Decentralized Dollars and Decisions.

Reshaping Edmonton's central office to support principals and site-specific needs

One of Emery Dosdall's first acts as the new superintendent of the Edmonton Public Schools in January 1995 was to ask teachers, principals and parents what they thought central-services staff could do to improve the performance of schools. Their responses confirmed we needed to do a much better job to support site administrators, improve student achievement of the mandated curriculum and ensure the central office truly supported the work of the schools.

More than 15 years earlier, when Dosdall's predecessor, Michael Strembitsky, introduced site-based decision making, schools had been granted significant dollars and authority. Yet many principals did not feel they controlled enough of the levers at their schools to meet the targets for student achievement and other crucial goals. One barrier blocking principal autonomy was how we operated the central office.

In central services at the time, we still decided what services schools required, when they would get them, who would provide them and how much service would be rationed by central to the schools. In other words, like most public school districts, we were product oriented, not service oriented.

Agenda Setters

Before we had school-site decision making in Edmonton, central-office staff were the powerful elite class in our organization. They maintained enormous control over the amount and nature of the services schools could access from the district-even after the district introduced site-based decisions. Two pilot projects that had been slowly feeding out service dollars to schools for consulting services and operational maintenance had not substantially improved the quality and timeliness of services provided in these two areas.

In 1995-96, the superintendent brought several fundamental changes to the organization. Over two years he allocated the majority of the central-services funds to the schools--about $20 million at that time. As the administrator responsible for designing and overseeing this sweeping change, I can tell you we confronted quite a few challenges during a short time frame.

The movement of all the consulting services (curricular consultants, district psychologists, social workers), in-service programs, daily maintenance (trades work), technology, marketing, administrative support, the outdoor education center, the district bookstore, products' warehouse and other service dollars to the schools left many units within central office without any centrally allocated funds.

The district attached few rules to this innovation. Schools could purchase services and products from the district or outside vendors and they could commit any amount on program expenditures at the school level.

Shock to the System

Central staff were quite taken aback by this innovation, although many staff saw it coming with the two pilot projects. With the advent of true, cost-recovery central services, many central staff responded with fear for their jobs, and many claimed you could not trust the schools to use their money wisely. Others looked forward to operating in a much more entrepreneurial work environment.

Some central staff also indicated this move would confirm that our principals would be no more than building managers instead of instructional leaders. Some central staff also claimed they did not have the know-how to market and deliver services for which schools would be willing to pay. While many principals welcomed the additional leverage this move would give them to achieve results, others felt their additional responsibilities would far outweigh any benefits that might accrue.

During this time of unsettling change, a significant part of my role was to nurture the attitudes of central staff relative to the work we do as well as the work of the schools. I continually had to remind central staff that the most important work of the district takes place in the classroom and that the principalship is the most crucial leadership position within the organization.

After cost-recovery central services were put in place, I needed to reinforce with staff that rather than focusing on what central had lost and schools had gained, central staff should ensure that their knowledge and skills were such that they could assist schools when needed. Toward that end, I reminded central staff that if we truly helped schools achieve their results, the schools would view us as indispensable to their success.

I believe we would not have introduced cost-recovery central services were we not confident that we had high-quality and talented central staff who were up to this challenge. I spent a lot of time with principals asking for their patience as we struggled to work out the bugs in our new service system.

Reinventing Ourselves

The six months between the superintendent s announcement that he would be moving the service monies to the schools and implementation left central staff with little time to resist this innovation. There was an enormous amount of work to be done in order to be ready for start up.

To begin, we had to calculate the total amount of dollars to be allocated to schools and there was no precise way to do this. We more or less allocated dollars on the basis of school enrollment. For consulting services, we looked at service usage patterns.

The more difficult task was to determine how much we would charge for each service. This was daunting. No one in the organization had any real sense how much our services truly cost, be it for an hour of social work or an hour of a plumber's time, let alone what a day's or week's service might cost the organization. We calculated salaries, benefits, travel time, overhead, cost of professional development and supplies, equipment and services into the base prices. That done, we provided forecast service allocations to schools late in the spring in order to give them some idea of how to budget for services for the new school year.

During our first year under a cost-recovery system, some central-office unit managers discovered costs they had not anticipated that needed to be built into the next year's service charges. Part of the adjustment process was that central managers soon discovered that costs incurred in providing service had to be part of the base price of the service. It was also important they realize they could not rely on a central allocation of funds to cover those costs that had not been anticipated in advance of setting prices.

Central services managers also had to cope with the fact that it was difficult to predict in advance how much service schools would require from their area during the course of the school year. Hence, the advent of surplus/deficit carry forward to future years became an important component of the central cost-recovery environment.

One challenge that central managers still face is that school expenditure patterns vary from year to year and are directly affected by government grants, collective agreements with staff groups and each school's specific year-end fiscal position. Clearly, schools with year-end deficits work to reduce expenditures in the next fiscal year and this reduces the amount of funds available to purchase services. By that, I mean there is a carry-forward function with respect to school budgets in Edmonton in that if the school has a surplus or deficit as of Aug. 31, that surplus or deficit stays with the school when the new budget year starts on Sept. 1.

New Ways

When we started the move to central cost recovery, we literally had to invent several processes to make this change possible. There were few processes in place to track the amount of services being provided, and some staff, when you stripped away the central allocation, found they did not provide very much service to the schools.

We had to develop training systems, financial monitoring systems, new bud-geting approaches and time recording and service requisition systems. We had to learn new marketing skills, develop ways to profile our services as well as to find markets for products and services when school demand dipped or fell sharply on a longer-term basis.

Perhaps the most important work we did was to find out from principals what they expected from our cost-recovery service department if we wanted to survive. They indicated that they wanted consistent advice about district standards and priorities and assistance determining how they were doing at their schools. They wanted to know how to obtain help when they needed it and they wanted high-quality, timely service. They wanted service focused on their needs as well as assistance arranging cost-recovery service packages. They did not believe that under centralized service delivery they were getting this kind of help.

Our most challenging task was to mentor central staff during this time of significant change for schools and the central office. By this time, our 203 principals had begun to report directly to the superintendent, another dramatic change for principals and central staff. Principals now had 92 cents for every dollar available to be allocated within the district.

What were the outcomes for schools? Schools changed their purchasing power significantly. They did not replicate the pattern of service delivery that central had previously preordained. Some service areas shrank dramatically while other areas grew significantly.

For example, after-school in-service programs run by the central office dropped by 85 percent while technology services tripled within the first year the service monies were in the schools. It became abundantly clear that schools behaved differently when they were spending their own money than when the district was expending resources. Schools became customers right away and central staff often struggled to learn how to enhance their service delivery.

Although some schools chose to purchase services from outside vendors, little internal job loss occurred. We redeployed staff, retrained others, transferred a number out to the schools and generated extensive external sales to preserve some services and to benefit from economies of scale. New service areas emerged, new products were developed, and sales to outside organizations doubled and redoubled. Although the maintenance staff had predicted that schools would not expend their maintenance allocation, schools ultimately began to spend more than the total district maintenance allocation.

Driving Delivery

With service dollars now in their possession, principals began to exercise their power by expecting better service. Principals asked for refunds for work not done well, asked for specific service providers rather than take the service provider who had been previously rationed to them, and developed ways and means to voice their concerns about service quality and timeliness. They also sent powerful messages to central by accessing services from outside vendors.

One of the greatest challenges we faced in the first two years under central cost-recovery was trying to ensure we had sufficient service available when schools wanted it. In many instances we simply could not keep up with the demand in several key areas. For example, we had far too few information technology staff members to cope with the demand, and the result was long waits for many services provided by these staff.

In addition, schools changed the scheduling of service provision by expecting that significant maintenance and technical work be undertaken on weekends, after hours and on school holidays. Perhaps the most innovative development in service delivery was the creation of service packages or agreements that provided principals with a range of customized services for their location.

For example, many principals felt overwhelmed when they were placed in charge of the school's daily maintenance requirements. Some felt they did not have the knowledge or training to excel in this area. Others felt the time involved in managing school maintenance would take them away from supervision of instruction.

The central-office response to these dilemmas was to develop individualized school maintenance packages that were very much like a property management agreement. Each year since 1996, more and more schools have opted for a property management relationship with our maintenance department. The difference from the past, however, is that the schools retain control of what happens in the school and when it happens. They also retain the financial clout to change service providers should that be needed.

For our maintenance staff, it became quite challenging going from a single boss in the centralized maintenance department to having 203 bosses in the schools.

Personality Fits

For many central-office staff, the greatest challenge under the new organization related to their interpersonal skills as they found they needed to develop positive relationships with school customers. After much trial and error, we discovered that schools preferred to see the same service providers week after week rather than be exposed to a different person each week who did not know the school, its staff and the culture of the school.

School staff also wanted the same service staff on an ongoing basis because they felt that each time a new service provider was dispatched, the school had to pay to familiarize that individual with the dynamics of the particular school location.

With principals reporting directly to the superintendent and the service monies in the hands of the principals, school agenda items finally began to reach the superintendent's table on a regular basis. The superintendent also organized two groups of principals that met weekly or biweekly to bring issues to his table. Many of these concerns had never reached the superintendent when principals reported to associate superintendents.

The principals' issues focused on the number of district rules and processes that were getting in their way, the inadequacy of funding for primary students and the need to tailor some central services more closely to school needs. Principals also let the central administration know they wanted much more support to help them be successful.

The response in central was to create a unit called Leadership Services, a costrecovery section to help principals work on service issues, mediation, crisis intervention, expulsions and suspensions. Perhaps more important, this service became a comfortable and efficient way for principals to check things out before taking an action or making a decision.

The Latest Results

With the extensive changes occurring in central services, the superintendent now could turn his focus almost exclusively on the schools and the principals with a view to improving student achievement. The district's more intense focus on results and higher achievement stems from the annual public achievement targets at each school, district writing and reading achievement tests in most grades before high school, and the introduction of primary literacy programs in elementary schools.

Student performance on the provincial tests in grades 3, 6 and 9 has been steadily and noticeably rising over the past several years. Last year, we were one of only three districts in Alberta (which is home to 66 school districts) whose students performed better than expected based on previous provincial testing.

Central-services staff have become confident about working in the current environment. Many staff members have demonstrated enormous creativity in reaching out to the schools and in finding innovative ways to serve our client base.

Each year the district surveys students, staff and parents on a school-by-school basis as one measure to determine how well we are performing as a district. Principal ratings of central services on these surveys indicates high levels of satisfaction with the services being provided by central units. The lowest rating, in the most recent survey last May showed maintenance services with an 84 percent satisfaction rating from principals. Most service providers received satisfaction ratings in the low to upper 90 percent levels.

No Turning Back

Would we go back to the old way of operating the central office? Absolutely not! By controlling virtually 92 cents on every dollar available to the district, schools now command most variables that influence the success of students.

Within a framework of results, accountability and a relentless focus on student achievement, our schools know precisely what is expected of them, and school leaders have the financial means and authority to make successful decisions in an environment that does not have a hidden agenda. When the superintendent asked principals a couple of years ago if they wanted to return to centralized maintenance, only two principals took him up on his offer.

Our work is far from finished in Edmonton. We are looking at changes to the organization to better define how to serve our schools. We want improving student achievement to be given even greater importance districtwide.

The great strength of the school district comes from the challenge of the superintendent to each one of us in the central office to keep looking for ways to improve the work we do. Only through constant monitoring and adjustment can we be assured we are serving public education well enough to guarantee its survival.

Angus McBeath is department head of school and district services in the Edmonton Public Schools, One Kingsway, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5H 4G9.

Central Services: Some Free, Some Not

These are among the central services that schools in Edmonton receive without direct payment:

* Personnel services

* Purchasing and contract services

* Curriculum, programs and planning

* Archives and museum

* Student information, student assessment, and surveys and information analysis

* General counsel (legal services)

* Transportation services

These are the central services for which schools are required to pay directly:

* Leadership services (assistance to principals, crisis consultation, support with suspensions and explusions, placement of special-needs students and conflict resolution)

* Consulting services (curriculum and special education consultants, reading specialists, psychologists, social workers, multilingual consultants and teacher and staff professional development services and emergency response team services)

* Bennett Environmental Education Centre (special classes addressing teaching of social studies, science and physical education)

* Maintenance services (trades work)

* Building and testing inspection services

* Technical and operational consultation (architectural, energy management, mechanical, electrical, telephone, sound system, planning and technical specifications services)

* Security, custodial consultation and carpet cleaning services

* Print services

* Distribution services (trucking, receiving and processing customs broker orders)

* Teachers' Book Depository (a children's bookstore and teacher materials)

* Mail delivery

* Information technology services (technical consultation and design support, help desk support, microcomputer and local area network support, e-mail services, student e-mail, fees management system)

* Communications/marketing services (consulting and graphic design work)

* Resource development services (hard copy learning resources, Web-accessed services, CD-ROMs, learning software)

* Catering services

* Metro Community College (training services, conference and event services, advertising and marketing support services)