Abstract
The California Department of Education (CDE) distributes "Advisories," written communications to school district superintendents and key leaders. In recent years, some Program Advisories had been widely distributed to include site level administrators. The Advisories written by CDE branches offered suggestions and recommendations for implementation. This study investigated the impact of two widely distributed Program Advisories through seven case studies. Superintendents were asked a series of questions to determine what, how, and why recommendations were implemented. Data were collected by personal interviews, using a multiple case studies approach. Responses to twenty four specific recommendations were recorded. The Advisories offered recommendations for "Retention Practices" and for "Educating the Young." Data were analyzed by comparing responses to a theoretical construct developed for the study. Results indicated that districts implemented approximately sixty percent of the CDE recommendations. Two districts implemented as few as one fourth of the recommendations, three districts implemented approximately half, and two other districts implemented approximately three fourths of the recommendations. Findings indicated that districts dealt with Advisories in similar ways: (1) They were not read closely by superintendents, (2) The responsibility for implementation was delegated to key planners, (3) District staff preferred to send the message of the Advisory rather than the actual Advisory. Advisories did have an impact on the districts' key leaders, and the degree of implementation depended on the perceived importance or relevance of the material to the district. Superintendents believed that direction for change should come from the district level, not from the sites, whether Advisories were distributed widely or not. Little evidence was found to support the notion that wide distribution of Program Advisories increased district implementation. If the CDE intended to create change by communicating directly with school sites, it was recommended they work with, rather than through local districts. The CDE could train key planners and/or promote district support of site based decision making. Otherwise, widespread distribution of Advisories might not be worth the additional staff time and expense.