Building Level
University of Toronto
August, 2001
Paper prepared for W. Owings and L. Kaplan (eds.)
Concerns
about implementation surfaced in the late 1960Õs after a flurry of innovative
reforms failed to make a difference.
The first order problem that Sarason, Goodlad and others identified at
the time was that most innovations at best got ÒadoptedÓ on the surface, but
did not alter behaviors and beliefs.
For the past thirty years, research and practice has focused on
identifying key factors associated with failed or successful
implementation. In this brief
introduction, I will examine first, what we know about the dynamics of implementation
at the building level, and second what external-to-the-school issues should be
considered.
There
has been a growing sense of urgency in society that schools must do a better
job of teaching the young.
Moreover, policy makers and citizens have demanded large-scale reform
involving all or most schools, not just an innovative few. Models of Whole School Reform have been
generated to help the spread and depth of reform.
Still,
there are perplexing problems.
Datnow and Stringfield (2000) talk about the problem of initial and
continuing implementation. In one
study of eight schools that had implemented given reform models, only three had
continued use after a few years.
In another district, Datnow and Stringfield (2000) report:
By the third year of our four-year
study, only one of thirteen schools were still continuing to implement their
chosen reform designs. Reforms
expired in six schools. A
significant challenge to the sustainability of reforms É was the instability of
district leadership and the politics that accompanied it. In 1995-1996 [the] then-superintendent
actively, publicly promoted the use of externally developed reforms. During his tenure, the district created
an Office of Instructional Leadership to support the designsÕ implementation. The following year, however, a new
district administration eliminated this office, and district support for many
of the restructuring schools decreased dramatically. (p. 198)
If we look closely at the building level, we can
identify the key factors and processes.
The best up-to-date analysis is provided by Newmann, King & Youngs
(2000) in their recent case studies (see Figure 1).
5 Instructional Quality Curriculum, Instruction,
Assessment 5 - TeachersÕ Knowledge, Skills, Dispositions - Professional Community - Program Coherence - Technical Resources - Principal Leadership 5 Policies & Programs on
School Capacity
Professional Development
Figure
1
Source: Newmann, King and Youngs (2000)
First,
the logic. School must focus on a
constellation of quality curriculum, instruction and assessment of student
learning. If they do this, they
can have a powerful impact on student learning. In order to do this, they must have or develop the capacity
to work together over periods of time, all the while attempting, monitoring and
refining improvements.
Newmann,
King & YoungsÕ identification of the five factors which comprise school
capacity is very instructive:
1.
Knowledge, skills and
dispositions of individuals
2.
Professional
community
3.
Program coherence
4.
Technical resources
5. Principal Leadership
Knowledge,
skills and dispositions refers to the individual capability of teachers. One can enhance this by hiring teachers
with desired traits and/or by providing professional development. Note the limitation, however. This is an ÒindividualisticÓ strategy
by itself. Put another way, never
send a changed individual into an unchanged environment.
For
this reason, effective schools have also built up their Òprofessional learning
communityÓ in which principals and teachers work together over time. These interactive communities examine
and reexamine their practices and results.
Most
schools suffer from overload of innovations Ð what Tom Hatch described as
Òmultiple innovations collidingÓ.
Thus, schools, to be effective must work on Òprogram coherenceÓ by
becoming more selective, integrative and focused.
Schools
need ÒresourcesÓ to do all this.
Technical resources refers to access to time, materials, ideas,
expertise.
Finally,
Newmann et al found that Òprincipal leadershipÓ was critical. In a sense, the best definition of
school leadership is that which ÒcausesÓ the previous four factors to get
better and better, i.e. effective leadership enhances individual development,
professional community, program coherence, and access to resources.
The
relationship of school capacity to implementation should be obvious. School capacity, as defined by Newmann
and Youngs consists of the very strengths that produce greater implementation. Stated differently, schools with higher
capacity that take on given innovations operate in a way that is likely to
access materials and alter behaviors, skills and beliefs of teachers within the
school.
While
we have an increasingly clear idea of what school capacity looks like, the key
question is how to get more of it when you donÕt have it. It is the case that only a small
proportion of schools are as good as the one depicted by Newmann and colleagues
(Fullan, 2001 a, 2001 b). In order
to get school capacity on a wider-scale we must turn our attention to the
infrastructure for school reform.
The infrastructure includes all those agencies and levels outside the
school such as the community, the district, and regional or state agencies,
policies and programs. For
example, returning to Datnow and StringfieldÕs study of school reform:
We found that clear, strong district support
positively impacted reform implementation , and the lack thereof often
negatively impacted implementation É schools that sustained reforms had
district and state allies that protected reform efforts during periods of
transition or crisis and secured resources (money, time, staff and space)
essential to reforms É schools that failed to sustain reforms were sometimes
located in districts that were Òinfamous for experimenting with new kinds of
programsÓ but did not provide ongoing support for any of them. (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000, pp.
194-195)
These
kinds of findings have led many of us to conclude that the district and other
levels of the system are crucial if we want large scale sustainable
reform. There is some evidence,
for example, that districts and states can make a larger difference in many
schools by using a strategy that integrates ÒaccountabilityÓ and Òcapacity
buildingÓ. This is illustrated in
Fullan (2001 b) in which District #2 in New York City, San Diego City Schools
District, and England are used as case studies. For example, England has dramatically increased its literacy
and numeracy achievement in over 19,000 primary schools over a four-year
period, using a reform strategy that increased accountability by naming and
monitoring targets, and capacity through substantial investments in new roles,
new materials and new opportunities for professional development.
In
summary, we have an increasingly clear idea of what is required at the building
level to achieve greater implementation that positively affects student
learning. We need to have more
case studies of what this looks like at the building level. More than that, however, we need
strategies that will increase the number of schools engaged in successful
reform strategies.
This
brings us full circle to a paradox.
Implementation, by definition, only occurs at the school and classroom
level. Yet, if schools are left on
their own, only a minority of schools will evidence the kind of school capacity
needed, and fewer still will be able to sustain it. This is why rethinking the roles of districts, and state policies
is required in order to stimulate, and support school-based capacity building.
The
good news is that there is a growing focus on developing leaders at many levels
(school, district, state). In Leading
in a Culture of Change (Fullan,
2001 b), I identified five crucial mind and action sets that leaders in the 21st
century must cultivate, namely: a
deep sense of moral purpose, knowledge of the change process, capacity to
develop relationships across diverse individuals and groups, fostering
knowledge creation and sharing, and the ability to engage with others in
coherence making amidst multiple innovations.
Implementation,
whether or not things change in practice, will always be at the heart of these
new developments, and the building-level will always be where the
implementation buck stops.
References
Datnow, A. & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk. 5 (1 & 2),
183-204.
Fullan, M. (2001 a). The
New Meaning of Educational Change, 3rd Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2001 b). Leading
in a Culture of Change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hatch, T. (2000). WhatÕs
happening when multiple improvement innovations collide. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching.
Newmann, F., King, B. & Youngs, P. (2001). Professional development that
addresses school capacity.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
Michael Fullan is dean
of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
of the University of Toronto.
He is the author of Leading
in a Culture of Change, the
Change Forces Trilogy, and The
Moral Imperative of School Leadership.
www.michaelfullan.ca