Realigning the orbits of central office and schools.

For principals, this is a familiar scene: We travel to the central office to attend a monthly meeting where district-level administrators have put together a lengthy agenda of informational items. Little attention is usually paid to discussing how to go about improving teaching and learning back at our buildings.

Why does the work of the central office seem so disconnected to the work of building administrators? The fact central-office administrators and principals seem to travel in orbits with different paths with seemingly few areas of significant overlap has a decidedly negative impact on the ability of the school district to focus its energies and resources on the one area that truly matters--improving the quality of teaching and learning.

Why do these orbits rarely intersect, and can anything be done about it?

Off-Balance Relationship

Central administrators and building administrators are influenced by two different centers of gravity. For the centraloffice staff, the center of gravity is externally focused and means attending to the priorities and needs of school board members whose purview is the operation of the entire school district.

School board meetings are spent hearing reports from committees and taking appropriate board actions. Under the leadership of the superintendent, the district's administrative staff offers support to the board as members deal with the myriad of issues that come before them. Add to this the demands of the political culture to provide the best education for the least amount of taxpayer dollars. So it is little wonder the time and attention of central-office administrators are consumed with these districtwide concerns that provide little time to deal with issues related to teaching and learning.

In contrast, the center of gravity for building-level administrators is internally focused and begins with the arrival of students each school day. For principals and assistant principals the focus of their energies is ensuring the safety and welfare of all students and staff, promoting and maintaining high expectations for academic achievement for all students, and ensuring the effective day-to-day operation of the building.

Building administrators also must ensure that teachers are following the curriculum and using effective instructional strategies that address the differentiated needs of all students. In short, building-level administrators have little time to coordinate their work with that of central-office colleagues. There is little overlap in the orbits of central-office and building-level administrative staff. Why is this lack of synchronicity so important now?

The answer is that the No Child Left Behind legislation has dramatically changed the administrative landscape of public schools. While many schools operate similarly, what makes a school district truly unique are the beliefs and values held by the local school community that are reflected in the culture of the school system. What aspirations does the community have for its students and to what extent is the community willing to provide the resources and supports necessary to realize those aspirations? How does NCLB affect the values and beliefs of the local school culture?

Given the achievement gap that exists in too many of our nation's schools, there is a common belief that "given a finite number of resources, we cannot possibly meet the needs of all students." NCLB strikes at the heart of this belief with its heightened levels of accountability, its use of disaggregated data and public reporting of local school and districts test scores. NCLB is an attempt to create a different cultural context for teaching and learning where the educational needs of all students must be met. "Good enough" is no longer good enough.

Tighter Linkages

In response to NCLB, many districts have developed strategic plans. Whether such plans effectively transform the operation of the district really depends on whether the commitment of the district to these plans is stronger than the gravitational pull of the traditional culture. NCLB is the constant reminder that schools must do better.

Indeed, given that the individual school is held accountable for the performance of its students, the most dramatic impact of NCLB on the culture of school governance may well be the shift in the relationship between the centraloffice and site administrators from that of command and control to support and service. Never before has there been such a need for district services like professional development, and individual schools are not likely to be able to afford those services by themselves. Tighter linkages will be needed between the central office and principals on a range of issues to ensure that scarce resources are spent efficiently and effectively. NCLB may be the leverage needed to more closely align this work.

Such transformational processes are complex and filled with ambiguity and uncertainty. However, even before annual scores are published, one indicator that a school district is going in the right direction is when principals leave their meetings with central-office administrators and say to themselves honestly: "That was a worthwhile use of my time."

Eliot Larson, a recently retired principal in West Chester, Pa., serves as a consultant with the Pennsylvania Department of Education. E-mail: [e-mail]