Abstract
In this case, a new superintendent has communicated what he perceives as a needed change affecting students and teachers on several campuses and a seemingly short timeline for making the decision to move off a block schedule. The abrupt nature of the announcement, combined with the circumstances surrounding the superintendent’s recent hiring has teachers and building level administrators wondering about his motives.
The Context
Roamingham is a town of 40,000 located not far from a major metropolitan area in the Midwest. Roamingham began as a railroad town and is a regional retail and manufacturing center. Boasting three institutions of higher learning, Roamingham is home to a small private, church-owned university, a community college, and a regional university in the state system.
A diverse population lives in Roamingham, including a rapidly growing Hispanic segment. The median income for households in Roamingham is $34,000 per year and about 9.6% of families and 13.3% of the population live below the poverty line, including 14.7% of those under age 18. The city of Roamingham’s diversity is reflected in the school’s student population. Fourteen percent of Roamingham’s students are African-American while one third of the district’s students are Hispanic. Because 15% of the district’s students are classified as limited English proficient (LEP), bilingual education is a point of continuing emphasis in the Roamingham district.
Roamingham’s teaching staff does not match the diversity of its student population. Only 20% of the certified teachers in the district are minorities. One third of the district’s teachers have less than five years of experience in the classroom. Despite the growing population of LEP students, out of a total of 520 teachers, only 5 are specifically assigned to serve bilingual students. About one third of Roamingham’s teachers hold advanced degrees. The Roamingham Public School District (RPSD) is comprised of 20 schools, including 2 middle schools and 2 high schools. At the August board meeting, the RPSD superintendent, Dr. Deborah Ditto, announced that she had been hired by another school district within the state. Dr. Harold Lambord, assistant superintendent, was named as interim superintendent. Dr. Lambord is from Roamingham, having graduated from Central Roamingham High School. All three of his college degrees are from a local, regional university.
Dr. Lambord has spent his entire career with the RPSD, working as a teacher and coach prior to becoming an assistant principal at Knotted Oak Middle School. He later became principal of Central Roamingham High School before his promotion to the central office as assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction. Dr. Lambord’s leadership style is viewed by district staff as laissez-faire; he prefers to avoid confrontation. District teachers and administrators believe that Dr. Lambord’s decisions can be changed if a large enough number of patrons and parents complain.
After serving for only a few weeks as the interim superintendent, Dr. Lambord was named the new superintendent by the RPSD School Board. To the dismay of patrons, building administrators, and teachers in the district, no other candidate was considered in the search for Dr. Ditto’s successor.
The two Roamingham middle schools, Knotted Oak and Wooded Meadow, are comprised of seventh and eighth grades. The student populations are diverse racially and economically, and each school serves approximately 1,000 students. The 65 teachers at each campus are teamed according to grade levels. Each campus has three eighth-grade teams, three seventh-grade teams, and one team works with students in both grades. To align curriculum, develop benchmark tests, and select instructional materials, teachers also work in subject area groups. Each middle school has two assistant principals and a principal. The climate at the middle schools is vibrant. Teachers and administrators get along well and actively work together to build strong relationships with students and parents.
The two high schools, Central Roamingham and Roamingham North, are a study in contrasts. Both schools serve diverse student populations of about 1,500 with just over 100 teachers each. Dr. Linda King is in her 7th year as the principal of Central Roamingham, and in her 21st year in the district. Each of the assistant principals has been at Central for at least 2 years. The stability in leadership has allowed Dr. King and her faculty to develop a strong learning community on campus. Relationships with external stakeholders within the community are strong.
Roamingham North High School is quite different. Mr. Mark O’Shannon is in his first year as principal, having transferred from the principalship of an elementary school in the district. O’Shannon’s predecessor was asked to resign due to continuing, unresolved conflict in the faculty. Two of the assistant principals at Roamingham North High School are also new to the campus; one was transferred from Knotted Oak Middle School. The other assistant principal came from a neighboring district. Mr. O’Shannon’s instructions from Dr. Lambord were to “right the ship” and “clean house” however he saw fit.
Communication and Trust in the Roamingham Schools
As in all school districts, communication is critical to the RPSD fulfilling its mission to provide quality instruction to its students. Not surprisingly, many directives are issued by the Roamingham central office to be carried out on the district’s campuses. In some instances, Dr. Lambord has asked for input from the campuses prior to issuing a directive. However, building administrators and teachers suspect that their input is merely “window dressing” to give the illusion of two-way communication that is, in fact, one way. In the opinion of many district employees, too many decisions made by Dr. Lambord seemed inconsistent with the input they had provided.
Teachers and building administrators in the RPSD do not enjoy a trusting relationship with the current central administration. Many employees in the district blame the lack of trust between the central office and the school sites on poor communication practices within the district. Although Dr. Lambord worked his way up from the classroom through the assistant principalship and principalship to the superintendent’s office, most building administrators in the district believed that he had lost touch with the “real world” outside of the central office. Specifically, the building administrators in the district believed that Dr. Lambord was out of touch with emerging needs of the district such as how to best serve an increasing LEP population and how to address low standardized test results in mathematics.
Dr. Lambord rarely visited school sites and, in the view of many stakeholders, he seemed to “lead from behind,” because too often, official communications about initiatives in the district were issued only after the initiatives had found their way to and through the rumor mill to various stakeholders, at times even frustrating teachers and building administrators. Communications through the rumor mill were fraught with misinformation, providing fodder for Dr. Lambord’s detractors who wished to question his credibility or worse, his integrity.
Complicating these trust issues was the district’s technology director. It was her idea to institute “climate surveys” whereby teachers and building administrators were required to use school computers to complete online surveys about their schools. Employees in the district believed that the technology director tracked survey responses to the individual computers from which they originated. The technology director was working toward superintendent certification, and Dr. Lambord served as her field supervisor. Many believed that Dr. Lambord was using this position of authority to leverage the technology director to report to him specific information from these surveys. As part of her internship, the technology director attended many of Dr. Lambord’s meetings. The appearance of favoritism shown to the technology director’s building contractor husband in obtaining district contracts further engendered distrust of her by district employees.
Change, Power, and Politics—All in One Week
During his first week as superintendent, Dr. Lambord announced that the district would begin a self-study of the scheduling patterns currently in use at the middle and high schools, an alternating or A/B type block schedule in which students and teachers have one set of classes on “A” days and a different set of classes on “B” days. “A” days and “B” days alternate throughout the school year. In an e-mail to faculty and administrators at the middle and high schools, Dr. Lambord announced the self-study and its elements (see Appendix A). A similar e-mail was sent to members of the RPSD school board (see Appendix B). Although Dr. Lambord’s e-mails claimed that the self-study was driven by the district’s “desire to provide the best educational opportunities for our students,” Roamingham’s stakeholders believed that the self-study was driven by budget concerns. Recent changes in state finance law mandating significant funding cuts to public schools had the potential to adversely affect Roamingham’s budget.
The reaction from the various stakeholders was immediate. Parents continuously called and e-mailed the central office expressing concern about the possible loss of block scheduling. Principals of the middle and high schools also received numerous inquiries from concerned parents who contended that implementation of a traditional schedule would mean a loss of learning opportunities for their children.
This tactic of parental bombardment of the central office by parental communications had been credited in the past by stakeholders within and outside of the district for changing Dr. Lambord’s decisions, further weakening his credibility as a leader. Parents asserted that high school students would not be able to take as many classes and that extracurricular activities would be sacrificed to maintain the number of academic classes available. This predicament was particularly troublesome in light of newly legislated graduation requirements mandating additional mathematics and science courses. Parents of middle school students feared that their children would not receive as much individual attention on a traditional schedule as they did on a block schedule.
Talk of the superintendent’s proposed self-study plan found its way into team meetings at both middle schools. Teachers feared that changing to a traditional schedule would force an end to the teaming concept, a focal point of the learning communities currently at work in the middle schools. Teachers and staff at Central High School echoed their middle school counterparts’ concerns. Roamingham North’s faculty viewed the potential change as one more obstacle to bringing stability to their campus.
One concern shared by the staffs of all four campuses was state-mandated testing. Although Dr. Lambord’s e-mail had included “student performance” as a criterion to be examined, there was no mention of the state’s mandated standardized testing program. Because the block schedules in Roamingham predated the No Child Left Behind Act and the state’s standardized tests, stakeholders were unclear how student performance data would be used in the self-study. Possible effects of altering or leaving the present block schedule on the administration and scheduling of the tests went unaddressed as well. There were too many “gaps of information” being provided by Dr. Lambord. A scripted curriculum that all math and science teachers were required to use was adopted during the previous summer. When asked what support the central office would provide to teachers implementing the new curriculum, Dr. Lambord’s answer was vague. There would be help, but he was not sure what kind, how much, or when. Building administrators also complained that Dr. Lambord was generally unavailable not only to teachers, staff, and parents but also to them.
The building principals “raised an eyebrow” at the short timeline for the self- study. Much work had been put into developing learning communities within grade level and subject area teams at the middle schools. The block schedule was more conducive to carving out department meeting time at the high schools. How would a potential scheduling change affect all of this hard work? The superintendent had also mentioned “cost factors” in his e-mail. Was this a hint toward his real motive given the changes in graduation requirements?
The local media—television, radio, and newspapers—reported about the district’s “self study” and the adverse reaction of the various stakeholders. Discussion of “how to save block scheduling” permeated public meeting places such as restaurants, parks, and houses of worship. Parents and staff from the campuses informally contacted school board members. Each board member gave the same response: “The decision to keep or replace the block schedule is an administrative decision and does not require board action.”
After a lengthy telephone conversation with Dr. Lambord, the board of education president, Dr. Sherrie Patula, informally polled the other board members of the Roamingham Public School District and decided to call a special meeting of the board. The board was unsettled by the e-mail they received announcing the self-study (see Appendix B). In this state, a special-called board meeting does not require advance notice; however, this type of meeting must have an agenda and minutes of the meeting must be available within 72 business-day hours.
Dr. Lambord and the board met for 2 hour. During this meeting, Dr. Lambord asserted and held firm that the board of education had no real jurisdiction over the curriculum. Dr. Lambord further argued that the board had a vested interest to protect the budget of the school system, and it must “see fit to support” him because of his previous tenure as the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction of the RPSD. Dr. Lambord and the board adjourned from the meeting with an understanding that
Data will be used to make the final decision.
There is a connection between the bell schedule, the number of teachers needed to deliver instruction, and the budget.
The board of education will be involved in coming to consensus about the future of block scheduling.
The two weeks following the e-mails and the board of education meeting, two surveys appeared on the district’s website, one for teachers (see Appendix C) and the other for parents (see Appendix D). That same week, Dr. Lambord decided that each campus had 24 hour to develop a committee to study the schedule. Within 48 hour, the membership of each campus committee was announced. Each committee was comprised of the building principal, one counselor, one teacher, one student, and one parent from the campus parent–teacher organization. The committees’ instructions from the central office were to “bring input” from their campuses to a meeting to be held at the central office in one week.
Campus committee meetings at the middle schools were filled with frustration. Discussion centered more on how much they should tell and how direct they should be with Dr. Lambord, more than on what they should say. The committee at Central High School feared that replacing the block schedule with shorter instructional periods would make meeting time, an already scarce commodity, even more difficult to find during the day.
Roamingham North’s committee meetings were tense. This was the school with a new administrative team and with so many new faces; time to build the trust needed to meaningfully participate in a district-wide self-study was an issue. Complicating matters was Dr. Lambord’s key role, then as assistant superintendent, in the firing of North’s previous principal, Carl LaCross. The faculty of North believed that Dr. Lambord’s efforts to terminate Mr. LaCross stemmed from jealousy because LaCross had begun pursuing a doctoral degree at a nearby university. LaCross’s successor, Marvin Edwards, left Roamingham for the high school principalship at another area school district because rumor was that Dr. Lambord had threatened to terminate him should Edwards pursue a doctoral degree.
Just after the Thanksgiving holiday, Dr. Lambord and his intern met with the middle and high school principals to “get input” from the four campus committees. Preferences expressed at the various campus meetings were succinctly shared with little superfluous comment. Little discussion followed the campus committee reports. Dr. Lambord closed each of the four meetings informing the principals that a final decision would be announced just after the first of the coming year. After returning to the board office, Dr. Lambord gave the district switchboard operator a directive to screen calls regarding the change to the block schedule. The substance of the directive was not to transfer calls to his office but to take the names of the callers and to get their e-mail addresses. He would communicate with the callers after he made the final decision. The events for Roamingham’s self-study are found in Table 1.
Teaching Notes
On one level, this case examines communication patterns in a public school district, highlighting the roles of central office administrators, building level administrators, teachers, and community stakeholders in the process of changing the daily schedule at four schools—two middle schools and two high schools. At a much deeper level, the case examines trust versus mistrust between various levels of the school district organization, highlighting the deleterious effects of trust issues on the decision-making process.
Communication is “a relational process during which sources transmit messages using symbols, signs, and contextual cues to express meaning” (Hoy & Miskel, 2013, p. 390). Communication can be one way such as a teacher giving a lecture (Schmuck & Runkel, 1985) or two way, an interactive process that Hoy and Miskel (2013) describe as “a reciprocal, interactive process” in which “all participants in the process initiate and receive messages” and “requires continuous exchanges and transactions” (p. 395). Burbules (1993) identified four types of two-way communications: conversation, inquiry, debate, and instruction.
Communication occurs through two types of symbols—verbal and nonverbal (Dahnke & Clatterbuck, 1990). Verbal communication may be either oral or written, and written communication may be either hardcopy or electronic in format. Richness is the ability of communication to “overcome different frames of reference or clarify ambiguous issues to change understanding in a timely manner” (Daft & Lengel, 1986, p. 559). They postulated that different types of media used for communication have varying amounts of richness. The richest media is face to face communication, followed by telephone conversations, and personal documents (e.g., letters, memos). Keyton et al. (2013) found listening to be the most commonly occurring communication behavior in the workplace. Positive feedback helps improve productivity and climate in an organization. Bazarova and Hancock (2011) explained that negative feedback, such as members of an organization blaming other members, increased the amount of negative communication in that organization. Communication can either promote or detract from the ability of a person to foster trust (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991), a key factor in a person’s ability to form relationships with others (Tschannen-Moran, 2009).
Trust is foundational to any organization and those who lead in them (e.g., Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Daly, 2009; Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Tschannen-Moran, 2009; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). In this school system, there are numerous streams of communication, actions, reports, and innuendo about overt and covert threats that undermine optimal working conditions and that divert the system from focusing on the need to examine the block schedule in light of new state graduation requirements.
Because Roamingham Schools used online surveys to collect the data on which the scheduling decision was to be made, the issues of transparency and trust emerge. Chun and Cho (2012) argued that “Even though technology advances have facilitated the citizen participation in government, the challenge lies in achieving more meaningful citizen participation, hence trust in government” (p. 130). For Dr. Lambord and the Roamingham Schools, the use of the district’s own technology team creates its own issues of trust because the district director of technology is married to a major vendor with which the district does a significant amount of business.
Guerra-López and Blake’s study (2011) explored decision making based on two different perspectives concerning the collection of data: discovery and idea imposition. Using discovery, leaders explore possible alternatives by gathering information from stakeholders. Idea imposition occurs when the leader suggests an alternative and then gathers information as different stakeholders react. Results of the Guerra-López and Blake study indicate that both approaches gather similar amounts of data, including financial data, opinions of school personnel, external stakeholders, market trends, and their own gut instincts. An important difference is that those who use the discovery process were more satisfied with the data collection process than the idea imposers.
In this case, a new superintendent has announced the possibility of a major schedule change affecting students and teachers on several campuses and a seemingly short timeline for making the decision (see Table 1). Dr. Lambord could learn from this situation if he could step back and consider the work of Lunenberg and Ornstein (2011) who identified six methods change agents may use to reduce resistance: participation (by those to be affected by the change), communication (to involved stakeholders, particularly about why the change), support (during implementation), rewards, planning (the implementation is well thought out), and coercion. This case provides fodder for discussion of these processes and their use, non-use, and/or abuse in Roamingham. Examining foundational issues related to trust, decision making, and the superintendency can provide a clearer understanding of the issues brought forth in this teaching case.
Roamingham Self-Study Timeline.
Fullan (2003) identified five “core mind and action sets” (p. 92) common to leaders who successfully lead change. These are moral purpose, understanding change, relationship building, knowledge, and coherence making. Dr. Lambord’s actions should be examined in relation to these “core mind and action sets.” Does he demonstrate these? Using this yardstick, students should evaluate the quality of instructional leadership provided by the Roamingham administration during the review of the block schedule.
This case illustrates the potentially treacherous terrain of decision making in public schools and provides an opportunity to explore how administrators seek to meaningfully incorporate input from various stakeholders, balance student learning needs with budget constraints, and build trust within and across groups of stakeholders. This case also underscores the critical nature of communication and how communication enhances or inhibits building trust and relationships with constituents.
Teaching Objectives
This case study provides lessons for educational leaders at all levels of the district—teachers, building level administrators, central office administrators, superintendents—and graduate students who aspire to join their ranks. Issues, on the surface and beneath, provide fodder for discussion and exploration. This case should allow the reader to achieve the following objectives:
Explore the roles of various internal and external stakeholders in the decision-making process in schools.
Discuss the use of verbal and non-verbal communication in school districts.
Explore the connections between communication richness and trust in schools.
Examine communication networks and patterns involving internal stakeholders (e.g., board members, teachers, building administrators) and external stakeholders (e.g., parents, patrons) by identifying actions that promote or inhibit trust-building among various stakeholders in schools.
Explore the relationship of trust as a construct to the decision-making process in schools.
Examine Dr. Lambord’s communications in light of the current research cited in this case study (Bazarova & Hancock, 2011; Burbules, 1993; Keyton et al., 2013).
Examine Dr. Lambord’s decision making in light of the current research cited in this case study (Chun & Cho, 2012; Guerra-López & Blake, 2011).
Guiding Discussion Questions
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the self-study proposed by Dr. Lambord? Examine process factors, personnel deployed to conduct the surveys, and the potential conflicts of interest.
Dr. Lambord’s e-mails (to the Board and the administrators and teachers of the middle and high schools) are provided as Exhibits A and B. Examine and critique the language patterns and word choices Dr. Lambord uses. Do you think Dr. Lambord’s intended message is clearly conveyed? Explain.
Do you think Dr. Lambord’s use of e-mail to announce the self-study was the most effective method to communicate this initiative to stakeholders?
Review the timeline of events provided in this case study. What are the advantages and potential pitfalls of this timeline?
What caveats should be offered to school leaders who want to implement change, particularly soon after an appointment to a new position?
Hanson (2003) describes the following threats to an organization’s ability to carry out its mission: “emotional commitment to projects, fear of what others may think, guarding scarce resources, hidden agendas, loyalty to friends, protecting one’s own rear extremity, attacks by . . . the misinformed” (p. 15). How can a newly appointed superintendent (or any administrator) handle these threats when implementing needed change?
Trust is foundational to school improvement and change (Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). Tschannen-Moran’s work (2004), Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools, explores trust as a multi-faceted and complex construct for leaders to understand. Related to the core of trust, Tschannen-Moran explains,
Trust has paradoxically been viewed as both glue and a lubricant. As “glue” trust binds organizational participants to one another. Without it, things fall apart. To be productive and to accomplish organizational goals, schools need cohesive and cooperative relationships . . . As “lubricant” trust greases the machinery of an organization. Trust “lubricates” communication and contributes to greater efficiency when people can have confidence in other people’s words and deeds. (pp. 15-16)
In what ways could trust act as both glue and lubricant for Roamingham? How could awareness of both metaphors for trust help Dr. Lambord better navigate his first few months as superintendent?
8. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) developed a theoretical framework of trust in schools. This framework was grounded in the definition of trust as one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that the latter party is (a) benevolent, (b) reliable, (c) competent, (d) honest, and (e) open. Apply this framework to the trust issues developed in the case, illustrating benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and openness.
9. Given the case materials, do you believe that Dr. Lambord will be able to regain trust within the system? What will he need to do to start regaining trust with teachers, administrators, and the board of education?
10. With accountability, ongoing assessment is essential for schools to maintain high levels of learning for students and teachers. What lessons can be learned from Roamingham’s experience and how can these lessons inform the practice of administrators whose jobs are at times placed on the line in the name of adequate yearly progress?
11. Carter and Cunningham (1997) assert that the superintendent’s role is “to position the school district in the community; doing so naturally entails being in touch, getting involved, building respect and trust, and generating broad and vital support” (p. 64). Review Dr. Lambord’s efforts to involve teachers and site administrators in the decision-making process. Was he successful in his “role” as described by Carter and Cunningham? What evidence in the case study supports your position?
12. If you were a member of the Roamingham Board of Education, would you be satisfied with Dr. Lambord’s performance in managing the self study? Why or why not?
13. Do you think Dr. Lambord demonstrated Fullan’s (2003) core mind and action sets needed for successful leadership in change?
14. As a result of this examination of block scheduling, will the teachers at Roamingham perceive the administrators as instructional leaders? What about other stakeholders such as board members and parents?
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.