In July 2005, after hiring a new superintendent in June 2004, the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Arkansas’s largest school district, began the organization of its management structure. This process was initiated by perceived inefficiencies connected with school bureaucracy and inadequate yearly progress of a considerable number of schools in the district. The fundamental goal of the reorganization policy proposed by the superintendent was the creation of an efficient bureaucracy through the establishment of “a clear line of authority from the superintendent to principals” the organization’s streamlining by resource redistribution to schools and the elimination of central office positions (Howard et al. 2010, 934). According to the results of the LRSD’s reorganization, 101 central office positions were reclassified or eliminated and a new structure with additional positions was established (Howard et al. 2010). It goes without saying that taken actions and their outcomes have both advantages and drawbacks. That is why, in 2007, the district’s superintendent and the LRSD Board authorized an evaluation team in order to review the process and outcomes of reorganization and prepare the evaluation report.
In general, after a thorough examination of this report, it is possible to conclude that it is composed in a highly professional and comprehensive way. First of all, it provides the background of the reorganization plan, identifies the participants of the evaluation process, the algorithm of this process, and main questions that should be addressed. Subsequently, it provides the description of the reorganization process, in other words, what was done, and key findings on the basis of outcomes’ research (Eddings et al. 2008). In addition, the report offers recommendations how the reorganization process may be improved in order to raise the efficiency of the educational process and address the stakeholders’ needs.
Another essential advantage of the report is a direct identification of its limitations by authors. Specifically, they mention that it is too early to achieve the efficiency of the reorganization process and evaluate its outcomes, especially in relation to student achievement, to the fullest extent after 2 years of the plan’s implementation. Moreover, the evaluation of stakeholders’ opinions concerning reorganization and the process of data collection for this evaluation is exceptional due to its inclusiveness and comprehensiveness. First of all, all categories of stakeholders were involved: the members of Executive Staff and the LRSD School Board, school principals, school staff members, teachers, and parents (Eddings et al. 2008). In-depth personal interviews were conducted with executive staff individually and tape-recorded. The perceptions of other stakeholders were evaluated through group-administered and telephone surveys (Howard et al. 2010). This approach has substantially contributed to the accuracy of the evaluation report.
Among insignificant weaknesses, it is possible to admit a limited range of questions used for evaluation reports. According to the standards of evaluation, there are several categories that should be addressed in the report – its utility, feasibility, accuracy, and propriety. Utility refers to the target audience of the evaluation, feasibility addresses the practical benefits of the evaluation, accuracy evaluates every step of the evaluation process, and propriety focuses on its ethical appropriateness. In general, in order to improve the evaluation plan for the LRSD’s reorganization, authors may indicate who whom their evaluation may be useful and whether the research was conducted in an ethical and fair way.
Reference List
Eddings, Ellen, Joseph Howard, Keith Nitta, and Sharon Wrobel. 2008. Little Rock School District Reorganization Evaluation Report.
Howard, Joseph Y., Sharon L. Wrobel, and Keith A. Nitta. 2010. “Implementing Change in an Urban School District: A Case Study of the Reorganization of the Little Rock School District.” Public Administration Review, 934-941.