectiveness of the pacing guides she created. She strongly believed that it would fill the gap in learning and knowledge of the child. This logic of pacing guides and quarterly assessments filling the gap comes from the assumption that all teachers across the district teach the same content at the same time and as a result, even though a child moves from school to school, a child would not miss any content. This argument makes sense as long as the mobility takes place within the district. Haggard also believed that the quarterly assessments would tell the teachers what areas a child was missing so that she could follow it up and help fill in the gaps. District administrators strongly believed that pacing guides and quarterly assessments would help improve mobile students’ achievement because students would not miss any content despite moving. Furthermore, the quarterly assessments indicate a child’s weaknesses and a teacher can follow up to help a student grasp the content she did not understand before. However, as the pacing guides and quarterly assessments were only recently implemented, it might take some time to assess the programs’ effectiveness. As to the strategy to reduce the negative consequences of student mobility, there was an informal network to track down mobile students and communication among personnel. This informal network would help bring a student back into a school system 175 so they would miss fewer school days. That would help reduce the negative effects of mobility on student’s academic and social aspects. Reduction of student mobility The magnet schools were about to open within a couple of months of when the interviews took place, and the majority of district administrators mentioned that magnet schools would reduce mobility. They believed that parents and students would value magnet schools’ unique focus so much they would stay. Magnet schools also provide transportation. If students stayed, mobility would be reduced. The provision of transportation is an important issue for many mobile students and their families. The reason they cannot send their children to the same school for the whole year is often that they do not have their own means to transport them when they move. Thus, the provision of amenable transportation would certainly reduce student mobility. Summary of district administrators’ strategies for student mobility District administrators did not develop and implement strategies specifically addressing student mobility. Their primary focus on enrollment and resources suggests their lack of attention to student mobility itself, and this might explain why there were no strategies solely designed for student mobility. Besides enrollment and resources, they were also primarily concerned about test scores. Strategies that the district implemented to improve test scores—aligned cuniculum, pacing guides and quarterly assessments— were also perceived to reduce the negative effects of student mobility on students’acadenric performance. District administrators strongly believed that the pacing guides and quarterly assessments would fill the deficit in students’ learning because students could keep up with the content and the pace of the subject even when they 176 moved within the district. Thus, they would not miss out on any lessons. Quarterly assessments further help a student to acquire the content of the materials that she initially might not understand. These strategies were perceived as important because they were tied to the improvement of test scores. Utilizing informal networks to track down mobile students was also perceived to be an effective strategy for reducing the negative effects of student mobility because these students would be in the school system without losing many school days. As for a strategy for reducing student mobility, magnet schools with a transportation system were believed by district administrators to reduce student mobility because they felt that parents and students would choose to stay in these schools because of their unique programs and visions. Furthermore, the transportation magnet schools provide was believed to stabilize the mobility of students because parents did not have to rely on their own transportation. Analysis of District Administrators ’ Perspectives and Responses to Student Mobility District administrators’ perceptions, responsibilities and responses to student mobility are analyzed by using the Competing Values Framework (CVF). The findings are also connected to three theories. District adnrinistrators’ perceptions and responses to student mobility primarily reflect the values of transition and productivity. Their responses to reduce student mobility or reduce the negative consequences of student mobility also reflect the values of preservation and equity. Sensitivity to external resources District administrators’ awareness of the influence of market reform options on student mobility tells of their responsibility for negotiating, cooperating, and competing 177 with external actors and external resources (transition). In order for the district to survive, they need to seek out external resources—students-to sustain their business. Their attention to outward mobility from the district and upward mobility to suburbs also indicates that they are concerned about the effect of the outflow of resources on the district’s survival. This growth-based value of transition is closely related to the profit- oriented productivity value. In the next section, district administrators’ productivity values are examined. District’s survival through profit and achievement District administrators’ leading priority is apparently to negotiate the influence of external forces such as market reform policies and state-mandated standardized tests. Their goal is to ensure the survival of the organization and to acquire more autonomy and freedom from external constraints. Generating profits through external resources is imperative for the district to stay in business as it has recently experienced a decline in enrollment due to demographic changes and the effect of market reform. Besides their responsibility for monetary resource acquisition, the district administrators felt pressured to meet the new standards because board members, the public and media use test scores to judge the quality of the school district. The indicator for test scores affects inward and outward mobility in the district because people make a decision about which school they send their children. The district might also possibly face state takeover if the test scores are exceptionally low. In order for the district to maintain its autonomy, and freedom from the state, district administrators are responsible for producing and maintaining a certain level of academic performance. Their expectation of teachers to teach mobile students up to the new standards and to implement the pacing guides and quarterly 178 assessments indicates not only a productivity value, but also their need for organizational preservation. In the next section, the value of preservation is examined and analyzed from an administration standpoint. Formal district policies holding the organization together District-wide pacing guides and quarterly assessments were perceived in part to reduce the negative consequences of student mobility. The intention and goal of these strategies is to fill the mobile students’ learning deficit by aligning teachers on what and when to teach, by pacing guides, and also by helping teachers to identify what students’ weaknesses are through quarterly assessments so they can follow up. These formal district policies are intended to give teachers and schools well-defined schedules and content to teach, and to stabilize students’ learning experience even when they move during the academic year. Additionally, district administrators perceived that magnet schools would help reduce student mobility. Specialized programs with a clear vision in five magnet schools were believed to attract students, maintain them and lower student mobility. Transportation provided through magnet school programs would also help reduce student mobility. Parents often are not able to send their children back to a former school after moving because they lack their own transportation. Thus the provision of transportation creates stability among some students. Helping mobile students back into the system District administrators also developed an informal network to track down mobile students and get them back into the school system as soon as possible. Their intention by creating such a network is to minimize the negative academic and social effects of 179 student mobility on mobile students. Their concerns about students indicate their commitment to students’ learning (equity). Pacing guides and quarterly assessments are also considered as tools to provide equal educational opportunities and services to all students, including mobile students. It is fair that all students are given an opportunity to achieve at a certain level of academic performance. Quarterly assessments are used as an indicator of a student’s weaknesses. With knowledge of a student’s weaknesses, teachers are able to provide a more individualized approach to help a student to understand certain content, or to solve problems. Thus, such an individualized approach would create equity for the student’s learning. Tensions around competing values (See Figure 5) District administrators’ perceptions and response to student mobility primarily reflected the values of transition and productivity. District administrators negotiate, cooperate and compete with external actors and external forces such that their motivations and behaviors around the issue of student mobility indicate they were sensitive to the influence of the external factors affecting their survival and freedom from external constraints. Their sensitivity to the effect of market reform options on student mobility (transition) and the use of market reform options to generate resources to survive the district (productivity) go hand in hand. But, their pressures to meet the standards (productivity) appear to be in competition with the use of the market to expand. They wanted to improve test scores in order to have a good reputation, while the frequent in-and-out movement of students was considered to be disruptive to students’ learning. In order to ease the tensions between these two values, the district implemented 180 policies—pacing guides and quarterly assessments—to reduce the negative effects of student mobility. Pacing guides and quarterly assessments are believed to reduce the negative consequences of student mobility on mobile students. These policies align teachers on what to teach and when to teach, by pacing guides, and help teachers to identify the weaknesses of students through quarterly assessments. District administrators believed that mobile students would not miss much content even when they moved. Students would receive the same content from their new teacher in a new school because teachers would teach the same content at the same, or similar time, of the year based on a pacing guide. With this policy, the deficit in a mobile student’s learning was expected to be reduced. Additionally, district administrators expected teachers to fill the gaps in a mobile student’s learning by identifying her weaknesses through quarterly assessments and by providing some special services to address the deficit. With these policies, teachers and schools are more aligned and consequently this alignment creates more cohesiveness (preservation) through formal rules and policies. Figure 5 _ Equity Transition Equitable educational A Insight Services External Inclusion Resources Growth Preservation Productivity Stability T Profit Cohesiveness Achievement 181 Integrating Analysis with Theory Parsons ’ three levels of the organization District administrators deal with the issue of student mobility at the institutional level where they negotiate, compete and cooperate with external actors and external constraints. They are primarily responsible for external affairs. As Parsons’ functionalist view predicted, their perceptions and responses to student mobility mainly reflect the values of transition and productivity. Loose coupling-the proximity from the issue-and Parsons ’ three levels District administrators were farthest from the issue of student mobility. As such, they were the most uncertain about the issue because the frequency and magnitude of the student mobility they dealt with would be rare and low. Their own lack of direct experience with student mobility might explain that: 1) none of the district administrators perceived student mobility as a leading priority; and 2) they believed that there was no direct effect of student mobility on test scores. But they were concerned teachers’ lowered expectations of mobile students’ academic performance might affect overall test scores. Loose coupling—bounded rationality and sensitive sensing mechanisms The district administrators were concerned about student enrollment, because state funding is based on the number of students in the school. This reality drove district administrators to explore market reform options to increase enrollment. As a result, increases in enrollment increased student mobility. As increases in enrollment were accomplished by student mobility, student mobility was perceived as a solution by the district administrators. Their definition of what students are and what student mobility is 182 determined what kind of mobility they most paid attention to. They primarily considered outward and inward mobility from the district because it created an outflow or inflow of monetary resources. The flow of money would directly affect the district’s survival. Loose coupling-adaptability District administrators who work at the institutional level are responsible for negotiating, cooperating and competing with external actors and external forces such as market reform, state-mandated standardized tests and public opinions. Because of their job responsibilities, they have knowledge of and are sensitive to the external constraints and factors affecting the district’s own survival. They are aware of and utilize the values of both transition and productivity and maintain a balance between flexibility and stability on the issue of student mobility. Resource dependence theory—achievement It was important for the district to maintain good test scores in order to acquire autonomy and freedom from external constraints. In order to meet high standards, the district administrators were responsible for making sure that principals and teachers maintained expectations of mobile students’ academic performance. They provided the research evidence that student mobility did not affect test scores. District-wide policies such as pacing guides and quarterly assessments were believed to help reduce the consequence of student mobility. With pacing guides, mobile students would not miss much content when moving to a new school, because teachers were supposed to teach the same content at the same time across the district. With quarterly assessments, mobile students’ weaknesses would be identified, so teachers could give them special support. Thus, pacing guides and quarterly assessments were believed to improve mobile students’ 183 academic performance. With good student academic performance, the district market value might increase and as a result the district would attract more families and children. Resource dependence theory—extemal resources and profit In order to survive, as described above, the district adrrrinistrators were capitalizing on market options to increase the enrollment, which created an increase in student mobility. As the district has been experiencing a decline in enrollment , caused by demographic change and the impact of market reform options, they needed to market the district with unique programs to attract students. Survival was the most important agenda among the district administrators. As mentioned earlier, pacing guides and quarterly assessments were believed to reduce the negative consequences of student mobility. Magnet schools were also believed not only to reduce student mobility but also to attract students outside of the district. With popularity resulting from good test scores and unique programs, the district would be able to attract more new families and their children, and acquire more autonomy and freedom from external constraints. 184 Chapter 10 Analysis of the Educators’ Perceptions and Responses to Student Mobility Across Three Levels of the Organization Previous chapters have shared findings related to this study’s first question: how do differently situated actors learn about, make sense of, and formulate responses to student mobility. This chapter highlights how actors’ perceptions and responses to student mobility varied by location within the organization; and what explains such variations. It also discusses how tensions among responses contributed to organizational responses to student mobility. Five major findings about actors’ responses were identified. They were: 1) Tensions were primarily found between district and school-level actors (principals and teachers) and reflected difference is certain, primary values. 2) Proximity to student mobility determined actors’ perceptions and responses. 3) Organizational approaches conflicted with local adaptability. 4) Access to mobility related information shaped what actors knew and what was important for them. And, 5) Actors responses did not seem to differ fundamentally by school, no pattern across schools, which suggests that schools are loosely coupled within their district contexts. Where Tensions are Most Likely to Exist Actors at different levels of the hierarchy perceived and responded to student mobility in identifiable ways. Teachers and the majority of principals seemed to share the value of preservation, in both cases working to maintain school and classroom routines and stability. Teachers seemed geared towards maintaining planned lessons and classroom community. For example, when new students entered classrooms, teachers 185 focused on diagnosing academic strengths and weaknesses and using a buddy system in order to integrate the student into existing routines and norms. Similarly, a majority of principals showed a preference for preservation by emphasizing concerns that student mobility not disrupt their administrative routines and functions. For example, they worked closely with student service providers around new students’ psychological and behavioral issues, and let student service providers take the lead on those issues. When a new student’s record came, the principals asked a secretary to process it. They also utilized external support--such as parents, tutors and mentors--to re-create stability. Having extra support from school staff and volunteers, the principals tried to maintain their administrative routines. Though similar in primary values, teachers and principals differed somewhat in their secondary values. Teachers concerns with integrating new students into classroom communities demonstrated some concern for matters of equity. Principals, on the other hand, tended to consider how, in some cases, mobility might serve desired transitions. For example, some principals were aware that certain forms of mobility might be a positive development for their schools. Overall, however, both teachers and principals shared a general passivity towards the issue of student mobility (‘it happens, there isn’t anything you can do about it”), indicating that they were not willing to make major changes to priorities or routines. Most of their suggested responses to mobility focused on external supports (tutoring, before and after-school programs) that could be added to existing school organizational routines. 186 In contrast, district administrators functioning at the institutional level linked the issue of student mobility to their negotiations with external actors and factors. Their attentions were focused on the acquisition of external resources, achievement numbers and enrollment expansions, all of which stressed the values of transition and productivity over preservation. District administrators were fully aware of the relationships between mobility and recent market reforms and accountability measures. They related to mobility more in terms of how it might help or hinder their ability to attract and retain needed student enrollments and to maintain academic achievement outcomes that would keep their districts in good, competitive standing. While teachers’ and principals’ primary job responsibilities were fundamentally different, they shared the core value of preservation—the maintenance of routines and stable community. District administrators, on the other hand, emphasized transition and productivity. Tensions between these competing values may be further explained by the proximity to the issue described next. The Role of Proximity Proximity to student mobility also seemed to influence actors’ perceptions and responses. Actors’ proximity to mobile students affected the priority given to mobility and the degree to which it was perceived to affect student achievement. Proximity and mobility as a leading educational priority Teachers were closest to mobility as an issue affecting their daily work. They were most aware of how student mobility affected students’ learning and needed to find flexible ways to accomplish job responsibilities while maintaining their instructional 187 routines and stable classroom community. Consequently, two fifths of the teachers identified mobility as a leading educational priority. District administrators, however, were furthest from mobile students. They did not encounter the issue of mobility as frequently as teachers did. They also did not know exactly how mobility affected classroom teaching. Consequently, none of the district administrators perceived student mobility as a leading educational issue. A conversation between the Lynden principal, Hughes, and a district administrator, Goulvitch, illustrated the discrepancy of understanding between district and school level actors. Hughes had a visit from Goulvitch, and shared the following: “Goulvitch was here. He and I were talking. And, I mentioned those numbers, the number of mobility student. He looked and said, “Say that again.” And, I said [the number]. Goulvitch was shaking his head and he said, “Is that true? How can you. . .?” I said, “This is the thing that the public doesn’t understand. . .when you have that going on.” He said, “My Gosh. When can I learn?” I said, “That’s it.” You know teachers have to re-teach and re-do things many times.” Goulvitch was surprised to learn how high the mobility was, something that he didn’t know before his visit. This suggested that the district administrator might not really understand what the school was actually dealing with. Principals’ awareness of the issue was closer to the district administrators’ than to the teachers’, with only one principal identifying student mobility as a leading priority. Whereas the teacher perceived student mobility as a problem, the principal did not see it in the same way as the teacher. For example, Ponzi, a Royal teacher, mentioned that her principal was not proactive about this issue: 188 “I wish I had more leadership [on strategies for mobility]. I think it’s kind of amazing to me that teachers who have been there for many years still struggle with what I am struggling with. Nobody has held together and figured it out yet? Or what? You know I was the one who brought up the issue that a [new] kid showed up at the door [without any prior notice]. This is not right, first of all, for a student. [S0,] we pulled welcoming packets together. Then we talked about how to welcome new students who showed up in school without any notice. Now, the building has a small packet for the parents and new students to read in the principal’s office while teachers are informed of the new students and get things ready for them.” However, the Royal principal did not perceive student mobility as an urgent issue; mobility rates at her school were lower than most in the district and student performance levels were relatively high. The Royal principal said, “In this particular building, most of mobility happens during the summer. We, as far as student mobility during the school year, are fairly stable, compared to other schools. Parents will move but they are up to schools of choice and bring them back. . .So, although mobility may affect other schools more than Royal School, right now ours is not too bad.” Different perceptions of student mobility between a teacher and a principal created a tension around the way to respond to the issue of mobility. Such a tension caused unnecessary stress on teachers who needed to integrate new students who showed up at the door without any notice. Although the majority of principals did not perceive student 189 mobility as a leading priority they were receptive and accommodating to teachers’ needs when necessary. Proximity and the eflects of mobility on achievement Those farthest from mobile students were also the most likely to discount relationships between mobility and test scores. District administrators seemed less likely to think that mobility itself negatively affected student performance. Rather, they were concerned that teachers’ lowered their expectations of mobile students and that this negatively affected student performance. This may explain why they believed pacing guides and quarterly assessments might reduce the negative consequences of mobility. Although teachers and principals also felt pressured to meet the standards, their understanding of the effect of mobility on student academic performance was fundamentally different than the district administrators’. Teachers and principals believed student mobility had direct negative effects on student performance. Thus, they were not content with how district administrators identified the relationship between mobility and test scores. Getz, a Milford teacher said that the district provided literature arguing that mobility and test scores had no correlation: “[The district] quoted research saying that student mobility has no effect on test scores...I said that’s not true from what I read. But, they said from what they read that it is true. [There is also a tension] when we say how we should or could be responsible for test scores for a child whom we’ve never taught. We shouldn’t get a credit or blame. [There is] great lack of understanding [between the district and classroom teachers].” 190 Teachers change strategies to meet the standards were small scale, accommodative, and sporadic. They sought to make small adjustment to accommodate students’ understanding of the materials and content. While the majority of interviewed principals were also not convinced that pacing guides and quarterly assessments would help fill gaps in mobile student’s learning, two principals—those at Lynden and Royal—commented that they could. Hughes stated: “As for the district doing pacing guides and quarterly assessments, those are going to be more positive. That is because hopefully no matter where a child goes in the district, s/he can be close within the same area of what they are learning. There won’t be gaps that they had before.” Overall, however, principals functioned as did teachers, being flexible and reaching out to external supports for assistance. Consequently, a tension around the enforcement of pacing guides and quarterly assessments—an organizational adaptation—was obvious between the district administrators and school-level actors, particularly teachers. The majority of teachers did not like the district wide policy and they did not think the pacing guides and quarterly assessments would reduce mobility or the negative consequences of it. The teachers argued that pacing guides were based upon assumptions that mobile students were at grade level and without lost time in school between moves. At the same time the policy would take away from teachers opportunities to make small, local adjustments in response to mobile students. 191 Because it was too early to make a judgment on whether or not new district policies were helping mobile students’ academic performance, the issue would need to be followed up and evaluated to weight its impact and success. Organizational Adaptation versus Local Adaptability In order to manage student mobility, teachers and principals made small, flexible changes whenever they encountered a new student or a student leaving. Small-scale, flexible changes at the classroom and school level are considered examples of local adaptability. In a loosely coupled system teachers and principals were given freedom to make flexible changes. The district response to student mobility—through the institution of pacing guides and quarterly assessments—minimized flexibility, however. An organizational approach did not incorporate local differences. This organizational adaptation was in tension with the local adaptability on the part of teachers and principals. Weick (2001) indicates that organizational adaptation requires a tight coupling system in which teachers and schools are not allowed to have much differentiation. Schools, however, persisted in being loosely-coupled organizations. Teachers resisted organizational mandates around instruction, as they did in this study. Thus, tension was created from the contrasting approaches utilized by district administrators and school-level actors. Incoming versus Outgoing Mobility Access to information shaped what actors knew and focused on. Consequently, there were clear differences in actors’ attentions to particular types of student mobility. Teachers paid the most attention to incoming students. They were confronted with disruptions to their instructional routines and were responsible for integrating students 192 into their classrooms. While they clearly knew when new students came, however, they often did not know when students would leave. Once students did leave, they left the teachers’ field of concern. Principals also focused on incoming mobility. Dealing with incoming students negatively affected principals’ administrative routines and school community building far more than outbound mobility. Principals had more accurate information on the reasons why incoming students had just moved, but few of them seemed to capitalize on this information by developing strategies to respond to incoming students. As described earlier, they maintained a generally passive attitude toward the matter. This sometimes created frustrations among teachers who wanted more proactive approach towards incoming students. For district administrators, much greater attention was placed on outgoing mobility, particularly outgoing mobility that crossed district lines. They spoke most often of the impact of demographic changes and market reform options on outward mobility, and the consequent outflow of important dollars. Mobility as a Solution versus a Problem District administrators more often capitalized on the effect of market reform options to bring new students into the district. Thus, they tended to perceive student mobility as a potential solution whereas the majority of principals and teachers perceived it as a problem. For the district administrators, students were perceived as resources as well as learners. They utilized schools of choice and charter school options to increase student enrollment. 193 For the majority of principals, students were primarily identified as learners although two principals, those at Milford and Elmwood, expressed a similar view of students as resources. While student mobility might improve enrollments and help a district or school survive, it remained a problematic disruption to instructional and administrative routines of teachers and principals. For all the teachers and the majority of principals, students were mainly perceived as learners, thus increases in student mobility were disruptive to teaching and learning. The tensions between mobility as a solution versus a problem were also seen in one of the cases study schools. At Milford, the teacher Getz, shared that the principal tried to increase enrollment through school choice options. Getz was concerned about losing the sense of a neighborhood school if choice students pushed out neighborhood children. She said, . .as I understand it, [our enrollment is] supposed to be 157 or 160. At one point we had 190 students. . .My point of view was that you should take me to 17 and 18 or 19 community [or] local children because we get more children coming in through schools of choice or whatever. And, we don’t have room for community children. This is a community school. I am seeing the grass root leveL.f’ She continued saying that she considered the problem at the student level while her principal looked at it at the building level. 194 These differences, both in attention to inward versus outward mobility and to mobility as either a solution or problem, suggest why proactive strategies at the school level, or district wide policies on mobility, are difficult or awkward to forge. Patterns among Actors Were More Predictable Than Those among Schools While there were some clear patterns among actors in Renton, there were few clear patterns among its schools, suggesting that loose coupling at the district level leads to very local adaptations to student mobility The interview results indicate that principals’ perceptions and responses to student mobility were closely related to what was happening in the community and in the school. For example, demographic change greatly affected some schools, e. g. Royal and Milford. Thus, principals’ perceptions and responses to student mobility were related to the demographic changes—the decline in population, the increased number of people of color, and the increased number of rental houses. The existence of a charter school nearby greatly affected Akers, creating revolving door mobility. Akers had the highest mobility rates, so the principal was fully aware of the effects of student mobility, and he even reported to the district about the negative consequences of mobility on students. A federal court order to create a racial balance affected student mobility in Timberland. Many families moved out of the area to the suburbs to avoid school integration. The principal was experiencing a diverse population of parents and students, which thus created a complex mobility pattern. Weick’s adaptability argument (2001) explains that schools are adapted to the local conditions and principals’ views were pretty much bounded by the local condition. 195 Thus, mobility rates were not a detenninant factor indicating some similar or different patterns across schools. Furthermore, allowing local units to adapt to local conditions— without requiring changes in the larger system—reduces coordination costs for the system as a whole. Summary of Educators’ Perceptions and Responses to Student Mobility In summary, tensions primarily existed between the district and school-level actors due to the difference in the primary values they held. District administrators had the main values of transition and productivity while teachers and principals shared the primary value of preservation--although there are some exceptions. Their different primary values reflected various ways of perceiving and responding to the issue of student mobility. The proximity to the issue of student mobility also determined differences in educators’ perceptions and responses to student mobility. The closer to the issue, the more priority given to the issue of student mobility. Teachers, who were the closest to the issue, experienced student mobility most frequently and directly. So, more teachers perceived the issue of student mobility as a leading priority than did principals and district administrators. On the other hand, educators higher up in the organization tended to be more aware of external factors, such as the educational standards measured by state standardized tests. District administrators implemented a district-wide policy—pacing guides and quarterly assessments as organizational adaptations—to address student mobility. Teachers and principals, however, made small, local changes to accommodate the transitional changes created by student mobility. Small changes were considered to 196 be examples of local adaptability and did not require a major change in the system. The organizational adaptation to student mobility required a tight coupling in which much differentiation and local adjustments were not allowed across classrooms and schools. The local adaptability, on the other hand, required a loose coupling system in which individuals and subunits were not well aligned with one another. The conflicts between organizational and local adaptations created big tensions between district administrators and school-level educators, particularly teachers. Access to information also determined what educators knew and what was important to them. Teachers and principals primarily paid attention to incoming students because they knew when incoming students came and that incoming mobility was generally disruptive to instructional and administrative routines. District administrators mainly paid attention to outward mobility from the district because it directly affected the district budget. The different foci on various types of student mobility among educators created a tension. Additionally, district administrators perceived student mobility as a solution because increases in student mobility contributed to increases in student enrollment. Teachers and principals saw student mobility as a problem because mobility was disruptive to instructional and administrative routines and stable community. Their different concept of student mobility—solution vs. problem—created a tension between the district administrators and school-level actors. The tensions mainly exist between the district administrators and the school-level actors around: 1) the degree of priority given to the issue; 2) organizational adaptation vs. local adaptability; 3) outward mobility from the district vs. incoming mobility; and 4) the concept of the student mobility—solution vs. problem. All these tensions indicate the 197 difficulty of addressing student mobility in an organizational, more structured way. Furthermore, organizational adaptations to student mobility that minimize local adaptability at the school level may not be most effective because it does not incorporate local differences in the process of change. Overall, tensions between the district administrators and school-level actors appear to make an organizational approach to address student mobility difficult. 198 Chapter 11 Conclusion The Difficulty of Policy Creation on Student Mobility Taken together, the findings of this study suggest why the district has not developed and implemented system-wide or formal policies regarding student mobility. The study found that educators at different levels of the organization filter the issue of student mobility through distinct lenses and respond differently. These differences create tensions that occur primarily between district administrators and school-level professionals—principals and teachers. These differences reflected primary values that each group held. District administrators’ attention was directed toward external processes because of their responsibility for organizational transition and productivity as they primarily negotiate, compete and collaborate with external forces for students and resources. On the other hand, school-level educators focused on internal processes that reflected their desire to preserve the organization because they were mainly concerned about the maintenance of planned classroom lessons, classroom management and school management. Thus, district adrrrinistrators’ focus on external processes and school-level educators’ focus on internal processes created a tension around student mobility. These tensions include differences in 1) the priority given to student mobility, 2) the focus on outward versus incoming mobility, 3) approaches towards student mobility as a potential solution versus a fundamental problem, and 4) the organizational response and adaptation to mobility. In addition to tensions existing across different levels of the organization, no patterns across schools were found. This indicates that each school was adapted to local context and responded differently according to local context. 199 The priority given to student mobility Although two fifths of teachers and one principal identified student mobility as a leading priority, over all, education actors expressed largely passive attitudes regarding student mobility. All the teachers and one half of the principals strongly believed that family related factors were the primary cause of student mobility. With such a perception, a majority of educators understood that student mobility was largely a family’s responsibility, not a school’s responsibility. Their strong belief in the primary family effect on student mobility created a lack of desire in educators to actively manage student mobility. Such perception and belief seemed to be one explanation for their general passivity toward the issue of student mobility. As a result, educators in the Renton School District have not developed polices and programs exclusively addressing the issue of student mobility. Outward versus incoming mobility The findings strongly suggest that sub units of the organization demonstrated different foci and interests in student mobility. District administrators paid the most attention to outward mobility that affected enrollment and state aid. Principals and teachers primarily focused attention on incoming students because that issue was perceived to be disruptive to those educators. Thus, district administrators’ focus on outward mobility and school-level educators primary focus on incoming mobility created an unresolved tension. Student mobility as a potential solution versus a fundamental problem District administrators perceived student mobility as a potential solution to the district’s survival or economic well being whereas principals and teachers saw student 200 mobility as a fundamental disruption to school management and classroom instruction. Diverse interests and incentives around the issue of student mobility made it hard to create a systemic policy acceptable to multiple actors. For example, a policy organized for incoming mobility may not be effective for dealing with outward mobility issues and vice versa. Organizational response versus local adaptation to mobility Organizational adaptations to mobility at the district level may have some positive effect by creating a bond between a teacher and mobile students. But, organizational responses largely have the effect of minimizing local adaptability at the school level. With pacing guides and quarterly assessments—a centralized approach, students were expected to perform at a certain academic level. The centralized approach would maintain high standards and teachers’ high expectations of mobile students’ performance. In theory, it would seem to be a good approach to help all children including mobile students, to meet the standards. Having a high expectation for mobile students to meet the standards and focusing teachers’ attention on them would create a close relationship between mobile students and teachers. In turn, mobile students might feel cared for by teachers and, as a result, want to stay in school and work harder to achieve. However the problem of the centralized approach is that it does not incorporate any local level differences. The findings suggest that mobile students tended to miss classroom instruction between school transfers, and, as a consequence, they got behind academically. In order to fill gaps in students’ learning, teachers in the study needed to make small adjustments each time a new student came into their classrooms. The teachers did not like the centralized approach because it did not take into account the 201 small adjustments for student mobility needed to address student mobility issues in the classroom. Historically, small local adjustments have been instrumental in creating and adapting to change in the US. decentralized education system. Thus, this work suggests that district level policies that constrain school-level actors ability to work with student mobility may not be an effective response to mobility. The above tensions, observed primarily between district- and school-level educators, were addressed in this study. In addition to tensions, no patterns of educators’ perceptions and responses across schools were found, which suggests that schools were loosely coupled and were adapted to local conditions. Student mobility varied due to local conditions that included demographic change, proximity to other school districts, and the effects of charter schools and schools of choice. Each school had adapted to local conditions and responded to student mobility uniquely. All of these findings suggest why it may be difficult to develop effective centralized policies on student mobility. State— or district-wide policies are generally made in a top-down manner, and tend not to incorporate school-level actors’ values and local differences. Thus, these policies tend to hinder local adaptations. Policies that minimize differentiation between schools and school-level educators, may in fact increase tensions and not bring effective solutions to the issue of student mobility. Approaches that Integrate Local, Building Level Actions to Reduce Student Mobility and Its Negative Effects Even though this research suggests the difficulty of responding to student mobility in a more structured, systemic way, it may be possible to implement approaches that support the efforts of teachers and principals to make local adaptations that improve the classroom experience of mobile students. This Renton study suggests that approaches 202 and supports advocated in earlier work are held in common among many school level actors. Added support and assistance Previous research (e.g., Jason et al 1992; Fisher & Matthews 1999) suggests that tutoring, mentoring, counseling and before-and after-school programs in the classroom or at school can help mobile students to improve academically, socially and psychologically. Interview results in this study suggest that teachers and principals also see these responses as the most needed and promising. Suggested approaches need to support school-level educators to make local, flexible adaptations based on their unique situations. Approaches that reduce the negative consequences of mobility included: 1) expansion of support for providing tutors, mentors, and before- and after-school programs, particularly for mobile students, and 2) integration of classroom activities that promote community building and team work. Expansions of tutoring, mentoring and before- and after-school programs might be done with additional external support from a variety of agencies. Agencies include corporations, universities, Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCA and other non-profit organizations. It is important to connect such resources to mobile students to help them academically and socially. As a matter of fact, external support provided to struggling students including mobile students has already been expanding to meet students’ needs. The recent expansion of such support and assistance indicate that the number of students who need extra help, both academically and socially, because they do not get the help they need to learn during the regular school year, has been growing. The additional assistance is 203 important if there is a gap between what is taught and what students actually can learn during an academic year. Expansion of before- and after-school programs also indicates that an increasing number of families want their children to stay in school longer due to family structural changes (i.e., double income families and single parent families). Besides the external support that teachers utilized to respond to student mobility, the Renton study indicates that teachers have incorporated cooperative learning and team learning activities to create academic and social bonding between new students and stable students. Such activities helped mobile students integrate into the classroom both academically and socially. Integration activities or programs help mobile students to academically improve because of peer support. Social bonding created in integration programs, is also an important aspect of stabilizing the school and the classroom (Wehlage et a1 1989; Tinto 1993). Thus, social bonding created in the classroom would help mobile students to stay in the school. Such classroom practices can reduce the negative consequences of mobility. Teachers in classrooms with high levels of student mobility, should be encouraged to use these practices. More attention to exiting students at the school level The interview results illustrate that teachers and principals primarily paid attention to incoming students. In order to reduce the negative effects of student mobility, it is important to pay much more attention to outgoing mobility. Teachers and principals should strive to talk to families who plan to move during the academic year about the disadvantages of school transfers. Mid-year school transfers normally create gaps in academia and social isolation in a classroom for mobile students. It may also help to establish better exiting procedures, or exit packages that help new schools to work 204 with incoming students. Teachers and principals themselves may need to become change agents to educate families and to take a more active role in assisting outgoing students. A majority of teachers mentioned that incoming mobility was disruptive to their instruction routines and classroom dynamics, particularly without much information on a new student. Creating exiting procedures at a classroom and school level that would produce information on where a student moves to, why she moves, what academic strengths and weaknesses she demonstrates, and what behavioral backgrounds she has, would help a teacher in a school to which a student would move to place her more efficiently. Exiting procedures might take less time than integrating a new student in a classroom. Thus, for teachers, who have many time constraints, focusing more attention on procedures for exiting students would help them to manage student mobility more easily. Information systems In this study, many teachers complained about the slow process of student’s record transfers. As a result, teachers needed to spend extra time to academically diagnose students and determine what additional resources might be needed. Luckily, the state department has been developing a single student records database. When this statewide database is activated, school-level educators will have immediate access to more accurate and comprehensive information on new students. Prompt access to the student record helps teachers and principals to place new students at the appropriate academic level and to provide with adequate educational resources. This kind of organized system would be a significant improvement over Renton School District’s informal system for tracking down information on mobile students. The question, 205 however, still remains whether or not this type of information is as helpful as contact with former teachers and the types of attention given to exiting students. But, the statewide student-based database would be a fall back to little or no information on students. Community and family education In Japan, where I am originally from, there is almost no occurrence of student mobility. Even if family events produce turmoil during the school year, families keep their children in the same school until the end of the school year. Families there understand that stability of schooling is an important strategy for a child’s academic and social growth. These beliefs are the major factor for the extremely low student mobility rates in Japan. Using Japan’s example, it would seem important to educate families about the effects of student transfers during the academic year. Rumberger et a1 (1999) suggest that it is imperative for families to understand the advantages and disadvantages of changing schools. Education and outreach to families and their children may reduce mobility or case transitions. Renton school District hired a parental involvement coordinator who has been working with building principals on various programs and activities. She is responsible for developing and implementing community and family education programs at the school site. Future Research on Student Mobility As to future research on student mobility, it is important to study model mobile student induction programs to develop a better vision for schools and districts with high mobility rates. Fisher & Matthews (1999) identified three effective program components: 1) consistent in-school programs; 2) establishment of caring relationships; and 3) the 206 belief that all students could succeed. In addition to Fisher & Matthews’ findings, we want to add the following component as an effective concept for mobility--the idea of school as a community center. It is imperative to evaluate the programs that contain these qualities to see if they do indeed reduce the negative impact of mobility on students and classrooms. In addition to evaluating effective programs across the nation, two programs should be evaluated in the Renton School District: 1) the effectiveness of pacing guides and quarterly assessments on mobile student’s academic performance; and 2) school as a community center concept. Although teachers complained about pacing guides and quarterly assessments, it is possible that they have assisted mobile students by introducing achievement standards and expectations. Students may respond positively to teachers’ high expectations by working hard. Therefore, teachers’ high expectations coupled with the use of pacing guides and quarterly assessments of students may create a stronger, more caring relationship between teachers and students. A strong bond is needed to reduce student mobility and its negative effects. We should look at student mobility at schools which provide community services such as health care services, job training and family counseling to students and their families in order to assess if community based services keep some families from moving. Akers, one of the case study schools, started their community services by including a residential social worker on site. There is no data on whether community services in Akers have reduced student mobility, but it will be important to follow up to determine its effect. In the Renton School District, one middle school functions as a community center where health care is provided. In this middle school, it would be good to evaluate 207 the effectiveness of community services such as medical care and legal advice. The concept of the ‘school as a community center’ creates a sense of belonging to the community. This may keep some families in the community. Developing a sense of community is a key component in reducing student mobility. Lastly, future studies should look at other countries that are experiencing rising rates of residential and student mobility to see what strategies positively impact studnets and classrooms. We also need to see what kinds of policies and programs other countries utilize to minimize student mobility and its negative effects. Because the US. appears to be going in the direction of more educational centralization, we can effectively learn through this process how to implement state- or national level policies and programs. Considering the US. context, we need to evaluate the feasibility of implementing centralized policies and programs in the US. setting. Also, in many communities across the world unique programs are being developed and implemented to adapt to local settings. We should ultimately integrate the most effective policies and programs from local, state and national levels to better manage the issue of student mobility. 208 Appendix: Interview Protocols Questions for School District Personnel 1. 2. How long have you been with the district? How long have you been serving in that role? Brief job description. Knowledge of student mobility. (Data at least for questions 1, 2, 3, 4 should be attainable as existing data, not through the interview) 1. 2. .U‘PP’ N Describe enrollment patterns at the district level over last ten years. Describe student mobility rates at district/school levels over years. (across districts and within district) and where to/from? Describe timing of moves. Who moves? (ethnicity, poverty, and test scores) Describe any similarities/differences between mobile and stable students at an aggregate level. What are the reasons for moves? Describe impacts of demographic change on enrollment and student mobilifl. Describe impacts of school choice policies on enrollment and student mobility. Perceptions of student mobility. Nr—s p—n Schools-of-choice related incoming and outgoing mobility: List any positive aspects of student mobility (probes: resources) List any negative aspects of student mobility (probes: resources, record transfer; MEAP, unstable student population, attendance, tardiness) Parent’s socio-economic status related to in and out mobility: . Any positive aspects? (probes: resources) . Any negative aspects (probes: unstable enrollment, MEAP scores, unstable student population, record transfengrttendance, tagliness) Responses to student mobility 9’ How do you deal with demographically declining enrollment (change policies on disciplines)? How do you promote your school district for schools of choice policies? How do you deal with within-district student mobiligr (get the intra-district transfer policy document)? Have you ever negotiated with the smartment renting agencies to suggest to them to make the renting contract end around the end of the school year? What’s the renter’s reaction? What is the student record-transfer system within the district and across the districts? 209 How do you coordinate the curriculum for mobile students? Educating parents about negative effects of frequent school change. What are your responsibilities for mobile students and the consequences of high student mobility?(what do you need to do?) .°°.\’.°‘ Questions for School Building Principals: 1. How long have you been with the district? 2. How long have you been the building principal? Knowledge of student mobility (try to get the data at least for Q3 1-4 from the existing data rather than interview). 1. Enrollment data were obtained. 2. Describe student mobility in your school over years (possibly from district). (incl. Where to/from) 3. Describe timing of moves. 4. Who moves? (ethnicity, poverty, and test scores) 5 Describe any similarities/differences between mobile and stable students in your schooL What are reasons of moves? Describe irrmacts of demographic change on enrollment and student mobility in yourschooL 8. Describe impacts of school choice policies on enrollment and student mobility in your school. >15" Perceptions of student mobility. Schools-ofchoice related incoming and outgoing SM: 1. List any positive aspects of student mobility (probes: resources, new good students, getting rid of disruptive students; clear school mission? 2. List any negative aspects of student mobility (probes: resources, cream-skimming, paperwork, cuniculum, MEAP scores, lack of sense of community; lack of parental involvement, attendance and tardiness: lesson plan_s) Parent’s socio-economic status related to incoming and outgoing SM: 1. List any positive aspects of student mobility (probes: resources) 2. List any negative aspects of student mobility (probes: paperwork, curriculum. MEAP scores, school as community) Responses to student mobility 1. How do you deal with shifting enrollment? 2. How do you promote your school for schools of choice policies? 210 3. How do you deal with disruptive students? (probe school choice—what types of student leave and come) 4. How do you deal with students who leave/come in middle of school yea_r (conversations with the parents; any special programs/curriculum/strategies)? 5. Parenting education? 6. What is student record transfer system? 7. Do you coordinate curriculum for mobile students? How? 8. What are your responsibilities for mobile students? 9. What are your responsibilities for school as a community with mobile students? 10. How does district policy on student mobility affect the building? (i.e. schools of choice policy, pacing guides, etc.) 11. How does a teacher’s response to student mobility affect you? 12. What factors do/don’t you control? Questions for Classroom Teachers: 1. How long have you been with the district? How long have you been a classroom teacher in the building? 2. What grade level/s have you been teaching? Knowledge of student mobility. Describe # of in/out students over an academic year. Describe tinting of moves. Who moves? (ethnicity, poverty, and test scores, disruptive students, behaviors?) Describe any similarities/differences between mobile and stable students in your classroom. What are reasons for moves? Describe impacts of demographic change on student mobility in your classroom. Describe impacts of school choice policies on student mobility in your classroom. PPNI‘ >199 Perceptions of student mobility. School choice related incoming and outgoing mobility: 1. List any positive aspects of student mobility (probes: good incoming students, getting rid of disruptive students) 2. List any negative aspects of student mobility (probes: cream skimming; no stability of classroom as a community, MEAP scores) Parent’s socio-economic related incoming/outgoing mobility: 1. List any positive aspects. 2. List any negative aspects (probes: no stable student body-) no stable learning community -) lower academic achievement) 211 Resmnses to student mobility. l. LII-huh) OO\IO\ What are special programs or services for new entrants and for students who leave during the academic year? . What are strategies to teach in an unstable learning community? . How do you deal with disruptive students? . What are your job responsibilities for mobile students? . What are your job responsibilities for a classroom as a learning community with mobile students? . How does a principal’s response to student mobility affect you? . How does the district’s responses to student mobility affect you? . Rank educational aspects. 212 References Aldrich, HE. (1979). Organizations and Environments. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc. Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., and Dauber, S. L. (1996). Children in motion: School Transfers and elementary school performance. The Journal of Education Research, 90(1) (September/October 1996), pp. 3—12. Baldridge, J. V., and Deal, T. (Eds) (1983). The Dynamics of Organizational Chalge in Education. Berkley, CA: McCutchan Pub. Corp. Barr, R. (1974). Instructional pace differences and their effect on reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 9, pp.526-54. Bayer, AB. (1982). A school transfer typology: Implications for new theory, revised Research design, and refocused school policy and practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York (March 1982). Becker, Gary S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Benson, GP, and Weigel, DJ. (1981). Ninth grade adjustment and achievement as Related to mobility. Edugltional Research Quarterly, 5, pp.15-19. Benson, G.P., Haycraft, J .L., Steyaert, J .P., and Weigel, DJ. (1979). Mobility in sixth Graders related to achievement, adjustment and socioeconomic status. Psychology In the School, 1; pp.444-447. Bidwell, C. E. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In J .G. March (Ed.) Handbook Of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally. Blane, D. (1985). A longitudinal study of children’s school mobility and attainment in Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101 pp.127-42. Bolinger, Kevin and Gilman, David. (1997). Student Mobility and Demographics: Relationships to Aptitude and Achievement in a Three-Year Middle School. Bryk, Anthony S., and Driscoll, Mary E. (1988). The High School as Community: Contextual Influence and Consequences for Students and Teachers. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. Buerkle, Karla K. (1997). Mobile Children and Families: Qualitative and Quantitative Explorations of the Meaning and Impact of Residential Mobilityand School 213 Changes. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1997). Cameron, KS. and Quinn, R. E. (1999). D_iagnosing and ChancirLg Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Westford: Addison- Wesley Series on Organization. Chubb, J ., and Moe, T. (1990). Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Clune, W., and Witte, J. (Eds) (1990). Choice and Control in American Education, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press. Cookson, P. (1994). School Choice: The struggle for the soul of American education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Comille, T.A., Bayer, A.E., and Smyth, CK. (1983). Schools and newcomers: A national Survey of innovative programs. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62, pp.229-236. Cyert, R. M. (1988). The economic theory of organizatimnd the firm. New York: Harvester. Cyert, R., M., and March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Driscoll, ME. (1993). Choice, Achievement, and School Community. In E.M. Rasell And R. Rothstein (Eds) School Choice: Examining the Evidence. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Pp. 147-172. Elias, M.J., Gara, M., and Ubriaco, M. (1985). Sources of stress and support in Children’s transition to middle school: An empirical analysis. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 14, pp.112-118. Elster, J. (ed.) (1986). Rational Choice. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press. Fairchild, H. H. and tucker, M. B. (1982). Black Residential Mobility: Trends and Characteristics. Journal of Social Issues, 38(3), 1982, pp.51-74. Felner, R. D., Primavera, J ., and Cauce, A. M. (1981). The impact of school transitions: A focus for preventive efforts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9 pp.449-59. Fernandez, N. T. (1987). Mobile students and statewide testing: A contextual influence On district performance. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago 214 Press. Fisher, Teresa A. and Matthews, Linda. (1999). Examining Intervention for Highly Mobile Students and Their Families. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Association (Montreal, Canada, April 19-23, 1999). Galbraith, J .R. (1977). Organization Desigr_l. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Gramlich, E., Laren, D., and Sealand, N. (1992). Moving into and out of poor urban areas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Mflgement, 11 pp.273-87. Guthrie, J .W., and Reed, RJ. (1986). Educational Administration and Policy: Effective Leadership for American Education. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Hansen, K.A. (1995). Geographical Mobility: March 1993 to March 1994: Current Population Reports (Series P-20, No. 485). Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office. Hawkins, J .D. and Weis, J .G. (1985). The social development model: An integrated Approach to delinquency prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6, pp.73-97. Heinlein, L.M. and Shinn, M. (2000). School Mobility and Student Achievement in an Urban Setting. Psychology in the Schools, 37(4), 2000, pp.349-357. Henig, J. (1994). Rethinking School Choice. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press. Harms, Robert A. (1976). Analysis of Teachers’ Perceptions of Transient and Non- Transient Sixth-grade Students. Journal Supplement Abstract Service of the American Psychological Association. (The article is not available at MSU.) Heywood, J. S., Thomas, M., and White, S. B. (1997). Does Classroom mobility hurt? Stable students? An Examination of Achievement in urban schools. Urban Education, 32 (3) (September 1997). Pp.354—372. The History and Growth of Renton Public Schools (Volume II). With emphasis on Years 1956-1962. The History and Growth of Renton Public Schools (Volume HI). With emphasis on Years 1962-1966. Horn, J. and Miron, G. (1999). Evaltition of the Michigan Public School Aglemy Initiatives: Executive Summm. Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. 215 Ingersoll, G.M., Scamman, J .P., and Eckerling, W.D. (1989). Geographic mobility and Student achievement in an urban setting. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, pp.143-149. Intermediate School District (2001). School of Choice Report. A Midwestem state. Jason, LA. and Bogat, GA. (1983). Evaluating a preventive orientation program. Journal of Social Service Research, 7, pp. 3949. Jason, L.A., Weine, A.M., Johnson, J.H., Warren-Sohlberg, L. Filippeli, L.A., Turner, E.Y., and Lardon, C. (1992). Helping Transfer Students: Strartegies for Educational apd Social Readjustment. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass Publishers. Johnson, R. A., and Lindblad, A. H. (1991). Effect of mobility on academic performance Of sixth grade students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, pp.547-52. Kerbow, D. (1996). Pervasive Student Mobility: A Moving Target for School Improvement. Chicago: Chicago Panel on School Research. Lash, AA, and Kirkpatrick, S.L. (1990). A classroom perspective of student mobility. Elementary School Journal, 91, pp.177-91. Layer, Michael. (1997). Private Desires, Political Action: An Invitation to the Politics Of Mona] Choice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Lee, Valerie E., and Burkam, David T. (1992). Transferring High Schools: An Alternative to Dropping Out? American J oumaflf Education, 100(1992), pp.420-453. Levine, Murray. (1966). Residential Change and School Adjustment. Community Mental Health Journal, 2(1966), pp.6l-69. (The article is not available at MSU) Li gon, G., and Paredes, V.(1992). Student mobilitLrate: A moving target. Presented at The American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Long, L. (1975). Does Migration Interfere with Children’s Progress in School? Sociology Of Education, 48(3), 369-81. Locke, L.F., Spirduso, W.W., and Silverman, SJ. (1987). Proposals that work: A guide For planning dissertations and grant proposals (2“Cl ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Maddaus, J. (1987). Residential mobility and school enrollment. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting for the New England Educational Research Organization, Stratton Mountain, VT, April 1987. 216 Maher, CA. and Zins, J.E. (Eds) Helgng Transfer Students: Strategies For Educational and Social Readiustment San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mao, M.X., et a1 (1997). Student mobility, academic performance, and school Accountability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997. Mac, M. X., Whitsett, M. D., and Mellor, L. T. (1998). Student mobility, Academic Performance, and School Accountability. ERS Spectrum, 16(1) Winter 1998, pp.3-15. March, J .G. (ed.), (1965). Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. March, J .G. and Olsen, JP. (1979). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations (2nd ed; Bergen, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. March, J. G., and Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell. McCaskey, MB. (1982). The Executive Challenge: Managing Change and Ambiguity Mansfield, MA: Pitman. McGee, Glenn. W. (1997). What State Tests Test. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997). McPherson, R.B., Crowson, RC, and Pitner, NJ. (1986). Managing Uncertainty. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Menill Publishing Co. Meier, Deborah. (1995). The power of their ideas: lessons for America from Qmall School in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press. Mehana, Majida and Raynolds, Arthur J. (1995). The Effects of School Mobility on Scholastic Achievement. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development (61”, Indianapolis, IN, March 30- April 2, 1995). Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M.W. Meyer (ed.) Environments and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, pp.78-109. Mid-western state census data (1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000). Census Bureau. Mid-western state Department of Education (1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,2001). School Report. 217 Mid-westem state Department of Education (1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000). Standardized Test Results. Miller, L. S., Fredisdorf, M., and Humphrey, D. C. (1992). Student mobility and school reform. New York: Council for Aid to Education. Minnesota University Center for Urban and Regional Affairs and Family Housing Fund. (1998). A Report from the Kids Mobility Project. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University and Family Housing Fund. Mintrom, M. (1998). Michigan’s Charter School Movement. Political Institute and Public Choice (PIPC) working paper 98-14. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Monis, J .L, Peataner, M., and Nelson, A. (1967). Mobility and Achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 35, pp.74-80. NAACP v Renton Board of Education (1977). (Case N o. G305-72). New York State Education Department. (1992). Student and teacher mobility: Impact on School Performance in New York City Public schools. Albany, NY: New York State Education Department, Office for Planning, Research, and Support Services. Ohio State Department of Education (1998). Student Mobility and Academic Achievement: A Report of the Urban Schools Initiative Mobility Work/Study Group. Columbus, OH: Urban Schools Initiative, Ohio Department of Education. Parson, T. (1960). Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe. Patton, Michael Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2‘“1 ed; Newbury Park: SAGE Publications. Perrow, Charles (1970). Organizational Analysis; a sociological view. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Perrow, Charles (1979). Complex Organizations: a critical essay Glenview, ILL: Scott, Foresman. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, GR. (1978). The External Control of Organization: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Plank, S., Schiller, K.S., Schneider, B., and Coleman, 1.8. (1993). Effects of Choice in Education. In E.M. Rasell and R. Rothstein (Eds) School Choice: Examinipg 218 The Evidence. pp.112-34. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Porell, F. (1982). Models of Intraurban Residential Relocation. The Hague: Kluwer. Renton School District Central Office. (1996). Annual Summary Report. Renton: Evaluation and Research Division. Renton School District Central Office. (2001). School Report. Renton: Student Services Office. Rossi, P. (1980). Why Families Move. 2“‘1 edition. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Rowan, B., and Miskel, CG. (1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational organizations. In J. Murphy and KS. Louis (Eds), mndbook of Research on Education Administration, pp.359-383. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishes. Rumberger, R.W., and Larson, K.A. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of High school dropouts. American Journal of Education, 107 (November 1998), pp.1-35. Rumberger, R.W., Larson, K.A., Ream, R.K., and Palardy, GJ. (1999). The Educational Consequences of Mobility for California Students and Schools. Policy Analysis For California Education, Berkeley, CA, PACE-99-2 . Schneider, B., Schiller, K.S., and Coleman, J .S. (1996). Public School Choice: Some Evidence from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, pp.19-29. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1960). 1960 Census Housing (1960). Block Statistics. Washington, DC: the Author. . (1970). 1970 Census Housing (1970). Block Statistics. Washington, DC: The Author. , (1990). 1990 Census of Housing (1990). Blocjk Statistics. Washington, DC: The Author. Schuler, D. B. (1990). Effects of family mobility on student achievement. ERS Spectrum. 8_pp.17-24. Scott, W.R. (1998). Organizations: Raftionala Natural and Open System_s (4th EditionL New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Scott, W.R. (1992). Opganizations: RationMatural and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 219 Scott, W. R., and Meyer, J. W. (1982). The Organization of Institutional Sectors. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, School of Education. Scott, W., R., and Meyer, J.W. (1984). Environmental Linkages and Organizational Complexity: Public and Private schools. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance. Sexton, P. (1961). Education @Ld Income. New York: Viking. Shouse, Roger C. (1995). Academic Press and Sense of Community: Sources of Friction, Prospect for Synthesis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, April 18-22, 1995). Shouse, Roger C. (1996). Academic Press and Sense of Community: Conflict and Congruence in American High Schools. Research in Sociology of Education And Socialization, 11 pp.173-202 Short, PM. and Short, R]. (1987). Beyond technique: Personal and organizational Influences on school discipline. High School Journal, 71(1), pp.31-36. Shumaker, S. A., and Stokols, D. (1982). Residential mobility as a social issue and Research Topic. Jourpal of Social Issues, 38 pp.1-19. Simon, Herbert A. (1957a). Administraftive Behavior (2nd Ed). New York: The Macmillan Company. Simon Herbert A. (1957b). Models of Man, Social and Rational; New York: John Wile & Sons, Inc. Stiles, G. E. (1968). Families on the Move. Educational Forum, 32 pp.467-474. Smith, GP. (1988). Towards a heuristic theory of problem structuring. Managing Science 34, 1489-1506. Straits, B. C. (1987). Residence, Migration, and School Progress. Sociology of Education, 60, pp.34-43. Swanson, CB. and Schneider, B. (1999). Students on the Move: Residential and Educational Mobility in America’s Schools. Sociology of Education, 72 (January), pp.54-67. Temple, J .A. and Reynolds, A.J. (1999). School Mobility and Achievement: Longitudinal Findings From the Urban Cohort. Journal of School Psychology, 3_7(4), pp.355-377. 220 Texas Education Agency. (1997). A study of student mobility in Tergra public schools. Statewide Texas Educational Progress Study Report No.3. Austin, TX: Author. Thompson, J .D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Retlfldng the cause and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.) Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Turner, 1. and McClatchey, L. (1978). Mobility, school attainment, and adjustment. Assocgiation of Educational Psychologist Journal 4, pp.45-50. United States Bureau of the Census. (Year?) International Perspectives on the Residential Mobility of America’s Children. United States General Accounting Office (1994). Elementary School Children May Change Schools Frequently, Report to the Honorable March Kaptur, House of Representatives. Wasserman, David. (2001). Movinglargets: Student Mobility and School and Student Achievement. Presented at The American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, April 10-14, 2001. Warner, TE. (1969). Student mobility at the elementary school level. Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 940A. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, pp.1-l9. Weick, KB. (1995). Senserraking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Weick, KB. (2001). Making Sense of the Organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Wehlage, Gary G., and Rutter, Robert A. (1986). Dropping Out: How much do schools Contribute to the Problem? Embers College Record, 87(1986), pp.374—92. Wehlage, Gary G. et al. (1989). Reducing the Risk: Schools as Communities of Support. New York: Falmer. Williams, Debra (1996). Kids, Schools Suffer From Revolving Door. American Educator, (Spring, 1996) pp.36-39. Witte, John F. (1993). The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. In E.M. Rasell and R. Rothstein (Eds) School Choicezgramining the Evidence. Washington, DC: 221 Economic Policy Institute. Pp.69-111. Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarla, D., Newacheck, P., and Nessim, S. (1993). Impact of Family Relocation on Children’s Growth, Development, School Function, And Behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270(1993), 1334-38. 222