Bottom-up reform as a policy strategy for decades has faltered in implementation. This article starts from the premise that these disappointing results stem from researchers’and practitioners’almost exclusive focus on implementation in schools or on what some call “the bottom” of hierarchical education systems but not shifts in policy makers’roles that might enable school change—the “up” in bottom-up reform. These gaps are addressed with a strategic, comparative case study of city-level policy makers in bottom-up reform implementation in Oakland, California, during the 1990s. The author demonstrates that organizational learning theory defines basic dimensions of policy makers’ roles in implementation and that they faced four paradoxes in adopting these roles. Over time, they tended to favor avenues consistent with traditional topdown, not bottom-up, policy making. Findings highlight policy makers as important participants in bottom-up reform implementation and suggest that new institutional supports for them may enable implementation.
Aberbach, J. D., Putnam, R. D.,& Rockman, B. A. (1981). Bureaucrats and politicians inWestern democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363-375.
3.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: W. W. Norton.
5.
Bardach, E. (1996). The eight-step path of policy analysis: A handbook for practice. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Academic Press.
6.
Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 404-441.
7.
Barton, A. (1979). A diagnosis of bureaucratic maladies. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(5), 483-492.
8.
Blau, P. M.,& Meyer, M. W. (1994). Why study bureaucracy? In F. S. Lane (Ed.), Current issues in public administration (5th ed., pp. 5-16). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
9.
Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons fromNewAmerican Schools’Scale-Up Phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation.
10.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
11.
Cohen, M. D. (1991). Individual learning and organizational routine: Emerging connections. Organization Science, 2(1), 135-139.
12.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
13.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Policy and change: Getting beyond bureaucracy. InA. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 642-667). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
14.
Datnow, A. (1999). How schools choose externally developed reform designs, report no. 35. Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
15.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
DiMaggio, P. J.,& Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
17.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
18.
Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1531-1576.
19.
Elmore, R. F. (1979-1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-616.
20.
Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
21.
Feldman, M. S. (1989). Order without design. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.
23.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team. (2000). Oakland Unified School District assessment and recovery plans. Sacramento, CA: Author.
24.
Ford, J., & Backoff, R. (1988). Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization management (pp. 81-121). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
25.
Fuhrman, S. H.,& Elmore, R. F. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.
26.
Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating bottom-up and top-down strategies for education reform. In R. Elmore& S. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum (pp. 186-202). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
27.
Gladstein, D.,& Caldwell, D. (1985). Boundary management in newproduct teams. Academy of Management Proceedings, 161-165.
28.
Hartley, J. F. (1994). Case studies in organizational research. In G. Simons (Ed.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 208-229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Honig, M. I. (2001). Managing ambiguity: The implementation of complex education policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University School of Education, Stanford, CA.
30.
Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: Central office administrators’ roles and capacity in collaborative education policy implementation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292-338.
31.
Honig, M. I. (2004). The newmiddle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65-88.
32.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
33.
Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169-211.
34.
Kimberly, J. R. (1981). Managerial innovation. InW. H. Starbuck (Ed.), Handbook of organizational design, Volume 1: Adapting organizations to their environments (pp. 84-100). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
36.
Kreps, D. M. (1990). A course in microeconomic theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
Lave, J. (1993). Situated learning in communities of practice. In T. Teasley (Ed.), Perspectives in socially shared cognition (pp. 63-84). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
38.
Levinthal, D.,& March, J. G. (1981). Amodel of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2, 307-333.
39.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. American Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340.
40.
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
Malen, B., Ogawa, R.,& Kranz, K. (1990). What do we know about school basedmanagement? Acase study of the literature—A call for research. InW. Clune& J. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education volume 2: Decentralization and school restructuring. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
42.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
43.
March, J. G. (1994a). A primer on decision making. New York: Free Press.
44.
March, J. G. (1994b). Three lectures on efficiency and adaptiveness in organizations. Helsinki, Finland: Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration.
45.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1975). The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 147-171.
46.
March, J. G.,& Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.
47.
March, J. G.,& Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11), 1404-1418.
48.
Marsh, D. D., & Bowman, G. A. (1988). State-initiated top-down versus bottom-up reform in secondary schools. Madison: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
49.
McCorry, J. J. (1978). Marcus Foster and the Oakland public schools: Leadership in an urban bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
50.
McLaughlin, M. (1998). Listening and learning from the field. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan,& D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 70-85). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
51.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). Educational policy and educational practice. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching, Stanford University.
52.
Merton, R. K. (1987). Three fragments from a sociologist’s notebooks: Establishing the phenomenon, specified ignorance, and strategic research materials. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 1-28.
53.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
Nelson, R. R., & Yates, D. (Eds.). (1978). Innovation and implementation in public organizations. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
55.
Oakland School Linked ServicesWork Group. (1999). Partnership for change II. Oakland, CA: Author.
56.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
57.
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
58.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism and organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59.
Pressman, J. L.,& Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
60.
Radin, B. A. (2000). Beyond Machiavelli: Policy analysis comes of age. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
61.
Raywid, M. A., & Schmerler, G. (2003). Not so easy going: The policy environments of small urban schools and schools-within-schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
62.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
63.
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: Critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21-48.
64.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65.
Shields, P. M., Knapp, M. S., & Wechsler, M. E. (1995). Improving schools from the bottom up: From effective schools to restructuring. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
66.
Shulman, L. S. (1983). Autonomy and obligation: The remote control of teaching. In L. S.Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 484-504). New York: Longman.
67.
Stokey, E., & Zeckhauser, R. (1978). A primer for policy analysis. New York: W. W. Norton.
68.
Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox. New York: W. W. Norton.
69.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Localism and globalism in institutional analysis: The emergence of contractual norms in venture finance. In W. R. Scott & S. Christensen (Eds.), The institutional construction of organizations (pp. 39-63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Waivers: Flexibility to achieve high standards. Washington, DC: Author.
71.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998a). Elementary and secondary education: EdFlex states vary in implementation of waiver process. Washington, DC: Author.
72.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998b). Elementary and secondary education: Flexibility initiatives do not address districts’key concerns about federal requirements. Washington, DC: Author.
73.
Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
74.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75.
Weiss, C. H. (1979). Bureaucratic maladies and remedies. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(5), 477-482.
76.
Weiss, J.,& Gruber, J. E. (1984). Using knowledge for control in fragmented policy areas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3, 225-247.
77.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
78.
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1994). Substance and symbolism in CEOs’ long-term incentive plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 367-390.
79.
Wildavsky, A. (1996). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
80.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications: A study in the economics of internal organization. New York: Free Press.
81.
Wood, B. D.,& Waterman, R. W. (1994). Bureaucratic dynamics. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.
82.
Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
83.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and method. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
