TRUST IN SCHOOLSA CORE RESOURCE FOR IMPROVEMENT

ANTHONY S. BRYIC AND BARBARA SCHNEIDER

A Volume in the AmericanSociologicalAssociation’sRose Seriesin Sociology

RussellSageFoundation New York

Lr~StTY

CRaUUAT[ SCHOOl 01 EDUCATIONMONROL C. GUIMAN LIBRARY

The Russell Sage Foundation

The Russell Sage Foundation, one of the oldest of America’s general purpose founda-tions, was established in 1907 by Mrs. Margaret Olivia Sage for “the improvement of

~ social and living conditions in the United States.” The Foundation seeks to fulfill thismandate by fostering the development and dissemination of knowledge about the

C( ~~b2country’s political, social, and economic problems. While the Foundation endeavors toassure the accuracy and objectivity of each book it publishes, the conclusions and inter-

‘~ ~ pretations in Russell Sage Foundation publications are those of the authors and not ofthe Foundation, its Trustees, or its staff. Publication by Russell Sage, therefore, does notimply Foundation endorsement.

BOARD OF TRUSTEESIra Katznelson, Chair

Alan S. Blinder Jennifer L. Hochschild Ellen Condliffe LagemannChristine K. Cassel Timothy A. Hultquist Cora B. MarrettThomas P. Cook Kathleen Hall Jamieson Eugene SmolenskyRobert E. Denham Melvin Konner Eric Wanner

TFIE ROSE SERIES IN SOCIOLOGY EDITORIAL BOARDDouglas L. Anderton Naomi Gerstel Randall StokesDan Clawson Joya Misra Robert Zussman

Karl Alexander Kai Erikson Harvey L. MolotchElijah Anderson Andrew Greeley Francois NielsenRichard A. Berk Michael Flechter Rita J, SimonLawrence U. Bobo Valerie Jenness Marta TiendaPaul Burstein Douglas McAdam Linda J. WaiteTheodore Caplow Sara S. McLanahan Andrew G. WalderDaniel B. Cornfield John W. Meyer Christopher WinshipPaula England Marshall W. Meyer James Alan Wright

Librai’y of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bryk, Anthony S.Trust in schools: a core resource for improvement / Anthony S. Bryk and

Barbara Schneider.p. cm, — (The Rose series in sociology)

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-87154-192-01. Schools—Decentralization—Illinois—Chicago—Case studies. 2. School im-

provement programs—Illinois—Chicago—Case studies. 3. Education, Urban—Illi-nois—Chicago—Case studies. I. Schneider, Barbara L. II. Title. Ill. Series.

LB2862 .B79 2002371.2’009773’I1—dc2l 2002021849

Copyright © 2002 by Russell Sage Foundation. All rights reserved. Printed in theUnited States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of thepublisher.

Reproduction by the United States Government in whole or in part is permitted forany purpose.

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of AmericanNational Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Li-brary Materials. ANSI Z39.48—1992.

Text design by Suzanne Nichols

RUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION112 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10021

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Chapter 1

The Social Foundations ofSchooling: An Overlooked

Dimension for Improvement

A LMOST daily, somemajor conference,researchreport,or pro-nouncementfrom an importantpublic official callsfor funda-mentalchangein schoolingin the United States.A casualin-

spection of most any issue of Education Weekmay well leave thereaderstunnedby the intensityandscopeof reformactivity occurringacrossthis countrySeeminglyeveryaspectof our educationsystem—how it is governed,the basic organizationof schools,who teaches,how studentsareeducated,what’s being taught, andhow we knowwhat studentsactually are learning—areall subject to intensescm-tiny andrevision.

Weconfronttodaya transformativemomentin the historyof Amer-ican education.Standing behind this proliferation of reform activityare fundamentaleconomicandsocietalchangesrivaling thoseprecip-itated by theindustrial revolutionat the turn of the twentiethcentury.During the last hundred years, U.S. society functioned adequatelywith only a modestportion of its studentsbeing well educated.Now,high-levelacademicachievementhasbecomea universalaim.’ Wherejust two decadesagowe would havetrumpetedan increasein stu-dentbasicskills scoresin readingandmathematicsanda reductioninhighschool dropouts,reform rhetoric now emphasizes“World ClassStandards”of academicattainmentfor all.2

Researchhas documentedsignificant changesin the economicre-turnsto educationduring the lasttwo decades.3We areevolvingrap-idly into a two-tier economywhereformal schoolingbecomesa strictgatekeeperbetweenthosewho gain accessto well-paying jobs andthosewho do not. Moreover,the “new basicskills” requiredfor eco-nomic opportunity in the future are likely to be substantiallyhigher

3

4 Trust in Schools

than they are today.4Equally compellingargumentsare raisedas weconsiderthe intellectual demandsfor effective political participationin an increasinglycomplex democraticsociety.5That the vitality of ademocraticgovernmentdependson the social intelligenceof its citi-zenry has beenlong recognized.6The basic form of public educationthat served adequatelyon this accountin the past,however,is alsounlikely to suffice in the future. Similar themesariseinternationally,where educationis seenas key to economicand political develop-ment. It is widely assumedthat countrieswith strong educationsys-temsare the onesmost likely to prosperin the yearsahead.?

Such analyseshavemajor implicationsfor our educationsystem.At basehereis a call for a fundamentaltransformationin the missionand operationof U.S. schools.To promotehigher levels of academicattainmentrequiresraising the quality of educationalexperiencesforall students,pre-K to 12 andbeyond.Within thepastdecade,we haveseen the emergenceof efforts at comprehensiveschool redesign.8

Statesand districts are experimentingWith various forms of decen-tralization, chartering,and contracting.8Also ongoingare efforts torestructurethebasicorganizationof teachers’andstudents’work, in-tensivescrutiny of teachers’knowledgeandskills, andefforts to sys-tematically introduce research-basedbest practicesinto classrooms.’0

More generally,a broadarrayof new policy initiatives aimed at ad-vancing studentlearninghas emergedaroundprofessionaldevelop-ment, accountability,andassessment.”

Two broadapproachesto school improvementappearin thesevar-iousreforms.On onesideis a focus on structuralchangeaswitnessedin efforts to promotegovernancereform and restructuringof workconditionsin schools.This strategyassumesthat unlessa fundamen-tal reorganizationtakesplacein theinstitutionalarrangementsof pub-lic schooling,significantly higher levels of academicperformance’—especially among very disadvantagedstudents—remainsunlikely.Thesereformersclaim that we must reframe the incentivesand con-trol mechanismsunder which school professionalswork in order toencouragethe neededinnovationsand improvements.

Contrastingwith this structuralist approachto reform is a moreimmediate,direct focus on instruction. Thesecritics argue that if weWant to promote higher standardsof studentWork, then we musttransformteachingpractice.This necessitatesa concertedeffort to im-provethe knowledgeandskills of currentteachers,betterpreparationof their futurecolleagues,andsupportfor continueddevelopmentoftheteachingprofession.While thesecritics may acknowledgethat thecurrentwork structuresare problematic,they argue that the primary

The SocialFoundationsof Schooling 5

focus for reform should be on enhancingthe human resourcesofschooling.If this occurs,they believe, the restwill follow.’2

In our vie~çboth perspectiveshavemerit. Embeddedin the cur-rent governancearrangementsfor public educationaredisincentivesand constraintsthat seriously impededesiredimprovements.”Struc-turaliststhereforeare correctin arguingthat fundamentalinstitutionalchangeis required. Equally correct, however,are those focused onenhancingteachercompetence,who remind usthat the classroom--whereteachersencounterstudentsaroundsubjectmatter—is thepri-mary contextfor instruction.If wewish to substantiallyimprovestu-dent learning, we must transform the intellectual dynamics of theclassroom.‘~

While acknowledgingthe significant insightsembeddedin eachofthesepolicy arguments,we havealso concludedthat both analysesremain incomplete.Within any formal arrangementsfor schooling,teachersmust engagenot only particular subjectsand ideas abouthow to teachthem,but also students,their parents,andprofessionalcolleagues.Importantconsequencesplay out in thesedaily socialex-changes.”Thepersonaldynamicsamongteachers,students,andtheirparents,for example, influence whether studentsregularly attendschooland sustainefforts on the difficult tasksof learning.” The his-tory of powerrelationsbetweena principal andheror his faculty canstrongly influencea staff’s willingness to undertakesomenew re-form.’7 Similarly, establishednorms about teacherautonomy can de-limit a faculty’s capacity to engagein broad-basedorganizationalchange.”

The Dynamicsof ImprovingUrbanSchoolsIn this book, we arguethat the social relationshipsat work in schoolcommunitiescomprisea fundamentalfeatureof their operations.Thenatureof thesesocial exchanges,and the local cultural featuresthatshapethem,conditiona school’scapacityto improve.Designinggoodschoolsrequiresus to think about how bestto organizethe work ofadultssothat theyare morelikely to fashiontogetheracoherentenvi-ronment for the developmentof children.We havelearned,basedonour researchon school reform in Chicago,that a broadbaseof trustacrossa school community lubricatesmuch of a school’s day-to-dayfunctioning andis a critical resourceas local leadersembarkon ambi-tious improvementplans.Moreover,we maintain that this social trust

6 Trust in Schools

is especiallyimportantas we focus on disadvantagedurbanschoolsand their task of educating“other people’schildren.”

A Troubled Urban School-CommunityContext

Profoundeconomicandsocial changeshaveswept overour nation’smajor cities in the last three decades.Many urban neighborhoodshave been ravaged by the loss of basic institutions: businesses,churches,banks,health and social serviceagencies,and communityorganizations.Little of what we normally envisionas communallifeexistsin someof the poorestneighborhoods.2°Residentialmobility ishigh, as many families move frequently in searchof safe,affordablehousing.Takentogether,thesedevelopmentshavemadesomeurbancommunitiesmuch lesshospitablefor raisingchildren. High levels ofviolence,coupledwith transience,tear at the basicsocial fabric thatbinds neighborhoodresidentstogether. This social fabric, normallyconsidereda resourcefor child rearing,often is weak.2’

Moreover, a steady stream of federal, state, and local policiesaimed at promoting desegregationhad the unintendedconsequenceof distancingschoolsfrom thecommunitiesin which they arelocated.For example,almost 30 percent of Chicago elementaryschool stu-dents do not attend their neighborhoodschool. (At the high schoollevel, thecomparablefigure is 50 percent.)Similarly, by a judicial con-sentdecreein 1980, a massiveredistributionof faculty wasexecutedin the Chicagopublic schools?~On one day, the ties of thousandsofteachersto families and localcommunitieswere severed.A residueofsocialdistancebetweenschoolstaff andcommunitieshasbeenleft inits wake,and is now normativein many places.

As a consequenceof these large-scalesocietal changes,distrustnow characterizesmany of the social interactionsthat poor familieshavewith local schoolsand otherpublic institutions.Teachersoftenseeparents’goalsand valuesas impedimentsto students’academicaccomplishments.Parentsin turn believethat teachersare antagonis-tic towardthem andfail to appreciatethe actualconditionsthat shapetheir children’s lives.23 This lack of trust betweenteachersand par-ents—oftenexacerbatedby raceand classdifferences—makesit diffi-cult for thesegroups to maintain a genuinedialogue about sharedconcerns!4The resultantmiscommunicationstend to reinforce exist-ing prejudicesand undermineconstructiveefforts by teachersandparents to build relational ties around the interestsof children. In-steadof working togetherto support the academicandsocial devel-opmentof students,teachersand parentsfind themselvesoperatingin isolationor, in the worst cases,in opposition to oneanother.

TheSocial Foundationsof Schooling 7

A Striking Contrastin Urban Catholic Schools

Our interestin the social dynamicsof effectiveurbanschoolsderivesfrom prior researchon urbanCatholic high schools.Bryk, Lee, andHolland (1993) found that many parentswho placed their childrenintheseschoolswereneitherwell educatednor necessarilyheld a well-articulated conceptionof the academicexperiencesthat they desiredfor their children. Parentsselecteda Catholic school becausetheytrusted that theseschool professionalswould provide their childrenwith a good education.Whenit cameto decidingwhat studentsactu-ally did in school,parentsrelied on thejudgmentandexpertiseof thestaff, who in turn workedundera moral obligation to act in the bestinterestsof their students.It was understoodthat teachers’respon-sibilities included defining the specific contentand methodsof in-structionand, at times,also counselingparentsaboutwhat they hadto do to advancetheir children’slearning.

The support that Catholic schoolteachersreceivedfrom parentshelpedthem to sustaina high level of commitmentto the difficulttaskof educatingdisadvantagedyouth. Teachingin theseschoolsnotonly wasa technicalact, it alsowasa moral imperative.Faculty felt astrong senseof responsibility for studentlearningand welfare, andthis collective commitment was recognizedand valued by parents.The reciprocalcharacterof the trust relationsbetweenteachersandparentsmadedemandson teachersto act ethically,andon parentstosupportand encouragethe work of the school,Sinceparentstrustedthe intentionsof the staff, many potentially contentiousissuesneverdevelopedinto conflicts.Whenmisunderstandingsdid occur,they of-ten were resolvedquickly. Overall,the absenceof suspicionand dis-trust in these schools was a key element in their operationsandplayedan importantrole in their specialeffectiveness.

Insightsfrom RecentEfforts toChangeUrban Schools

Surprisingly,thereis relatively little acknowledgmentof theserela-tional concernsin eithereducationpolicy or the moregeneraleduca-tion researchliterature!5The importanceof this socialdimensiondoesemerge,however,aswe examinemore closely someactualefforts tochangeurban schools.A notablecontribution is the work of JamesCorner. Corner’sreform effort, the SchoolDevelopmentPn4ect,fo-cusesdirectly on the social misaligru’nent,describedearlier, betweenurban school professionalsand poor parents. Comer organizeshisschool developmentwork around a community mental health per-

S Trustin Schools

spective,maintaining that unless substantialattention focusesonstrengtheningthe socialrelationshipsamongschoolprofessionalsandparents,efforts at instructionalimprovementare unlikely to succeed.2’

Similarly, Deborah Meier (1995) devotesa whole chapterof herbook, The Power of Their Ideas, to reflectionson the centrality of socialrelationshipsin the highly successfulmiddle school she createdinHarlem.27By heraccount,building trust amongteachers,school lead-ers, students,and parentswas essentialto advancingthe academicmission of the school,which was to provide challengingintellectualwork for all students.Othersupportiveaccountsfrom New York Citycanbe found in the efforts of Tony Alvarado and colleaguesto buildlearningcommunitiesin District ~ The importanceof building re-spect, ftust,anda collegial spirit are specifically citedas central to thepositive developmentsthat emergedthere.

Furtherevidenceaboutthe significanceof the social dimensiontoschool improvementcanbe foundin resultsfrom a five-year studyofschool restructuringefforts conductedby the Centeron SchoolOrga-nizationandRestructuringat the Universityof Wisconsinat Madison.”Researchersassociatedwith the Center concluded,basedon longi-tudinal studiesof restructuringschools,that

humanresources—suchas opennessto improvement,trust and respect,teachershavingknowledgeandskills, supportiveleadershipandsocial-ization—aremore critical to thedevelopmentof professionalcommu-nity than structuralconditions . . . the need to improve the culture,climate, and interpersonal relationships in schools have receivedtoo littleattention.” [emphasisaddedi

Additional support for theseassertionscan be found in a detailedstudyof nine districts’ efforts to reform mathematicsandscienceedu-cation.3’ Here, too, researchersconcludedthat norms of trust amonglocal participantsplayed a key role in whetherteacherswereable tomakegood useof externalsupportandprofessionaldevelopmentop-portunitiesto changetheir practice.

In sum, a growing body of casestudiesand narrativeaccountsabout school changedirect our attention to the social dynamics ofschooling,and especiallyto the engagingbut also somewhatelusiveidea of social trust as foundationalfor meaningful school improve-ment.22At last, a fundamentalfeatureof good schoolscomesinto ourfield of vision. Yet what precisely is social trust and what does itmeanin the contextof a poor urbanschoolcommunity?What effectsare actually associatedwith it? This book seeksto answertheseques-tions.

The SocialFoundationsof Schooling 9

Studying Trust in ChicagoElementary SchoolsA unique setof circumstancesevolved in the ChicagoPublicSchoolsin the early1990s,which madesystematicinquiry on this topic pos-sible.

A Contextof DecentralizedRefonn

Beginning in 1988, a major effort was launched in Chicago to trans-form the operationof its public schools.ThenSecretaryof EducationWilliam Bennetthad characterizedthe city’s school systemas the“worst in America.” Many Chicagoansagreedand in responseem-braced a radical school system decentralization.Relative to extantpracticesin other urban districts, the Chicago reform devolvedanextraordinarylevel of resourcesand authority from the central officeout to local school communities.Specifically, the Illinois legislaturepassedin 1988 the ChicagoSchoolReformAct, which soughtto bringaboutmoredirect involvementof local schoolprofessionalswith par-ents andcommunity membersin the improvementof neighborhoodschools.23Underthis legislation, voters in specified residentialareaselectLocal SchoolCouncils(LSCs),eachof which consistsof six par-ents, two community members,two teachers,the principal, and forhigh schools,a student.TheseLSCs were granted considerablere-sponsibility, including the hiring andfiring of schoolprincipals,whono longer hold tenure in their respectivebuildings. LSCs annuallyallocatesubstantialfunds for school improvements(that previouslywerecontrolled by the central administration),andnearly all aspectsof the school’scurriculum and managementcomeunder their pur-view. Similarly, principalsgainedsubstantialauthority underthe Re-form Act, including the right to hire new teacherswithout regardtoseniority.’4Finally, in order to protectthe newly establishedautonomyof local schoolcommunities,the ReformAct specifically delimitedthecentraloffice’s authority to intervenein local matters and soughttoreducetheir actualcapacityto do so.

A basic premiseof this reform was that improving urban schoolsrequiredstrongersocial ties betweenlocal school professionalsandthe parentsand community whom they are responsiblefor serving.By establishingschoolcommunitygovernanceandby devolving sub-stantialresourcesandauthority to it, a context and rationalefor col-lective local actionwasenjoined.Although the reform createdoppor-tunities for improvement,it did not lay out an explicit blueprint forall schoolsto follow. Rather, an outburst of diverselocal initiatives

10 Trust in Schools

ensued.This created a natural experimentfor investigatingdiffer-encesin school changeprocessesand ultimately proved a good sitefor examining the significanceof trust relations in efforts to improveschool effectiveness.Not surprisingly, some school communitiesinChicagodramaticallymoved forward, but othersdid not.3’ By exam-ining this variability amongschool communitiesin their processesofreform and its effects, we wereable to gleaninsightsabouthow localactorseffectivelyengageoneanotheraroundimproving their schools.

UniqueResearchResources

The results reportedhere draw on a larger collegial effort to researchschool reform and improvement in Chicago. Throughthis extraordi-nary collaboration,a ten-yearbody of both quantitative andqualita-tive evidencehas beenassembledon school-communitychangeandits impact on studentlearning. The basicconceptualizationof socialtrust as a resourcefor school improvement,developedherein,drawson field observationsfrom longitudinal casestudiesof twelve Chi-cago elementaryschools, conductedby the Center for School Im-provementat the University of Chicago.In additionto thesesystem-atic case studies,we also had accessto clinical observationsfromcenterstaff who were actively involved on a daily basis supportingchangeefforts in severalChicagopublic elementaryschoolsover thissameperiod.” This combination of field notesand informal clinicalobservationshelped us to elaboratean empirically groundedtheory’aboutthe natureandfunction of social trust in school communities.

Complementingthis field-basedevidenceare the large-scalequan-titative data resourcesassembledby the Consortium on ChicagoSchoolResearch.Foundedin 1990, the Consortiumis a federationofChicago-arearesearchersand policy advocatesand their organiza-tions who havecommitted collective efforts to ongoing researchonthe conditionsof educationin the city, the progressof its variousre-forms, and more generally,an agendaof researchto inform reform.The Consortiumhasassembleda large, integrated,longitudinal data-base on the students, schools, and communities of Chicago. Thedatabaseincludes: Chicago public school data from both students’administrativerecords and test score files; school-communityinfor-mationassembledfrom the school system,other public agencies,andthe U.S. Census;and periodic general purpose surveys developedandadministeredby the Consortiumto track local school changeef-forts. The data resourcesof the Consortium allow us to rigorouslyevaluateour claims aboutsocial trustand its effectson teachers’work

The Social Foundationsof Schooling 11

andstudentlearning. Takentogether,the practice-basedobservationsof the Centerfor SchoolImprovementand thedataarchiveassembledby theConsortiumcreatean unparalleledsetof informationresourcesfor researchon urbanschoolreform.

Chapter 2

Relational Trust

Q UR INTERE5T5 in the role of social trust in improving schoolsemergedout of field observationsin Chicago elementaryschoolsas they engagedin a decentralizationreform. Com-

mentsabouttrustarosefrequently as schoolleaderssoughtto explainwhy some actions occurred—ormore typically, failed to occur—intheir particular school community. Although an analysis of socialtrust was not initially our primary researchpriority, we graduallycameto recognizethis as a powerful conceptshapingthe thinkingand behaviorof local schoolactors.

Our growing recognitionof the salienceof trust led us to explorethe extant scholarshipon this topic. As noted in chapter 1, althoughsocial trust in schoolcommunitieshasemergedin a few studiesas akey elementin improving schools,little systematicresearchexistedon this topic aswe beganour work. Little attention hasbeenfocusedon the nature of trust as a substantiveproperty of the social orga-nization of schools,’ on how much trust levels actually vary amongschools,andhow this may relateto their effectiveness.2

Consequently,we broadenedour searchto considerthe moregen-eral literatureon trust andrecentdevelopmentsin the closely relatedconceptof socialcapital.Insightsfrom a diversearrayof fields,includ-ing philosophy,political science,economics,andorganizationalbehav-ior, helpedus to constructa groundedtheory of social trust in schoolcommunities.Through a combinationof literature analysis and fieldnote review,wedevelopedanexplicit focuson the distinctivequalitiesof interpersonalsocial exchangesin schoolcommunities,and how thesecumulatein an organizationalpropertythatweterm relational trust.

Much of the currentinterestin trust as an organizationalconcepthasbeeninspired by recent developmentsaround the theory of socialcapital. Of particular salienceto our investigationis the researchofRobert Putnam,who has drawn on theseideasto analyzethe func-

12

RelationalTrust 13

tioning of democraticinstitutions.Harking backto Tocquevillle’sanal-ysis of the emergenceof American democracy,Putnamremindsusthat the effective functioning of democraticinstitutions restsheavilyon the willingness of citizens to associatevoluntarily with one an-other to redresscollectiveconcerns.He arguesthatsuchcivic engage-ment dependson the natureof social ties amongcommunity mem-bers,in particulartheir levelsof interpersonaltrust.’ Putnam’sstudieshaveprovoked concernabout recentdeclinesin civic participationand increasedanxiety about the quality of American collective life.4

His researchis salient for our purposesbecauseit posits that the ef-fectivenessof democraticinstitutions dependson the quality of inter-personaltiesacrossa community.SinceChicago’s1988SchoolReformAct soughtto createlocal democraticinstitutions to promote schoolimprovement,a naturalapplicationof Putnam’sargumentis that levelof social trust within a schoolcommunityshould influencethe effec-tivenessof Chicago’sdecentralizationreform.

In the economicrealm, Francis Fukuyamaused a social capitalframeworkto examinethe contribution of social trustin the efficientoperationof national economies.’He argues that variations in na-tional culture, in particular their degreeof “spontaneoussociability,”contribute to their capacity to sustaincomplex economicrelations.Specifically,high levelsof social trust among individuals and institu-tionscreatemoreefficientproductionarrangementsthanin situationswhereit is necessaryto rely on directmonitoring andextensivelegalmechanismsto regulateeconomictransactions.This researchis signif-icant for us becauseit links the effectivenessof workplaceorganiza-tions to the qualityof social ties thatexistwithin andbetweeninstitu-tions. While Chicago’s1988 SchoolReformAct regardeddemocraticlocalism as a lever for change,the ultimate aim was more effectiveschools.’The argumentsraisedby Fukuyamasuggestthat the qualityof socialties acrossa school communitymight directly influencetheeffectivenessof its operations. In particular, where high levels ofsocial trustexist, the cooperativeeffortsnecessaryfor schoolimprove-ment shouldbe easierto initiate andsustain.

Both Putnam’s and Fukuyama’sresearchdrew inspiration fromJamesColeman’s theory of social capital.7 Coleman conceptualizedsocial capital as a property of the relational ties amongindividualswithin a social system.He arguedthat the natureof theserelation-ships play a key role in a wide range of social andbehavioralphe-nomena.Like humancapital, social capital is intangible and abstract,and accumulatedfor productiveends.Whereashumancapital is ac-quired through education,social capital developsaround sustainedsocial interactions.’

14 Trust in Schools

According to Coleman,two generalfactors combineto createhighlevels of social capital. The first is social network closure.Colemanargued that a high degreeof interconnectednessamong individualsmakesit easierfor membersto communicate.This socialnetworkclo-surealso facilitatescorrection of any miscommunicationsthat if leftunaddressed,could lead over time to interpersonalrifts and, in ex-treme instances,evento a breakdownof the network. Second,Cole-man pointed out that the presenceof denserelational ties makes iteasiernot only to communicatebasic information,but also to articu-late mutual expectationsamong various parties and to ascertainwhetherindividuals areactually meetingtheir respectiveobligations.Colemanreferred to this property of a social network as trustworthi-ness.Networkswith high levels of trustworthinessmaintain sociallydesirablenorms and sanctionunacceptableactions.’

A conceptualkey in Coleman’swork is that he coupledhis ideasabout the structureand impact of social networkswith an explicittheory about the social exchangesamong individuals who comprisethe network.We too soughtto developa multilevel theorythat rootsa consequentialorganizationalproperty of a school community (de-fined as relationaltrust) in thenatureof interpersonalsocialexchangesamongmemberswho comprisethat community

In terms of understandingthe microdynamicsof trust relationsamongpairsof individual actors,we wereable to draw on an exten-sive behavioraland philosophicalliterature that bearson this topic.Rational choice theoristshave focusedon the conditions and incen-tives that motivate individuals to trust oneanother,andon how indi-viduals assesspotential benefits and lossesassociatedwith actionsthey might takein a particularsituation.” From this perspective,trustconstitutesa calculationwherebyan individual decideswhether ornot to engagein an action with anotherindividual that incorporatessomedegreeof risk. Theexchangeis assumedto be primarily instru-mental: How canI bestadvancemy materialinterestsgiven the con-ditions in this situation?

More specifically in choosing to trust another individual, eachparty evaluatespast benefitsin the relationship,assumingsomehis-tory of prior exchangeshas occurred. In the absenceof such directexchanges,individuals may rely on personalreputations,or in theirabsence,more generalsocial similarities (for example,he comesfromour neighborhoodor attendsour church)in makingjudgments.”Eachparty in a socialexchangehas somepersonaldispositionto trust (ornot trust) the other.Similarly, some level of trustworthinesscharacter-izeseachindividual. Influencing the generalstructureof the exchange

RelationalTrust 15

is a powerrelationshipbetweenthe two partiesthat conditionseachindividual’s propensityandneedto trust the other.

A different strandof socialresearch,basedon group theory, helpedus to further expandour conceptualizationof the microdynamicsoftrust.’2 When an individual sustainsa relationshipwith somepersonor organization,theselong-term social connectionscantakeon valueunto themselves.In part,a self-identificationprocessis at work. Indi-vidualscometo definethemselvesas connectedto that personor or-ganization(for example, “theseare myfriends, my school, my commu-nity organization”) and undertake subsequentactions becausethisidentification is meaningful to them. Feelingsof friendships evolveandaltersubsequentexchanges.Individuals begin to takeon theper-spectivesand interestsof others in their social network. A personalsenseof social statusandesteem—beinga valuedmemberof a socialgroup—accruesto participants.Thus, social participationentails notonly material benefits to individuals, but also important social-psychologicalrewards.

Philosophicaland religious writings on trust bring a third, evenmore distinct view. Ratherthan the calculusof return usedby bothrational choice and group theorists,this perspectiveroots trust in asharedset of primarybeliefs aboutwho we areaspersonsand howwe should live togetheras a people.” Social exchangesnow entail amoral-ethical dimension, where actions are justified in terms of anobligation to advancewhat is good or proper in somesocial setting.Individuals understand,by virtue of their socialization in families,religious institutions, and conununities, that they have a respon-sibility to “do what is right” andexpectothersin their socialgrouptodo the same.’4

Togetherwith our preliminary field noteanalyses,thesetheoreticalargumentsconvinced us that the microdynamicsof trust entails acomplexmix of individual motivations. At the most basiclevel, self-interestis directedtowardsecuringsomedesiredreturn,whetherthatis improvedlearningopportunitiesfor children,moreattractiveworkconditionsfor teachers,or employmentpossibilitiesfor poor parents.Social-psychologicalconsiderationsplay a major role as well. School-ing entails long-termsocial relationshipsthat often arequite intimate.Parentshand over the nurturance,care, and developmentof theirchildrento school staff and dependon them to advancevaluedaimsin their children’s behalf.Teachersattachgreatimportanceto the psy-chic rewardsassociatedwith their work.” Furthermore,while discuss-ing the aims of schoolingtoday primarily in economictermsis com-mon (getting a good job, producing qualified workers for a local

16 Trust in Schools

economy,stimulating regionaleconomicdevelopment),schools con-tinue to serve important political, civic, and moral purposes.Theyform students’attitudes,values,and dispositions,and in the processcontributeto the kind of societywe are and will become.That moralconsiderationsalso shapesocial interactionsamongteachers,parents,and administratorsthereforeis not surprising.

Schoolcommunity membersindeed attend to instrumental con-cerns. They value achievingdesired personaloutcomes and beingableto influencecoreorganizationalproceduresthat affecttheir lives.”Yet they also attend to the intimatepersonalqualitiesof thesesocialexchanges:Do they appearrespectful,promotea senseof regard, af-filiation, andselfworth?And they bring a moral lens as well: Canthebehaviorof othersbe understoodas advancingthe bestinterestsofchildren?

Alternative Forms of Social TrustThe form that trust takesdependson the natureof the specific socialinstitution in which it is embedded.”We eventuallycameto concludethat a particularsystemof socialexchanges—whichwe term relationaltrust—was key to advancing improvement in urban public schoolcommunities.We considerfirst two other forms of trust andthe kindsof institutions where they are most likely found. This comparativecontexthelps to illuminate the distinctive connectionbetweena the-ory of relationaltrust andthe institutionalbasisof public schooling.

Organic Trust

Organic trust is predicatedon the moreor less unquestioningbeliefsof individuals in the moral authority of a particularsocial institution,and characterizesclosed,small-scalecommunities.In such socialsys-tems, individuals give their trust unconditionally; they believein therightnessof the system,the moral characterof its leadership,and allothers who commit to the community The presenceof organictrustcreatesstrong social bonds amongmembers,who share an ethicalresponsibility for the consequencesof their behaviorsto themselvesand others. Day-to-day social exchangesprovide memberswith abroadrangeof personalrewards.A strongsenseof identity with theinstitution is fostered,and membersbelievethat they enact in theirdaily lives a coreset of beliefsthat havemoral value.

Fundamentalistreligious schools,such as thosedescribedby LouisPeshkin, exemplify a contemporarysocial institution where organictrust operates.”Suchschoolsarepart of larger religious communities

RelationalTrust 17

that embracea moral vision that guides the actionsof professionals.The sharedbeliefs of the community order and control much of thework of school staff. Since the truth of their vision is beyonddoubt,completeobedienceis demanded.The school is an integral partof atotal institution, and is explicitly designed to realize its moral pre-cepts.An extraordinarilyhigh level of trustworthinessamong indi-vidual memberscharacterizessuchcontexts.

The applicability of organic trust rapidly breaks down, though,when we considermost moderninstitutions.Typically institutionalmembershipis much more open, and individuals are less likely tomaintain lifelong affiliations. A limited set of institutional purposes,rather than an all-encompassingworldview, orders associativerela-tions amongparticipants.Given the naturaldiversity in individuals’family backgmundsand prior experiences,thereare few corebeliefsto which assentby all memberscanbe automaticallyassumed.More-over, the ability of amoderninstitutionto compelconsent,as acondi-tion for participation, is also typically limited. Even nurturing suchconsensusis difficult, given the high valuemostAmericansplace onfreedomandindividual choice.To besure,sharedbeliefs characterizeeffective schools,but they are much narrower than thoseof a totalinstitution, andconscioussustainedeffort typically is requiredto ra-tionalizeeventhesebeliefsin the contextof daily schooloperations.”

Contractual Trust

Much morecommonin the contextof moderninstitutionsis a secondform of social relationscalled contractualtrust.” Here individualsandinstitutionsstandin a much moreconstrainedrelationto oneanother.The basisfor socialexchangeis primarily material and instrumental.Although personalfriendshipsmay ariseover time through repeatedinteractions,social-psychologicalmotivationsremainmodest,and themoral-ethicaldimensionis weak or nonexistent.A contractdefinesbasic actionsto be taken by the parties involved. The terms of thecontractexplicitly spell out a scopeof work to be undertaken,or aproductor serviceto be delivered.As a result,it is relatively easytoascertainwhetherthepartieshaveactedin accordancewiththeagreed-upon terms. If one party fails to uphold the contractualagreement,legal actions can be taken by the aggrievedparty to seekredress.Much of modernsocial life, including virtually all commercialtrans-actions,areshapedat leastimplicitly by this form of trust.

The social relations around schooling, however, do not fit wellwithin this framework for severalreasons.First, the aims of schoolsaremultiple and interrelated.Educationis not a singleproduct,good,

18 Trust in Schools

or serviceto be procured.Parentsexpectschoolsto carefor the safetyand welfareof their children as they might themselves.Parentsalsotypically expectschools to teachbasicacademicskills, developmorecomplex intellectual capacities(for example, to synthesizeinforma-tion, analyzecompetingclaims,andarticulatecompellingarguments),nurture a diversearrayof individual studentinterests(for example,arts, music, technology sports),promote students’ social and emo-tional development,and inculcate a core of values for responsiblepersonalandcivic life. Moreover,parents’priorities amongthesevar-ious outcomesaredynamic,dependingon the evolvingattributes,in-terests,and behaviorof eachchild as he or she progressesthroughschooling.Someof theseoutcomesare relatively easyto produceanddocument(for example,whether the studenthas acquiredbasicaca-demicskills in decodinga text or canundertakesimplemathematicalcomputations).Others, however,representcomplex intellectual,per-sonal,and interpersonaldispositionsthat develop over long periodsand are difficult to assessaccuratelyAs a result,objective evidenceon manyof the desiredoutcomesof schooling,which might form thebasisof a contract,cannotbe easilyattained.

Second,the specific mechanismsthat contributeto the productionof thesediversestudentoutcomesarecomplex and diffuse. While asubstantialbody of researchhasaccumulatedon effectiveschoolsandinstruction, it still doesnot constitutean explicit knowledgebasefordetailing best schooling practices.Although instancesof problem-atic practicemay be relatively easyto specify (for example,chronicteacherabsenteeism,lack of appropriateclassroommaterials, arbi-trary adjudication of discipline problems), no universally acceptedstandardsfor good professionalpracticecurrently exist. For example,eventhoughprimary readinghas beenintensivelystudiedfor severaldecades,considerabledisagreementstill existsoverappropriatemeth-ods for teachingdifferent kinds of students.Without clear standards,however,it is not easyto makedefinitive judgmentsaboutthe properexecutionof schoolpractice.

This latter observationis important becausecontractual trust ispredicatedeither on specificationof a particularproductor outcometo be delivered(that is, outcomespecificity), which, we haveargued,doesnot readily apply to schooling,or on the useof establishedpro-cessesto affect somedesiredoutcomewhich itself might notbeassur-able (that is, proceduralspecificity). Unfortunatelythe basicnatureofschoolingis notconsistentwith this secondcondition,either.Drawingon a medicalanalogy,no doctorcanabsolutelyassurea patient of thesuccessfuloutcome of any given procedure.So eventhough in thisinstanceit is possibleto objectively measurethe desiredoutcomes,outcome specificity cannotfunction as the exclusivebasis of a con-

RelationalTrust 19

tract. Yet contractualtrustcanfunction herethroughproceduralspec-ificity—that is, the demonstrationof the properchoiceand executionof an appmpriateprocedure.For example,a doctor may undertakeopen-heartsurgeryto correcta cardiacproblem.Eventhoughthe pa-tient’s condition might not improve as much as desired,the appro-priatenessof the chosenprocedure(that i5, the particular surgicaltechniqueused) andthe adequacyof its executioncanstill be estab-lished. Such proceduralspecificity, however,does not characterizemostof schooling.

Third, evenif bestpracticestandardswere established,to monitorwhethersuchpracticeswereregularly being usedwould be difficultin a logistical sense.Schoolingextendsover a substantialperiodandmany different contexts.Much of this activity occursbehindthe pri-vacy of classroomdoors,where little externaloversightis the norm.No easilyaccessiblerecordsexist from which it is possibleto deter-mine what is actually taught and how well it matchesschool aimsandacceptableteachingpractices.While in principle it might be pos-sible to establishan appropriatesystemof teacherrecord-keeping,coupled with direct classroommonitoring, the overheadcosts at-tachedto such formal policing mechanismswould be quite substan-tial.

Relational Trust

Schooling,an Intrinsically SocialEnterprise

Althoughthe arrangementof socialexchangesis animportantconsid-erationin the overall productivity of anyorganization,theseconcernstake on a heightenedsaliencefor schools.” The social relations ofschooling arenot just a mechanismof productionbut are a valuedoutcomein their own right.” We recall, in this regard,JohnDewey’slong-standingobservationthat a goodelementaryschool is moreakinto a family than a factory. While families are organizedto providemany “goodsandservices”for their members,participationin familylife createsthe deepestforms of personalmeaningand identity. Thequality of socialexchangesthat occur here,andhow variouspartiesunderstandand interpretthem, are of greathumansignificance.Sim-ilarly, socialexchangesthatoccur aroundschoolingalso shapepartici-pants’ lives in powerful ways. They provide opportunitiesfor self-identificationandaffiliation aroundanenterpriseof muchsocialvalue.

Evenif we focusjust on the technicalcoreof instruction,researchon effective schoolspoints to the importanceof social relationshipshereas well. Teachers,for example,rely on maintaininggoodstudentrapportas a resourcefor teaching.”Teachersalso needparentalsup-

20 Trust in Schools

port to promotetheir children’ssustainedengagementin instruction.’4

While principalshold formal authority overteachers,principalsnone-theless remain quite dependenton teachers’ cooperativeefforts tomaintain the socialorder of the school and its reputationin the com-munity’5 Similarly, teachersmust sustaincooperativerelationswitheachother for coherentschoolwideinstructionalpracticesto emerge.”

In addition, as noted earlier, the aims of schooling are multiple,and the mechanismsfor addressingthem are complex,diffuse, andnot simply specified.Organizationaloperationsunder thesecircum-stancesdemandfrequentcontext-specificdecisionmaking, and suc-cess dependsheavily on cooperativeefforts around local problemsolving.” The social dynamics of such workplacesare much moreimportant, from a productivity perspective,than in settingscharac-terized by a well-defined and routinizedproductionprocess.

Thus, both philosophicalargumentsandbehavioralresearchfind-ings lead us to an importantconclusion.A complex web of socialexchangesconditionsthe basic operationsof schools.Embeddedinthe daily social routines of schools is an interrelatedset of mutualdependenciesamongall key actors:students,teachers,principals andadministrators,and parents. These structural dependenciescreatefeelings of vulnerability for the individuals involved.” This vulner-ability is especiallysalient in the context of asymmetricpower rela-tions, such as thosebetweenpoor parentsand local school profes-sionals.A recognitionof this vulnerability by the superordinateparty(in this instance,the local school professionals)and a consciouscom-mitment on their part to relieve the uncertaintyand uneaseof theother (that is, poor parents)can createa very intense,meaningfulso-cial bond amongthe parties. Unfortunately,neitherorganicnor con-tractualtrustcapturesadequatelythis socialdynamic.Wearguethat athird, alternative conceptualizationof interpersonalexchange—rela-tional trust—betterrepresentsthis phenomenon.

Theory Overview

Relationaltrust views the social exchangesof schoolingas organizedaround a distinct set of role relationships:teacherswith students,teacherswith other teachers,teacherswith parentsand with theirschool principal.” Eachparty in a role relationshipmaintainsan un-derstandingof his or her role obligations and holds some expecta-tionsabouttherole obligationsof theother.Maintenance(andgrowth)of relational trust in any given role set requiressynchronyin thesemutualexpectationsandobligations.For example,parentsexpect thatteacherswill take the necessaryactions to help their child learn to

RelationalTrust 21

read.Teachersfeel obligated to work in a professionallyappropriatemannerandare willing to commit extraeffort, if necessary,in seekingto respondto the parents’expectations.Parentsin turn areobligatedto makesurethat studentsattendschool regularly and,more gener-ally, to supportthe teachers’efforts at home.

Schoolswork well asorganizationswhenthis synchronyis achievedwithin all of the major role setsthat comprisea schoolcommunity.Inmany schools,however,the behaviorsof “others” do not conformtoexpectations.In the previous example, if teachers’actualclassroompracticesappeargrosslyinconsistentwith parentalexpectations,manyparentsare likely to withhold support.Similarly, when the expectedparentalsupport is absent,the teachers’ senseof responsibility maybecomemorecircumscribed.Interestingly,unlike contractualtrust, vi-olations of relational trust are not easily subject to legal redress.Rather, individuals typically withdraw their trust when expectationsare not met, leading to a weakeningof relationshipsand, in moreextremeinstances,apossibleseveringof ties.

In a sense,relational trustrepresentsan intermediatecasebetweenthe materialand instrumentalexchangesat work in contractualtrustand the unquestioningbeliefs operative in organic trust.” Like con-tractual trust, relational trust requires that the expectationsheldamongmembersof asocialnetworkor organizationberegularlyvali-datedby actions.Yet the criteria for drawingjudgmentsaboutothersnow expand.As social interactionsoccur, individuals attendsimul-taneously to the behaviorof others(that is, the outcomesoccurringand the observableprocessesbeing deployedto advancethose out-comes),to how they personallyfeel aboutthese interactions,and totheir beliefsaboutthe underlying intentionsthat motivateall of this.

Formally,we posit that a discermnentof the intentionsof othersisa fundamental feature of day-to-day interpersonalexchanges.”Acomplexmix of considerationsentershere:instrumentalconcernsaboutachievingvaluedoutcomes;hedonicconcernsaboutself-esteem,socialstatus, and institutional identification; and moral-ethical concernsaboutadvancingthebestinterestsof children.Similarly, a mix of mo-tivations—from self-interest--based,to taking into accountthe needsandfeelingsof others,to enactingone’smoralduty—operatesaswell.Relationaltrust diminisheswhen individuals perceivethat othersarenot behavingin ways thatcan be understoodasconsistentwith theirexpectationsabouttheother’srole obligations.Moreover,fulfillment ofobligationsentailsnotonly “doing theright thing,” but alsodoingit ina respectfulway,andfor whatareperceivedto betheright reasons.

Wefurtherpositthatthesejudgmentsof intentionalityaregroundedin eachindividual’s historical perspectiveon the institution, personal

22 Trust in Schools

and cultural beliefs rooted in his or her family and community oforigin, andprior workplacesocializationexperiences.For this reason,relational trustentails a personalisticaccountof actionwherenorma-tive judgmentsare made about how and why others go about theprocessof fulfilling their obligations. If desirableoutcomesare ad-vanced,but the processesby which this occurs leaveindividuals un-certain as to another’s real intentions, trustworthinessmay not beachieved.For example,whether teachersembracea reform dependsin part on how they perceivetheir principal’s motives in advocatingchange.Teachersmay ask, Is the intent really to improve opportuni-ties for the children, or ratherto bring the principal somepublic ac-claim and perhapscareeradvancement?

Thus, relational trust differs from organicand contractual trust inthat it is foundedbothon beliefs andobservedbehavior.Thefocusonanalyzingintentions contrastswith organic trust, which is basedonthe presumptionthat individuals and institutionswill consistentlyactin ways believed to be right and good. In such situations,there issimply lessneedfor discernment.Interestingly,intentionsalso play aminor role in contractualtrust relations,whereexpectationsprimarilyare outcome-or procedure-based.If the desiredproductsor servicesare delivered,individual motivesremainlarge’y irrelevant.

The basicconceptualizationof relationaltrust presentedthusfar isessentiallya three-leveltheory At its mostbasic (intrapersonal)level,relationaltrust is rootedin a complexcognitive activity of discerningthe intentionsof others.Thesediscernmentsoccur within a set of rolerelations(interpersonallevel) that are formedbothby the institutionalstructureof schoolingand by the particularities of an individualschool community with its own culture, history, and local under-standings.Finally, thesetrust relationsculminate in importantconse-quencesat the organizationallevel, including moreeffective decisionmaking,enhancedsocial supportfor innovation, moreefficient socialcontrol of adults’ work, andan expandedmoral authority to “go theextra mile” for the children. Relational trust, so conceived,is appro-priately viewed as an organizationalproperty in that its constitutiveelementsare socially defined in the reciprocalexchangesamongpar-ticipants in a school community, and its presence(or absence)hasimportantconsequencesfor the functioning of the school and its ca-pacity to engagefundamentalchange.

Criteria for Discernment

Participantsbring severallensesto bearas they observeand interpretthe behaviorof othersin school settings.”Drawingon both the extant

RelationalTrust 23

scholarshipon trust relationsand our own school observations,weposit a dynamicinterplay amongfour considerations:respect,compe-tence, personalregard for others, and integrity. Individual schoolcommunitymemberssimultaneouslyanalyzethe behaviorof othersthroughall four lenses.A seriousdeficiencyon any onecriterioncanbe sufficient to underminea discernmentof trust for the overall rela-tionship.

Respect As notedearlier, schoolingentails a long-termprocessof so-cial exchangeamongstudents,teachers,parents,and schooladminis-trators. Maintaining a modicum of respectin theseexchangesis abaseconditionfor sustainingcivil social interactionswithin a commu-nity Suchrespectneedsto bereciprocatedby partiesin eachrole set.

In the contextof schooling,respectinvolvesrecognitionof the im-portantrole eachpersonplays in a child’s educationand the mutualdependenciesthat existamongvariouspartiesinvolved in this activ-ity. Key in this regardis how conversationtakesplacewithin a schoolcommunity. A genuinesenseof listening to what eachpersonhas tosaymarksthe basis for meaningfulsocial interaction,In manypublicmeetingsthat we observed,the communicationamong individualswas regulatedthrough formal parliamentaryprocedures.Thesepro-ceduresmay grant someonea right to speakbut do not necessarilymeanthat anyoneactually attendsto what is said.” Suchexchangesare quitedifferent from thosewhereindividualsintently listento eachother and in somefashion take others’ perspectivesinto accountinfutureaction.Genuineconversationof this sort signalsthat eachper-son’sideashavevalueandthat the educationof childrenrequiresthatwe work togethercooperatively.

Concernsabout respectapply in all of the role relations aroundschooling. Parentsmust be able to talk with teachersand perceiveopportunitiesto influencethe educationof their own children.Teach-ersneedto be ableto voice their workplaceconcernsandfeel that theschool administrationwill take them into accountin subsequentac-tions. The administration in turn needsto feel that the faculty sharesits concernsfor the effective functioning of the school and will giveseriousconsiderationto any proposalsoffered to improve it. In eachcase,the processof genuinelistening fostersa senseof personales-teemfor participantsandcementstheir affiliation with eachother andthe larger institution.”

Cornpetence Competencein the executionof an individual’s formalrole responsibilitiesrepresentsthe secondcriterion for trust discern-ment. This considerationconnectsdirectly to instrumentalconcerns

24 Trust in Schools

about the ability to achievedesiredoutcomes.We recognizethat inthe context of the social exchangesoperative aroundschooling,out-comestend to be broadlydefinedto includenot only learningobjec-tives for children,but also effectivework conditionsfor teachers,andadministrators’ needsto maintain positive school-communityrela-tions.

Interestinglyapplicationsof the competencecriterion in school set-tingsofteninvolve significantasymmetryJudgmentsabouthighstan-dardsof performanceare hard to validate. As discussedearlier, thefundamentalcharacterof schooling—its multiple aims, the complexmechanismsneededto advancethem,and the lack of good dataonactualpractice—makesit exceedinglydifficult to answer suchques-tions as: is a principal really exemplaryat leading school improve-ment?Is a teacheremployingbestpracticein readinginstruction?Areparentsdoing all they can to support schoolworkat home?Whilemanagerialaspectsof principal competenceare somewhateasiertoascertain(muchof this behavioris easilyvisible), this is generallylesstrue for teachers,whosepractice typically occurs in the privacy oftheir classrooms.To be sure, parentswant good teachersand goodschoolsfor their children, but discerninggoodnessremainsdifficult.This is especiallyso for poor parentswho may have only a weakevaluative standpoint for making thesedeterminations.”For thesereasons,we expectjudgmentsabout expert practice to play only amodestrole in discernmentsof trust relations in schoolsettings.”

Yet teachers,administrators,andparentscanand readily do makejudgmentsregardingissuesof incompetence.Principals,parents,andother teachersquickly recognizewhena teacheris unableto controlstudentbehavior in his or her classroom.They also can discernwhether a teacher’sapproachto discipline demeansstudents.Sim-ilarly teacherswho offer little meaningful classroominstructionarenoticed too (for example,a teacherwhoseregularclassroompracticeconsistsof handing out worksheetsand sitting in front of the classreadinga newspaper).”Likewise, negativejudgmentsaboutprincipalcompetenceare quick to form when buildings are not orderly andsafe,and when individuals interactin a disrespectfulmanner.Otherobvioussignals of principal incompetencemight include the absenceof standardorganizationalroutines (for example,agreed-onroutinesfor how studentswill enterandexit the building), allowing grossstu-dentmisconduct to go unaddressed,or failing to providebasicsup-plies and materialsfor instruction. Similarly, parentswho routinelyyell at teachersand cannotseemto provide for children’smostbasiclearningneeds(suchas getting them to bed at a regular hour and

RelationalTrust 25

gettingthem to school on time) signalto professionalstaff that a rela-tionshipcannotbe trusted.

In short,relationaltrustmay existevenin thepresenceof consider-ablevariation as to how well eachindividual actuallycarriesout hisor her role. Gross incompetence,however,is corrosiveto trust rela-tions. Allowed to persist in a school community, incompetencewillunderminecollectiveefforts towardimprovement.

PersonalRegardfor Others Recallour earlier observationthat mutualdependenceand personalvulnerabilitiescharacterizethe social ex-changesof schooling.Any actionstakenby a memberof arole settoreduceothers’ senseof vulnerability affectstheir interpersonaltrust.Suchactions typically are interpretedas an expressionof benevolentintentions,andunderstoodassignalingpersonalregardfor theother.”

In general,interpersonaltrust deepensas individualsperceivethatotherscareaboutthem and are willing to extendthemselvesbeyondwhat their role might formally require in any given situation.” Prin-cipals,for example,showpersonalregardwhenthey createopportu-nities for teachers’ careerdevelopment.Expressingconcern aboutpersonalissuesaffectingteachers’livesis anotherway in which prin-cipals reachout to their staff. Correspondingly,teacherswho exhibitcaringcommitmentstoward studentsinternalizeobligationsmoreen-compassingand diffuse than is typically specified in collectivebar-gaining agreementsor school board work rules. Such teachersarewilling to stay extrahours to work with colleagueson programim-provementefforts,meetwith parentsafter school,and participateinlocal community affairs. They may evenbecomepersonallyinvolvedin someof their students’lives outsideof school.

Personalregardthusrepresentsa powerful dimensionof trustdis-cernmentin school contexts.As notedearlier, thesocial encountersofschoolingare more intimatethan typically found in associativerela-tionshipswithin mostmoderninstitutions.” Expressionsof regardforothersin this contexttap into a vital lifeline and,consequently,impor-tant psychosocialrewardsare likely to result. Whenschool commu-nity memberssensebeing caredabout,theyexperiencea socialaffilia-tion of personalmeaningandvalue. Suchactionsinvite reciprocationfrom othersand therebyintensify the relationaltiesbetweenthem.”

Integrity In our daily socialencounters,we listen to whatpeoplesayandwatchwhat they do. In a basicsense,we think of individuals ashaving integrity if thereis consistencybetweenwhatthey sayanddo.This criterionapplies, for example,as teachersevaluatetheir princi-

26 Trust in Schools

pal. Can shebe trusted to keepher word?Such reliableinterpersonalbehavioris fundamentalto advancingthe basic instrumentalaims ofany collective activity. Not surprisingly it operatesas anothercorecriterion for trust discernmentsin all of the role relation sets aroundschooling.

in a deepersense,integrity also implies that a moral-ethicalper-spectiveguides one’s work. The previousdiscussionabout expres-sionsof personalconcernfor otherspushesin thisdirection. A schoolcommunity,however,consistsof many individuals with varied inter-ests.Conflictsoftenwill ariseamongcompetingpersonalneeds.In adju-dicating thesedisputes,integrity demandsresolutionsthat reaffirmthe primary principles of the institution. In the context of schooling,whenall is said and done,actionsmustbe understoodas about ad-vancing the bestinterestsof children. Teachersdemonstratesuch in-tegrity to their colleagueswhen they willingly experimentwith newforms of instruction to improve studentlearning, even though thisentailsadditional work and the risk of failure can be high. Similarlyprincipals do the samething when they are willing to speakout, forexample,againsta central office policy that they believewill nothelpthe children. Behaviorsof this sort publicly affirm an individual’scommitmentto the core purposesof the school community Suchac-tions tendto promotesolidarity amongparticipantsby conveyingthemessage,“Our work togetheris rooted in important sharedbeliefsand values,andmembersof this schoolcommunity will do whateveris necessaryto enact them.” Embeddedin this microlevelbehaviorisa manifestationof relational trust as a moral resourcefor action.

Role Set Relations:Obligations, Expectations,Dependence,and Vulnerability

The social organization of schooling structures distinct relationsamong teachersto other teachers,teachersto students,teacherstoparents, teachersto administrators,and administrators to parents.Particularexpectationsand obligationscharacterizeeachrole in theserelation sets. Moreover, theseunderstandingstake on a distinctivecoloration in large urban school districts serving highly disadvan-tagedstudentpopulations.

In general,the powerbaseheld by each individual directly affectsthe nature of relational trust in any given role set. Although grossvariations exist in the power distribution acrossroles in an urbanschool community, the mostsignificant structuralfeaturehere is thatno one person typically exercisesabsolutepower. Even the schoolprincipal—thesinglemost influential actorin a given schoolcommu-

RelationalTrust 27

nity—remainsdependenton both parentsandteachers.For example,principals must securea baseof parentalsupport to maintain theirjobs. Similarly, as principals seekto engagechangeefforts in theirschools, they are dependenton the good intentions and efforts oftheir faculty, if newinitiatives are to haveany chanceof succeeding.

Thus,while an asymmetricpower distributioncharacterizesurbanschool communities (that is, principal power> teachers’ power>

students’ andparents’power), no single mle enjoys completedomi-nance.This is quite different from the moreabsolutepowerexercisedin a patron-clientarrangementor in the caseof adespoticleader.”Asa consequence,all partiesin schoolrole relationsremainvulnerabletoeachother.Moreover,as will be shown,thesedependenciesandvul-nerabilitiesexist evenin situationswhere the power distribution isrelatively equal,as in teacher-teacherinteractions.

SchoolProfessional—ParentRelations Strong asymmetrycharacterizesteacher-parentrelations,Poor parentstypically do not havethe edu-cational knowledgeand skills that teachershave to help childrenlearn.This imbalanceplacespoor parentsin a subordinatestatusvis-à-vis their children’steachersin termsof selectingappropriateactionsto advancestudentlearning. As a result,poorparentsarehighly de-pendenton the efforts of schoolstaff if meaningfulopportunitiesareto be affordedtheir children.Evenso, teachersalso remaindependenton parentalsupportto achievesuccessin their work.

At minimum, parentalsupportentailsensuringthat their childrenattendschoolregularlyand arrivereadyto learn;it alsomeansparen-tal assistanceif classroombehaviorproblems emerge.This depen-dency is particularly salient at the primary grade level, where theschool is an extensionof the family. If learningis to occur, the trustrelation developedbetweena parentandchild during the first yearsof life must be transferredto school staff.” Teachersneedparentstosignal to their childrenthat the teacherhasa specialrole in thechild’slife, akin to thatof an extendedfamily membet

In addition, much researchon teachingdetails the personalandintimate characterof this work. Good teaching“touchesthe soul” ofthosewho practice it.” While most discussionsin educationpolicytoday focuson the technicaldimensionsof teachingand its enhance-ment,that teachers’humannessis verymuchapartof their practiceisimportant to remember,and teachersneedexpressionsof personalregard and support as much as anyoneelse does.Thus, for instru-mentalreasonsregardingeffectiveinstructionandfor teachersto de-rive psychicrewardsfrom their personalinteractionswith students,

28 Trust in Schools

teachersremainquite dependenton parental support to feel goodabout their work.

The dependencyandvulnerabilitiesin the principal-parentrole setfollows along similar lines.Heretoo parentsremainhighly dependenton the good efforts and intentionsof a school’sprincipal to advancelearningopportunitiesfor their children. For the principal, job tenureand role successentails maintaining good parental rapport. Thus,eventhoughprincipalsare not as directly involved as teachersin theeducationof children, their basicstructuraldependencywith parentsremainscomparable.

Owing to the substantialpower asymmetry in all of the profes-sional-parentrelations,the onusfalls on the professionalsto initiateactionsthat reduceparents’senseof vulnerability in theseexchanges.Commoninitiatives in urban schoolstoward this end include: creat-ing a parent centerat the school;developing support activities thatparentscan do at home to assiststudentlearning; designingparentand family programsin responseto local needs(for example, inter-generationalliteracy initiatives or GED programs);and,mote gener-ally welcomingparentsat theschoolandshowinga personalinterestin their children.Suchinitiatives are especiallysalient for poor immi-grant families for whom the local public school is a foreign institu-tion. As parentsapprehenda wide rangeof behavior intended tomakethemfeelmorecomfortable,theycometo understandthatschoolstaff have genuineregard for them and truly care about their chil-dren.” Such discernmentof intentionscanhavevery positive effectson the overall quality of theserole relations.

Further complicating parent-professionalrelations are the class,race,andethnicdifferencesthat frequentiyexistbetweenfamilies andprofessionalstaff in urban contexts.As notedearlier, prior researchon interpersonaltrust documentsthat social similarities by race, eth-nicity, andclassoffer aninitial basisfor trustinganotheruntil specificevidencehas accumulatedon aparticular relationship.By extension,the absenceof social similarity signalsa possiblereasonfor withhold-ing trust. Thus,to effect relationaltrust in urbanschoolcontextsmayrequiremoreconsciousattention thanmight be the casein more cul-turally homogeneouscontexts.”

Teacher-Principal Relations In general, lower-statusindividuals inwork relationships(in this case,teachers)areconcernedaboutexploi-tation and unfair treatment,Those in higher positions of organiza-tional authority (for example,the principal)worry that their subordi-nates will shirk their responsibilitiesand possibly undermine thework of the organization.”Thesereciprocalvulnerabilitiesare inher-ent in hierarchicalwork arrangements,but they canbe lessenedby

RelationalTrust 29

trust relations that createopportunities for jointly beneficial out-comes.”

The combinationof the principal’s isolation from instruction andthe proceduralambiguity associatedwith this activity makesit diffi-cult for a principal to closelysuperviseall aspectsof teachers’work.As a result, principals largely haveto trust that teacherswill makegood efforts at advancingstudentlearning,will go the extra mile inhelping to improve the school,andwork to sustainpositive relationswith parents. A reciprocal dependenceexists for teachersas well.They generallyexpectproceduralfairnessin adjudicatingcompetinginterestsamongthe faculty a predictableenvironmentgoverningba-sic school operations,adequateresourcesto conductinstruction, andprofessionalsupportfrom their principal.

Like professional-parentrole relations, teacher-principalrelationsare characterizedby distinct power asymmetryPrincipals exerciseconsiderablerole authority that directly affects teachers.Typically,they control major aspectsof teachers’ work conditions, includingdecisionsaboutwhich studentswill beassignedto a teacher,theloca-tion of a teacher’sclassroom(for example,whetherin the mainbuild-ing or a mobile unit), and the kinds of instructionalmaterialsavail-able, such as computers,books, or other supplies. Moreover, theseallocativedecisionsnot only affect work quality they also signalsta-tus and personalregard within the school community. As a result,teacherswho perceivebenevolentintentionson the partof their prin-cipal aremorelikely to feel efficaciousin their jobs.

Any actionstaken by the principal that reduceteachers’senseofvulnerability are thus highly salient. Establishing inclusive proce-duresfor decisionmaking affords teachersrealopportunitiesto raiseissuesandbe heard.When suchroutinesareimplementedeffectively,teacherscometo understandthat they havea meaningfulvoice ininfluencing importantdecisionsthat affect their lives. At a morefun-damentallevel, the principal’s articulation of a compellingvision for“our schoolcommunity” andcorollary actionsthatcanbe interpretedas enliveningthat vision, go a longway toward fosteringa collectivesenseof engagementamonga faculty in socialactivity of moralvalue.Suchbehaviorspeaksdirectly to the integrity dimensionin teachers’discernmentsabouttrustingtheir principal.

Teacher-TeacherRelations A novelty about this particular role set isthat it is the only one in a schoolcommunitygroundedin a relativelysymmetricdistribution of power. Nonetheless,the institutionalstruc-ture of schoolingstill imposessubstantialinterdependencyamongafaculty. Classroomteachers,for example,rely on the good efforts ofteachercolleaguesin earliergradesto developstudents’prerequisite

30 Trust in Schools

knowledge,skills, and dispositionsin order for grade-levelappropri-ate work to occur in their classrooms.Seriousstudentdeficienciesinthis regardmake a teacher’sjob more difficult and may thwart hersuccess.Similarly, common policies crafted by a faculty aroundcon-cernssuch asstudentdiscipline, textbook selection,and instructionalobjectives introduce additional constraintson individual teachers’work.

At a basiclevel, teachersneedeachother’shelp in carrying out theday-to-dayroutines of schooling. A norm of generalizedreciprocitythereforeis importantto trust discernmentsin this roleset. For exam-ple, playgroundduty might be sharedamonga group of teachersin aparticular elementary school. If one teachercannot supervisetheplaygroundon herdesignatedday shemight askanotherteachertocover for her. The colleaguewho picks up the extra day of supervi-sion expectssome unspecified future favor in return. While at anygiven time theseexchangesmaybe imbalanced,anexpectationis thatthis imbalance eventually will be redressed.Stated simply, the as-sumptionis that “Somedayyou might standin my shoesand T antici-pate that you would do for me what I am now doing for you.” Inaddition to solving instrumentalneedsin the daily work of schools,such exchangesalso afford opportunitiesfor expressionsof personalregardandextendsomepsychosocialrewardsto both parties.

At a deeperlevel, relational trust within a faculty is groundedincommonunderstandingsaboutsuchmattersas whatstudentsshouldlearn, how instruction should be conducted,and how teachersandstudentsshould behave.For teachersto senseintegrity among col-leaguesthey mustnot only sharecommon views but also perceivethat actionstakenby others are consistentwith theseviews. The so-cial structureof most elementaryschools,however,delimits the op-portunities for these sharednorms to develop. Teacherstypicallywork alone in their classroomsmost of the day and havefew occa-sions for meaningful interaction with colleagues.In addition, littlecontrol existsover the entry and exit of teachersinto and from theschool. Bumping privileges in urbandistrictswhereteachersare enti-tled to positionssolely by virtue of their seniority meanthat facultiesusuallyarenotassembledwith the specific purposeof creatingcoher-encearounda sharedschool vision. Tndeed,the ideaof a faculty as adeliberatelyformedinstructionalteamor high-performingwork groupsimply doesnot enterinto this equation.”Rather, teachingslots typ-ically are filled basedon an individual’sholding theappropriateteach-ing certificateand in accordancewith seniority rights.”

Absent then the typical organizationalmechanismsfor promotingcollegialism, few opportunitiesexist for teachersto work out personaldifferencesanddevelopcommonunderstandings.Instead,differences

RelationalTrust 31

in beliefs, values,and prior work experiencesmay stay unexaminedand the corollary interpersonaltensions remain latent. Social ex-changesmay appearrespectful,but little of consequencehappensinthem.Teachersmay saygoodmorningto eachotherandgenerallyactin a friendly manner.Theymay collaboratewith colleaguesaroundafew decisions,suchas the organizationof majorfield trips andassem-blies, but the corework of teachingis either carriedout privately inindividual teachers’classroomsor externallycontrolledby central of-fices and statebureaucracies.The latter is especiallysignificant inurban contexts,wheremuch in the organizationof the instructionalcore is decidedexternally This further reducesthe opportunitiesforteachersto act as a faculty to addresscollectiveproblems.

All of these factors have important consequencesfor relationaltrust amongteachers.Since the articulation of common beliefs andthe demonstrationof actionsconsonantwith them arenotroutine,weare unlikely to see a deep senseof professional integrity developwithin a faculty.5’ Interestingly this is anotherinstanceof an asym-metryembeddedwithin the institutionalstructureof schools.As notedin the discussionof discernmentsof professionalcompetence,thesameappearstrue for teachers’discernmentsof their colleagues’in-tegrity. While facultiesmay not sharedeepprofessionalunderstand-ings that shapea commonpractice, teachersindeeddiscernand at-tendto behaviorby other teachersthat appearsgrosslyinappropriate.Examplesinclude the teacherwho usespunitiveand demeaningdis-ciplinary practiceswith children, the teacherwho constantlyrefusesto try new approachesto improveachievement,and thosewho areregularly out the schooldoor as soonasstudentsleave.Suchactionssay to teachersthat someof their colleagueslack integrity andcannotbe trusted.

In general,moral and ethical concernsare salient in the life ofclassroomsand central to teachers’thinking about their individual

work,” Most individuals who enter this professiontend to expressstrong sentimentsabout “really caring for the children.” As a result,any teacherbehaviorthatsignalsa flagrantdisregardfor the children,as illustrated in theseexamples,is likely to haveprofoundeffectsonothers.

Teacher-StudentRelationships Trusting student-teacherrelations areessentialfor learning. Theseexchangestake on a distinctive form inthe earlygrades,resemblingparent-childinteractions.For successfullearningto occur here,the trust built up in family life mustbe trans-ferred to the classroomteacher.Assumingthis happens,elementarygradeteacherswill hold diffuse affective power over their students.Giventhis powerasymmetryin thestudent-teacherroleset,thegrowth

32 Trust in Schools

of trust dependsprimarily on teachers’initiatives.Suchinitiatives in-clude both establishinga familylike climate in the classroomthatbuilds on students’affective experiencesat home,andengagingpar-ents in a supportiverelationshiparoundtheir child’s learning.”

As studentsprogressthrough the gradesand gradually becomemore responsiblefor their own learning, the role dependencybe-tween teacherand studentchanges.By middle school, the mutualobligations for learningbecomemore explicit betweenstudentsandteachers.This changecontinuesthroughhigh school,closelyparallel-ing adolescents’self-identitydevelopment.In addition,powerful peergroup influencesemergeat this point. Thus,a theoryof trust in sec-ondaryschoolswould also haveto conceptualizetrust as a collectiveconcernamongstudentsrootedin prevailingstudentnorms.

Sincethe focusof this book is on organizationalchangein elemen-tary schools,we offer only limited attention to the teacher-studentrole set. Our substantivefocus on structuralschool changenaturallydirects attention toward adults rather than students.While studentsare significant school actors,changesin the operationand organiza-tion of schoolsare primarily an adult game. In addition, althoughstudent-teachertrust relationsare an importantsocial resourcein ele-mentary instruction,their impact at the organizationallevel is moremodest. In contrast, in high schools, peer influences and studentnormsare quite powerful, and theseforces mustbe engageddirectlyby any schoolreform effort.

Nonetheless,our analysisdoestake studentsinto accountin twoimportant ways. First, we view student-teachertrust in elementaryschools as operatingprimarily through parent-teachertrust, wherestudentsare the implied “third” party. At a baselevel,then,in attend-ing to parent-professionalrelationswe also are attendingto student-professionalrelations.” Second,and more significant, advancingtheinterestsof childrenrepresentsin our theory the primary standpointfor evaluatingindividual integrity acrossall role relationsregardingschooling.Thus, although studentsmay not be direct actors in ourtheory of relational trust in elementaryschools,we indeed attendclosely to how their interestspermeateall adult social interactionsina school community

OrganizationalConsequencesofRelational Trust

As noted in the introduction to this chapter,our claims about theimpact of trust relationsin schoolsdrawon a growing body of schol-arship in diverse fields, including work on organizationalbehavior

RelationalTrust 33

and management.Writings in this latter areasuggestthat trust is es-peciallyimportantfor organizationsthat operatein turbulentexternalenvironments,that dependheavily on information sharingfor suc-cess,andwhosework processesdemandeffective decentralizeddeci-sion making.” All threeof thesefactors characterizethe day-to-dayfunctioning of schools.In addition, organizationalresearchalso sug-geststhat trustingrelationsareespeciallyimportantin limes that callfor majorstructuralchanges,aswasdemandedby theChicagoSchoolReform Act of 1988.” Taking thesevarious considerationstogetherthereforegivesusgood reasonto suspectthat trust relationscanhavea profoundeffect on the processesof schoolreform.

Specifically we see relational trust operatingas a resourceforschoolimprovementin four broadways. First,organizationalchangeentails major risks for all participants.Teachersmust take on newpracticesthat may not work. Parentsare askedto supportinitiativeswhosevaluehasyet to be demonstrated.Principalsmustcommitsub-stantial personaleffort to an uncertainchangeprocess.In addition,schoolreformmovementsoften are accompaniedby externalpressureto improve quickly and considerableexternal scrutiny as well. Inshort, the stakes suddenly are high and the demandsfor changegreat.The presenceof relational trust, however,moderatesthe senseof uncertaintyandvulnerability that individuals feel as theyconfrontsuchdemands.Whentrust is strong,individual engagementwith re-form doesnot feel like a call for heroicaction.In this sense,relationaltrust is a catalystfor innovation.

Second,the transactioncosts associatedwith decisionmaking arereducedin environmentswhere individuals are predisposedto trustone another.This is especiallyimportantin times of reform becauseefforts at structuralchangeentail intensecoliective decisionmakingwithin theorganization.In the contextof highrelationaltrust, teachersandparentsbelievein the good intentionsof school leadership.As aresult,theyaremorelikely to affordprincipalsa wider zoneof discre-tionary authority. In addition, when argumentsariseover the meritsof somereform effort, thesedisagreementsare morelikely to be re-solved in a straightforwardfashion, again becauseof the assumedgood intentionsall around.Consequentlyreform is likely to progressfasterin high trust contextsbecauseparticipantsaremoreableto co-alescearounda plan of action. In this regard,relational trust facili-tatespublic problemsolving.

Third, contextswith strong relational trust benefit from clear un-derstandingsabout role obligations that are routinely reinforced inday-to-day behavior. Individuals understandwhat is expectedofthemand the consequencesthatmay ensueif obligationsare notmet.

34 Trust in Schools

Relational trust thus undergirdsa highly efficient systemof socialcontrol where extensivesupervisionof individuals’ work is not re-quired, and shirking behaviorremainsminimal. This organizationalfeatureis also especiallysignificant in timesof reform. Given the pri-vacy of classroompractice,successfulchangeefforts dependheavilyon the voluntary initiative and goodwill of school staff. The presenceof high relational trust increasesthe likelihood of broad-based,high-quality implementationof new improvementefforts. In this regard,trustworthinessacrossthe organizationhelps coordinatemeaningfulcollectiveaction.

Finally, relational trust sustainsan ethical imperativeamongorga-nizationalmembersto advancethe best interestsof children. Partici-pantsin schoolswith high relationaltrust enactan interrelatedset ofmutual obligationswith one another.The normativeunderstandingsembeddedhereprovide good reasonsfor engagingefforts that, froma purely self-interestedpoint of view, might seemirrational. Whyshould teachers,for example,voluntarily agreeto work longerhoursandrisk new practicesthat might fail, or engagein changeprocesseswith colleaguesthat may provoke misunderstandingsand possiblyconflict?From an individual perspective,it is quite naturalto eschewsuchactivity; yet all of thesebehaviorsare centralto meaningfulorga-nizational change.In this regard,relational trust constitutesa moralresourcefor school improvement.