Does educational organizations ever try to implement too much?

The major scenario affecting the educational work setting is the development of learning communities in the school system. The local educational agency (LEA) is instructed by the State Department of Public Instruction to implement learning communities at each school. The State Department of Public Instruction is voicing this directive as a result of the LEA's sanctions due to the federal mandates of No Child Left Behind. As Clawson (2006) notes effective leadership does not "put the cart before the horse" (p. 117). In other words, the goal of learning communities in this LEA is to develop educators to be more driven in their own professional development utilizing research-base instruction from participating in an online course, thus improving their teaching and student learning performance. The disruption in each school is a result in the lack of choice that teachers have in whether to participate in the school's learning community. The selected teachers and assistant principals of each school have to enroll in an online course, follow the prescriptive procedures of a learning community for duration of 8 weeks. Unfortunately, the real benefits and development of positive, professional relationships and the potential for student success in the classroom will be less important as a result of the manner of implementation that the State Department and LEA have mandated to each school. The LEA is acting as Covey notes in the crisis mode and not allocating the necessary time to the process in order for maximum gains of success (Clawson, 2006). The full success of learning communities in the LEA requires teachers the opportunity to chose and allows time for effective implementation to meet the needs at each school.

Clawson (2006) states, "Stan Davis in Future Perfect, claims that leaders think in the future perfect tense"; they know what and how they want to accomplish their goal (p. 122). The leader in this school clearly defines the goal of making adequate yearly growth in reading and math as the most important vision for the school. This goal is realistic and clearly understood by all school employees. However, the confusion expressed by many teachers is the use of six different tutorial services in tested subjects areas. Teachers are confused as to which student qualifies to go to which tutoring service on what day. The following is a sample of a normal week's schedule.

Tutorial Subject Qualification Day

Sylvan Reading Level I or II score M W

Academic Plus Reading Level I or II score M W

Mission Possible Reading (week 1) All M W

Mission Possible Math (week 2) All M W

Mission Possible Technology All TH

4-H Reading / Math Level I or II score M-F

Saturday Academy Reading / Math All 2-Sat/month

Read 180 Reading EC / Level II score M-F

The various services are all beneficial, but no service is capable of helping students reach their maximum potential. Students may elect to attend Mission Possible one week and 4-H the next week. Allowing student to jump from one service to another is too chaotic. The purpose for student choice was to increase attendance. However, what is also being noticed is that students are opting to not attend at all due to lack of commitment. Parents are not even sure what their children are really doing after school. It is imperative that the school offer tutoring services at flexible times, but it is necessary to enforce attendance guidelines and involve parents in their child's tutoring plan. More impact can be made with quality tutoring services, instead of quantity.

Clawson, J. G. (2006). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (3rd ed.).Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.