Two research studies stand out in this era, one in the United States and the other in Canada. Both of these studies were designed to identify the characteristics of academically effective school districts. Sample districts were selected for investigation and comparison on the basis of aggregate results of student performance on standardized tests, controlling for time, student characteristics, and in the Canadian study costs. The districts were not selected from a pool of districts known to be involved in effective school initiatives, though not surprisingly, the more effective districts in these samples were strongly focused and invested on improving the quality of teaching and learning.
Murphy and Hallinger (1988) studied 12 high performing California school districts.
They associated district effectiveness with strong instructionally-focused leadership from the superintendent and his/her administrative team, an emphasis on student achievement and improvement in teaching and learning, the establishment and enforcement of district goals for improvement, district-wide curriculum and textbook adoption, district advocacy and support for use of specific instructional strategies, deliberate selection of principals with curriculum knowledge and interpersonal skills, systematic monitoring of the consistency between district goals and expectations and school goals and implementation through principal accountability processes, direct personal involvement of superintendents in monitoring performance through school visits and meetings with principals, alignment of district resources for professional development with district goals for curriculum and instruction, systematic use of student testing and other data for district planning, goal setting, and tracking school performance, and generally positive relations between the central office, the school board, and local communities. LaRoque and Coleman (1990) studied district ethos and school accountability in a sample of ten British Columbia school districts. The sample included a mix of high to low performing districts. Their findings on district goals and accountability processes, particularly the personal leadership and involvement of superintendents, in the higher performing districts were quite consistent with those reported by Murphy and Hallinger in the California study. Other studies from this time period suggested that strong district influence on instructional decisions and practices in the classroom was not typical in most districts . Floden et al (1988) surveyed district policy influence on the instructional decisions of fourth grade mathematics teachers in 20% of the districts (8 schools per district) across five states. They compared teacher responses in districts that emphasized central priorities and control versus support for autonomous curriculum decision making.
Regardless of approach, the indicators of district policy influence were weak.
Attention to the school district role in improving the quality of teaching and learning subsided in the heyday of the restructuring era, especially in the context of policies that emphasized decentralization and school-based management as the engine for change.