Often in leadership, large districts must pause and consider redesign in order to

achieve district goals. Independent School District 196 in Minnesota was selected as the
subject of analysis. The structure of District 196 and the roles and responsibilities held
by each department will be identified. The decision making process will also be
examined as well as how or why organizational structures, norms, routines and/or roles
might hinder the work in the area of continuous improvement.

Independent School District 196 is a state and nationally recognized K-12 public
school district located in the south suburban Twin Cities, conveniently accessible to both
Minneapolis and St. Paul. Also known as the Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan School
District, District 196 serves approximately 28,000 students in early childhood programs
through 12th grade and is Minnesota's fourth largest school district. The district is staffed
by nearly 2,300 licensed teachers and administrators and about 1,400 assigned support
employees. The 110 square mile district boundary includes all or part of seven cities Rosemount, Apple Valley, Eagan, Burnsville, Coates, Inver Grove Heights and Lakeville
- and rural Empire and Vermillion townships. District 196 has 18 elementary schools
(grades K-5), including three elementary magnet schools that focus on arts and science,
international studies, and STEM (science, technology, engineering and math); six middle
schools (grades 6-8); four high schools (grades 9-12); an optional School of
Environmental Studies at the Minnesota Zoo for juniors and seniors; an Area Learning
Center alternative high school for those more successful in a non-traditional setting; a K12 special education school for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities

(Dakota Ridge), and a special education school serving young adults ages 18-21
(Transition Plus and Pathway). (www.distrct196.org))
Summarizing the structure of District 196, an organizational tree is presented
graphically showing the top-down model (figure A) of the organization. Although not
all that different, organizationally, from other school districts, a district of this size can
create a few more roles and responsibilities for its district office. Thus the need for the
bottom up, top down approach to continuous change described later in this paper.

District Structure

School Board
The School Board is the governing body of the district, responsible for developing policy
to ensure the proper care, management and control of district affairs. The board also
hires the superintendent, approves staff hirings, resignations, terminations, leaves of
absence, sets the annual and local school levy, approves expenditures and education
programs, and ensures that proper facilities and equipment are available to support
teaching and learning.

The board is made up of seven citizens elected at large. School Board members are
elected on the November General Election day in odd-numbered years in four year terms.
Four members are up for election one year and the other three two years later.

Superintendent
The responsibilities of the superintendent are as follows. Each year the superintendent
and administration help to develop district goals which are adopted by the School Board.
The superintendent then becomes the director of these goals. District goals provide the
basis for school site goals and individual teacher and classroom goals. Involvement in
Negotiations is also very important, with 97% of the employees belonging to one of
eight bargaining groups and with 83% of the districts general fund going to salaries.
Ongoing, clear and open Communication with various stakeholders/audiences (Parents,
Teachers, Administrators, City Staff, Community groups, Public Hearings, Faith
Community) in the district is a major focus of the superintendent. The superintendent
also serves on the Executive Committee of TIES (our student information and technology
resource provider and is a member of UMore Park Education Task Force. Also the
Minnesota Association of School Administrators (MASA), Minnesotas Promise, Schools
for Equity in Education (SEE) and Association of Metropolitan School Districts (AMSD)
to conclude organization involvement.

School District Attorney

The Legal Services Department is overseen by a school district attorney with one clerical
employee. This has been since 1996-97. The department was established as a cost
savings and has reduced the amount spent on legal services each year. Department
functions include the following: Student Expulsions, Risk Management, Personnel/Labor
Relations, Special Education, General Legal Counsel, Human Rights.

Communications
The Communications Department is led by a communications specialist. The department
is responsible for district wide communications (internal and external audiences) in both
print and electronic formats, as listed: Newsletters, Reports and Brochures, Graphic
Arts and Mail Processing Department, and Other Communications Activities.

Administrative Assistant
The State and Federal Programs Department oversees and guides the implementation of
state and federal programs that directly impact student learning. These primarily include
the following: No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Curriculum Review, Professional
Development, Assessment Center, and Quality Compensation Plan for Teachers (Q
Comp).

Secondary Education
The Secondary Education Department supervises four high schools, and area learning
center, the School of Environmental Studies and six middle schools. The department also
provides overall leadership for instruction and professional development.
Responsibilities are as follows: Enrollment, Staffing and Budgets, Schedules,
Communications, Instruction, Co-curricular Programs, Area Learning Centers,
School of Environmental Studies, Minnesota Academic Standards, Career
Development, Indian Education, Prevention Education.

Director of Teaching and Learning

This position was recently generated in District 196 to provide leadership in overseeing
implementation of the most recent research on teaching and learning strategies into the
schools.

Elementary Education
The Elementary Education department supervises 18 elementary schools and provides
overall leadership in the following areas: Enrollment, Staffing and Budgets,
Schedules, Communications, Instruction, Integration and Educational Equity,
Magnet Schools, and Kindergarten Plus (K-Plus).

Special Education
District 196 Special Education Department serves more than 4,300 students with
disabilities from birth through age 21. They support in the following: Special Education
Advisory Committee, Areas of Disability- LD, EBD, OHD, SMI, DCD etc., Special
Educators, Individualized Education Plan (IEP), Continuum of Service, Curriculum
and Instruction, Tests, Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE).

Community Education
The District wide Community Education Advisory Council (DCEAC), compromised of
citizens appointed by the School Board, provides overall input and guidance in the
following areas: Adult Basic Education (ABE), Adult Enrichment, Aquatics, Early
Childhood Family Services (ECFS), Facilities Use, Home Schools and Nonpublic

Schools, River Valley Project Explore, Senior Adult services, Summer Programs,
and Youth services.

Finance and Operations

The Finance Department provides overall leadership for the districts finance, facilities,
food and nutrition, student information, technology, transportation and receiving
departments. The department is also directly involved in managing, budgeting and longterm planning for facilities and capital needs, the property tax process, purchasing school
sites, leasing property and related operational issues.

Human Resources
Department functions include: Recruiting/Hiring, Employee Information/Benefits,
Substitute Employees, Labor Relations, and Human Rights.

With a district as large as District 196 (Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan),

decision-making occurs through many branches of an organizational tree. The district
office is the canopy of the tree. To provide consistent, continual change and
improvement throughout the district, general direction, guidelines, instructional
leadership and policies are generated from the district office to the three-dozen or so
school buildings branching throughout the district.
Mr. Steve Troen, the new director of Teaching and Learning, in an interview with
the authors reflected, the district and school administrators must determine what policies
and programs they need to tightly and or loosely administer in order to implement

the districts educational vision and goals (S. Troen, personal communication, July 1,
2009). With the main objective of providing students with the best education possible,
they must balance directed versus facilitated decisions by considering many factors,
including student enrollment, stakeholders including site councils, and data.
Student Enrollment
Several factors are involved in the many decisions administrators are entrusted to
make for the betterment of the school. Student enrollment is what drives much of the
planning and programming. Staffing needs and funding amounts from different local and
government sources are largely based on the number of students that are enrolled in the
school. A district budgeting co-curricular activities based on enrollment rather than cocurricular participation rates indicates how some budgeting decisions, procedures and
policies are entrenched and require a review of whether other factors outside of
enrollment should be considered (S. Troen, personal communication, July 1, 2009).
Level of Administrative Control
Programming decisions may end up being directives from the principal and
sometimes from the district office while other times may be a committee or advisory
group decision facilitated by the principal or a district office official. Administrative
leaders apply closer supervision and direction when implementing essential learning
objectives. These objectives need to be consistently communicated and applied in
classrooms not just within several classrooms offering the same subject in a building but
throughout several buildings within the district. Less control, however, is applied in
determining the methods and creativity utilized by teachers to teach those essential
learning objectives.

Another example of District 196 school leaders determining the proper level of
control over decisions is the implementation of new technology such as interactive white
boards, building web pages, and web-based student information management systems.
The district office provides recommendations and encouragement for the implementation
of new technology such as interactive white boards in classrooms but allows the school
administrations and to determine which style and brand to use in their building (S. Troen,
personal communication, July 1, 2009).

Influence of Site Councils and Other Stakeholders

While there are many stakeholders to consider when making decisions, site
councils are an interesting factor. In District 196, site councils are considered an
advisory group. Generally, principals will seek input regarding school related items. The
group advises but is not a policymaking body. This is different compared to the site
councils of the San Francisco school district. San Francisco site councils have voting
power to decide on budgeting, program implementation and instructional issues
causing mistrust, teachers desire to be on the site council in order to defend their own
programs, and concern regarding the level of expertise of site council members to make
educational decisions (Childress and Peterkin, 2007),. District 196 seems to avoid some
of the chaos, challenges and bureaucracy noticed in the San Francisco case study by
implementing site councils as advisory groups not authoritative, decision-making bodies
and allowing the school administration more of that authority to maintain a more
effective and positive culture.

Data
The use of data has increased over the past several years as a tool to make
decisions at the district and building level. Academic program decisions such as hiring
math trainers and literacy coaches and implementing striving reading and math programs
are made primarily using student achievement data primarily based on MAP, MCA and
Explore standardized test scores (S. Troen, personal communication, July 1, 2009).
The use of data helps determine issues such as the achievement gap but
unfortunately doesnt provide answers to helping solve the issue (S. Troen, personal
communication, July 1, 2009). Troens statement supports Belinda Williams conclusion
that despite student achievement increasing at both high and low poverty schools which
is positive within itself, the gap between low and high poverty schools remains and even
increases despite the improved test scores (Williams, 2003).
No Child Left Behind has changed how the nation looks at its schools. No
longer are schools truly a local autonomous body controlled solely by the locally elected
school board. Schools that are not making annual yearly progress are now closely
monitored by the state. Additionally, funding from the federal government through
special education programs and different literacy programs like Title One makes the
local district increasingly accountable to higher levels of oversight. Continuous
improvement is what all these levels of bureaucracy want, with funding playing a vital
role in the accountability process.
What affect is this having on the school district? District 196 seems to be
continually looking for the most efficient organizational model. A bottom up, top

down approach to district leadership is ideally what works the best (S. Troen, personal
communication, July 1, 2009). Yet that model of implementation and central leadership is
not without problems. Currently, the district is engaged in a formal initiative to promote
the continuous improvement throughout its schools by thoroughly reviewing how
curriculum is developed, implemented and assessed. This in-depth look at Curriculum,
Instruction and Assessment (CIA), has giving the district a chance to review and modify
its vision and beliefs and then empower its teachers to review and modify their practice
(S. Troen, personal communication, July 1, 2009). A committee made up of
administrators, both building and central office, teachers and specialists representing all
grade levels and disciplines met over a two year period. Current research and literature
was reviewed and a process of appreciative inquiry was initiated to bring out the best
practices that were currently engaged by district personal. The result was a clear set of
objectives that a new body of teachers and administrators can take action on and thus
continue to improve (S. Troen, personal communication, July 1, 2009). However, the
traditional threats to this kind of change still exist in even the most forward looking
districts. The entrenched beliefs and ways of doing things inherent with site based
management is probably the greatest (S. Troen, personal communication, July 1, 2009).
The challenge of getting people to look at their practice, buy-in to new ideas and move in
a new direction is formidable and the district office, central leadership, loses much of its
control once the vision modification and the creation of action steps are completed. The
district office has to change its focus to staff development and support (S. Troen, personal
communication, July 1, 2009). The success of the initiative lies in the hands of the
individual schools and the instructional leaders of those schools. Cunningham and

Cordeiro write that instructional leadership is now becoming the primary role of the
school principal. Insuring that principals are ready for this role is a challenge, one that
hinders school districts. Goodwin, Cunningham and Childress (2002/2003 as cited in
Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009) found in their study that the role of the principal is in
great transition. Cunningham and Codeiro (2009) write that the conflict between
management related tasks and instructional leadership initiatives is at an all time high.
Building the capacity for principals and teachers to be effective instructional leaders is an
on-going challenge (S. Troen, personal communication, July 1, 2009).
To ensure that progress is made and schools improve, administrators have to call
upon the expertise of its teacher leaders. Administrative budgets are too lean to
effectively lead change by themselves and need the bottom up momentum that comes
when teachers work effectively with administration through learning communities.
However, this critical opportunity may be the biggest hurdle. Teachers are extremely
busy with the curriculum and the students in their classrooms (S. Troen, personal
communication, July 1, 2009). Additionally, many teachers are inexperienced in the
arena of leadership.
Meaningful school improvement begins with cultural change and cultural change
begins with the school leaders (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009, p. 148). Trust must be
developed and nurtured and therefore a lack of trust due to too many unfinished
initiatives and vague accountability standards becomes a major hindrance concerning
new district undertakings.
Continual improvement has been the goal of every professional educator
regardless if it was the buzz word of the day. Understanding this, District 196 is poised

to meet that challenge and any challenge that may be encountered as it works
unwaveringly to meet the needs of all students. The district has to its advantage the size
that allows it to fund action research that cover the needs identified as unique to their
population. Additionally, the district is rich in diversity and has a commitment from its
stakeholders to use that diversity as a unifying force as it equips students for the 21st
century. Troens comments are in concert with other educational professionals in
recognizing that it is the diversity in the numerous schools and the talent within each that
often leads the whole organization to evolve forward.
The community itself is celebrated for its support of District 196. The
communities of Eagan, Rosemount and Apple Valley although competitive and proud of
their local school has provided the resources and support necessary to reach such high
levels of achievement. However, the district has a challenge. Like many similar districts
across the nation, it has to close the achievement gap. This becomes increasingly hard as
mobility rates for students go up and the demographics of a district are no longer as
predictable as they once were (Murphy, 2003; Hodgkinson, 2003). Along with the
wealth of resources and the support of the community this gap will not be closed but for
the continued efforts of the districts teachers. The teachers of District 196, along with
current research, appropriate accountability systems and the support and vision of the
educational leaders hold the most promise in making educational equity a reality for all.
It is the responsibility of the district office to insure that the exchange of information and
the flow of ideas that are needed to meet this task truly flow in a continuous loop from
the bottom up and top down.

References
Childress, S. and Peterkin, R. (2007) Pursuing Educational Equity at San Francisco
Unified School District, From Managing School Districts for High Performance
(Childres, S.,Elmore, R., Grossman, A. & Moore Johnson, S.) Harvard Education
Press: Cambridge, MA.

Cunningham, W. & Cordeiro, P. (2009). Educational leadership: A bridge to improved

practice. Pearson Education, Inc: Boston, MA.
Hodgkinson. H, (2003). As a response to The Challenge of A Changing Nation.
From The 21st century principal:Current issues in leadership and
policy. (Pierce, M. & Stapleton, D. Eds). Harvard Education Press: Cambridge,
MA.
Murphy, R. (2003). As a response to The Challenge of A Changing Nation.
From The 21st century principal: Current issues in leadership and policy.
(Pierce, M. & Murphy, D. Eds). Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA.
Williams, B. (2003). Closing the Achievement Gap. From The 21st century principal:
Current issues in leadership and policy. (Pierce, M. & Stapleton, D. Eds).
Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA.