Recently, schools have come under increasing attack as educators and parents begin to question the effectiveness of school programs and educational methodologies employed (DeMont, Fennell, & Quinn, 1993a, 1993b; Economic Council of Canada, 1992; Levin & Young, 1994; Nikiforuk, 1993). Some of those critics argue for a return to the "basics" and have blamed progressive approaches for perceived weaknesses. Some of the forces that appear to drive such a call for renewal are as follows: the growing existence of a global market, declining resources for education, competitive career opportunities, and declining confidence in public institutions (Change & Challenge, 1992; Drouin, M. & McCamus, 1992; Levin & Young, 1994; Royal Commission, 1992; 'Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education Plan', 1994). In 1990, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, appointed a Royal Commission of Inquiry to assess the existing K-12 educational system and to recommend an appropriate vision for change (Royal Commission, 1992). A major recommendation of the Commission was directed at restructuring to reduce the number of school boards and to provide more ownership of the system at the local level. An essential component of this restructuring is to develop new models of school administration which recognize the need for collaboration among teachers and school-based management. This approach to reform is quite common throughout the world and has become a recent trend in Canada (Caldwell, Smilanich, & Spinks, 1988; Fullan, 1993a; Nova Scotia Department of Education, 1994).
A review of research relative to implementation of school-based management suggests that it may not result in improvements in student achievement that are anticipated by reformers (Cranston, 1994; Fullan, 1993a; Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Sarason, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1995). For example, Fullan (1993a) states that current efforts, labelled restructuring, where "the emphasis is on school-based management, enhanced roles for principals and teachers, and other decentralized components" are unlikely to succeed more so than past efforts (p. 2). Similarly, Tye (1992) states that current reform efforts [site-based management]...is at risk because many of its advocates oversimplify it and hardly consider the serious underlying issues that must be dealt with if it is to be successful" (p. 14). Sergiovanni (1995) comments correspondingly that "site-based management...has been widely adopted, but instead of becoming a means to help us get somewhere it often is an end in itself" (p. 278). Similarly, Murphy and Hallinger (1993) note that "at neither the theoretical nor the conceptual levels was there much evidence to link ... restructuring efforts [such as, school-based management] with changes in classrooms, relationships between teachers and students, and/or student outcomes" (p. 254).
While the research noted above suggests that our approach to reform does not guarantee success, the direction of some reform efforts in moving "back to the basics" has been challenged as well (Berman & MacLauglin, 1976; Deal, 1990; Fullan, 1993a; Goodman, 1995; Riley, 1992). Riley (1992) challenges the call to return "to the way things used to be, to a time when schools had high standards, when all students knew how to read and write, and compute" (p. 240). He argues that we tend to forget that only recently have we had more than half the population who completed high school and he asks that we consider the source of adult illiteracy. Riley suggests that "we are told to return to a time that never was, and we are encouraged to face the future armed with empty slogans and impossible promises" (p. 240). Similarly, Goodman (1995) notes that in spite of the progressive-sounding changes, what we may have is "change without difference" (p. 2). He notes that for us to assess efforts at reform we should understand the historical development of education. He cites an example of thinking relative to reform during the early part of this century. "Many industrial restructuralists argued that the best way to increase the productivity of schools was to predetermine specific learning outcomes and then to test students to see if these outcomes had been reached" (p. 9). He contends that throughout the century, "test scores have become the product of schools, students have become the workers who produce this product using instructional programs given to them by the organization" (p. 11). He suggests that advocates for school transformation "back to the basics" are arguing to maintain the values of efficiency and productivity that exist already.
Arguments that our progressive approaches have weakened the educational process are challenged by the literature that is replete with references to failed reform (Berman & MacLauglin, 1976; Cranston, 1994; Deal, 1990; Fullan, 1993a; Sergiovanni, 1995). Deal (1990) states, "We have tried almost everything conceivable to improve our public schools. We have invested millions of dollars in staff development--only to watch new skills disappear amidst old routines" (p. 6). Similarly, Cranston (1994) contends that at the classroom level at least, it is frequently a case of business as usual, with the changes greeted in some instances somewhat without enthusiasm, together with cynicism, antagonism and a deal of resistance (p. 23). Sergiovanni (1995) cautions that even if schools adopt innovations, there is no assurance that they adopt more than just the name. He states, "Schools frequently adopt innovations that are not implemented or, if implemented, innovations are shaped to the way things were to the point that the 'change is hardly noticeable'" (p. 278). Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall (1987) contend that much of the research on implementation of innovations has ignored that implementation is a process. Since the focus of such research has been on improved student outcomes, the most frequent finding of "no significant change" is indicative of the failure of the implementation process rather than the innovation. Goodman (1995) challenges the likelihood of the existence of "progressive approaches" from a professional development perspective. He contends that effectiveness of any pedagogical activity depends on the extent to which teachers understand its ideological underpinnings. He argues, therefore, that in light of the typical one-day inservice approach to professional development, it is unlikely that teachers have employed any "progressive" pedagogical approaches with any degree of effectiveness.
If the intent of efforts at reform in education is improved student
learning (Fullan, 1993a; Goodlad, 1992; McLaughlin, 1990; Murphy, 1992,
Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1995), educators must be concerned
with the caveats regarding "back to the basics", progressive approaches,
and approach to reform that are noted above. Within this context
of uncertainty of both direction of and approach to reform, educators must
continue to make decisions to attempt to improve opportunities for student
learning. While the selection of appropriate student learning outcomes
is subject to debate (Madaus, Airasian & Kellagan, 1980), Fullan
(1993a) suggests that The Conference Board of Canada Profile of Employability
Skills are indicative of directions that schools in Canada are looking
toward. This profile suggests that employers need people who can
communicate, think, and continue to learn for life; who have positive attitudes
and behaviours, are able to take responsibility for their actions, and
are adaptable; and who can work with others (McLaughlin, 1992). In
Newfoundland and Labrador, desired student outcomes have been determined
through a public consultation process (Newfoundland and Labrador Educational
Indicators System, 1995).
District Models for Growth and Improvement
In the context of the Newfoundland and Labrador Educational Indicators System and the employability skills profile, and in an attempt to address the above noted concerns related to global reform efforts, one school district in Newfoundland, in cooperation with Faculty of Education personnel, developed and adopted a district model to guide growth and improvement in a school-based management environment. The model is informed by theory (Fullan, 1993a; Leithwood, 1995; Senge, 1990; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Smith, 1994), and focused on those individuals closest to where learning takes place in the schools--students, teachers, and site administrators. In this model, teachers are expected to be action researchers (Calhoun, 1994; Sagor, 1992). It is based on the proposition that change is a process that cannot be left to the experts (Fullan, 1993a; Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992; Peters, 1992). Teachers must be viewed as partners working in an environment of collaboration where they are concerned with both implementation and the evaluation of programs and approaches that are being implemented (O'Neil, 1995). It recognizes the need to develop new complementary roles for the district and the school, and it focuses on the creation of team leadership, and the development of characteristics of the 'learning organization'. See diagrams 1 and 2.
Diagram 1 outlines the primary themes that guide the development of the district framework for growth and improvement. Theme 1 proposes that both endogenous and exogenous variables must be considered (Fullan, 1993a; Wright, 1982). Exogenous variables include external factors, conditions, and individuals that must be considered. Emphasis on these variables ensures the connection that schools must make with the wider environment (Fullan, 1993a). Endogenous variables are the internal factors, conditions, and individuals that potentially affect change (Wright, 1982). Also, consideration of these variables includes recognition of the need to develop leadership that contributes to higher levels of commitment, professional involvement, and innovativeness (Sheppard, 1995). The importance of this theme is articulated by Fullan (1994) in the following statement: "Research on effective and collaborative schools shows that such schools do not go it alone, but are actively part of a wider network in which external and internal influences are equally important" (p. 192).
Theme 2 recognizes that schools must become "learning organizations".
This concept is grounded in the "five disciplines" expounded by Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith, & Kleiner (1994). This includes the development of personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. While the concept of the learning organization has developed outside of the school setting (Senge, 1990), research conducted by others (Fullan, 1993a; Leithwood, Dart, Janti & Steinbach, 1993; Louis, 1994) supports it as a meaningful approach to facilitate sustainable growth in schools. Fullan (1993a) sees this as "the new work of the principal and the teacher" (p. 66). It requires emphasis on the development of ideas, theories, methods, and tools, and on changes in infrastructure that will support enduring change. Senge et al. (1994) note that the deeper changes in beliefs and assumptions that ensure long term growth are evoked only by sustaining the surface movement.
A third theme is that a theory of change must be implemented (Fullan, 1993a), and that implementation is a process that is halting, incremental, and dynamically complex (Anderson, 1993; Fullan, Bennett, & Rolheiser-Bennett, 1990; Fullan & Miles, 1992; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hord & Hall, 1987; Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987; Holzman, 1993; Louis & King, 1993; Miles & Louis, 1990). The role of the district in this process is articulated by Louis and King (1993) who contend that "planning/implementation should occur over a minimum of a 3-year period [and that throughout the process] central office must manage the district environment to ensure that the [reforming] school is neither ignored or reviled" (p. 242).
The fourth theme recognizes the importance of leadership. The need for strong school leadership has been supported in research in the area of effective schools (Edmonds, 1979; Gezi, 1990; Hall & Hord, 1987; Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins), school improvement (Cox, 1983; Crandall, 1983; Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Louis & Miles, 1990), innovation, change, and implementation (Fullan, 1993a; Hall & Hord, 1987; McLaughlin, 1990). The emerging theory of leadership is away from the technological, rational planning models for school improvement, toward cultural, collaborative approaches in which teachers are viewed as partners (Blase, 1993; 1987; Evans, 1993; Griffiths, 1988; Laroque & Coleman, 1991; March, 1988; Pellicer, Anderson, Keefe, Kelley, & McCleary, 1990; Weber, 1989). Current studies support the transformational leadership framework as appropriate when schools are engaged in change (Brown, 1994; Leithwood (1992, 1994; Sheppard, 1995). Leadership as articulated in the model is consistent with this developing perspective.
Finally, and perhaps most significant, the model recognizes that student learning must form the foundation of all change initiatives. Since there is ample evidence (Fullan, 1993a; Goodlad, 1992; McLaughlin, 1990; Murphy, 1993; Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1995) that past efforts at reform have not impacted on student learning, but rather have become ends in themselves, this model is based on the principle that all reform efforts must be backwardly mapped from the student (Murphy & Hallinger, 1993).
Diagram 2 presents an action research implementation model to be employed at the school level. The description of this model focuses on the major factors related to implementation with an attempt to make each factor operational. Use of this model by those attempting to bring about change assumes that a preliminary decision has been made to consider a particular change initiative. This decision may be mandated from the top or it may have been grown from within.
The implementation team consists of the principal, facilitator, teachers and others that are deemed necessary. The principal, as an educational leader of the school, supports and coordinates the work of the team. He or she must be willing to work in a collaborative fashion with other team members, must develop a clear vision of the change, and must work to establish a positive climate, culture, and collegial environment to accomplish the goals of the initiative. The facilitator is a person inside or outside the school whose job it is to provide assistance and support to people who are initiating and implementing change. The facilitator is a team builder who assists with the planning of meaningful interaction which can lead to task accomplishment. The facilitator should be chosen through consultation between the school leadership and district administration.
Teachers on the team are partners in the planning process and are essential for providing appropriate reality checks. It is desirable that these teachers are committed to or willing to consider early use of the initiative. The team must plan for all stages of the implementation and must remain actively involved throughout the process of implementation. The two-directional arrows indicate the interaction and interdependence that is inherent in the model.
The factors noted in the model must be given consideration by the implementation team as they engage in action research. For each factor there are several questions that are to be used as guidelines by the team. It is essential that the team recognize that these factors require constant attention throughout the entire process and that they are not factors to be considered only during initiation. These factors are as follows: goal setting, scope of change, clarity, skills, professional development, resources, support, time, and realism.
The model recognizes the necessity of collaboration throughout the implementation process. It recognizes that change is a journey rather than a blueprint, and that problems will be encountered along the way. Such an uncertain process requires collaborative learning that comes from active participation. Organizational structures must allow for peer interactions such as coaching, planning, evaluating, and adapting. Small groups with a bias for action are more likely to make the necessary adaptations to move the change in the required direction. The model is based on the assumption that as other teachers recognize successes and improved practice they begin to desire change as well. Peer support is essential.
The entire process of implementation must be based on an action
research model which will begin with a determination of needs through research.
When an initiative is determined, the implementation team must develop
a research design to evaluate the project throughout. They must recognize
that change is an individual process and people move at different rates.
Evaluation must not focus on outcomes only, but must ensure the monitoring
of the process of implementation. It is essential that evaluations
and monitoring impact on decisions relative to the other model factors,
and that continuation of the change initiative remains an open decision
The purpose of this research was to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the developed model of change. It serves as a preliminary stage in a research project designed to develop further insights into the process of change in education with the optimistic intent of developing a theoretical model that could be employed to assist other schools and districts as they attempt to implement change. The questions addressed in this study are as follows:
1. What evidence exists that demonstrates that this model can be implemented in a school and a school district?
This is a case study of one central high school (500 students, grades 7-12, and 27 teachers) that is attempting to bring about improvements within the context of the district model for growth and improvement described above. The focus of the study includes all teachers in the selected school and all district personnel involved in the process of developing and implementing the model. Since this study was limited to one school and one school district office, generalizability of findings will not be possible. However, the richness of the data through close involvement and observation will provide insights and understandings related to the process that would not be available through a larger scale quantitative study. Understandings, changes to the model, identified needs for professional development, and refined instruments that result from this study will provide the basis for a larger scale study that is currently underway.
Methodology included the use of observations; interviews with
teachers, implementation team members, the principal, and district office
personnel; document analysis; and teacher surveys. Data were collected
over a two year period with the researcher involved as a participant observer
at the district level during the planning stage and during the initial
four months of implementation. School observation was conducted over
a period of five days. Document analysis consisted of analysis of
staff meeting minutes; school improvement plans; correspondence between
district office and the school regarding implementation plans; minutes
of principals' meetings, program coordinators' meetings, and meetings
of the senior administration and the school board curriculum committee.
Protocols for the interviews and observations were grounded in the theory
underlying the developed model. The researcher participated in the
development of the district model and assisted in the training of coordinators
and principals in its use. Survey instruments employed were as follows:
1. Stages of Concern Questionnaire. This questionnaire was completed by all teachers at specified intervals. Reliability and validity of this instrument has been established by the CBAM researchers (Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987).Results
Question 1: What evidence exists that demonstrates that this model can be implemented in a school and a school district?Analysis of documents, observations and interviews demonstrated clearly that the development of the framework and model was a complex task which required more time than anticipated by those principals, program coordinators, and senior administrators who initiated it. It became quite obvious throughout the process that the broad based involvement at the development stage was essential to its acceptance. Even in the collaborative context of its development whereby teachers, principals, and program coordinators had input into the development of the model, it was considered by many to be a top down mandate since the origin of the concept came from an assistant superintendent. Once the framework and the model of implementation were accepted by schools and the district as the process to be employed in all change initiatives, it did not result in action. Interviews with principals and program coordinators indicated that while they were exposed to training, they were not comfortable enough with the required process to initiate actions at the school level or to train teachers. While the theory and the method were stated, the tools for implementation did not exist. As a result of the inaction and stated need for operational tools, the model was operationalized through a series of questions that would provide those tools for the school team. Following this, more training was conducted for principals and coordinators. In recognition that any process of change itself had to be implemented, the first school that indicated readiness was provided with the necessary facilitative and research support from district office. This school was identified as a pilot school. Two program coordinators acted as facilitators to train the school team and then to work directly with them in the development of the planned implementation. Interviews with the facilitators and the team members indicated that initial attempts at team building and the development of plans proved to be difficult and frustrating. The model did not provide specific "how to", but rather provided basic principles around which the team was to develop implementation plans. After the initial two or three meetings, as team members became more comfortable with the process and teachers realized that the development of this plan was their responsibility, a specific initiative (cooperative learning) was selected and a detailed action plan was developed. As enthusiasm built at the team level, the action plan was submitted to an outside agency who approved funding. Following acceptance of plans at the district level, the school held a two day introductory inservice on cooperative learning. While there were plans for much more activity during the spring of that first year, things stalled as a consequence of a provincial strike. In spite of this strike, however, several members of the implementation team were involved in local and national sessions related to cooperative learning during the summer break. This was set out in the original implementation plan. Both the principal and district personnel included cooperative learning as a major component of job interviews. At the beginning of the next school year, new teachers to the school were given an introduction to cooperative learning during a one day professional development session.
In order to determine the extent of evidence demonstrating that this model can be implemented in the school, teachers were asked the extent to which they perceived the model was being employed in the school, and if the implementation process differed from past experience. During the teacher interviews it became quite apparent that teachers were aware that there was a model. The model had been presented to them at some point during the previous year but they did not remember the details of the model and certainly did not feel as if they were part of its development even though that was the intent and the perception of the senior district administration. Minutes of principals' meetings clearly indicate that on several occasions during development, principals were asked to present this model to teachers and to get feedback. When the model was written in final form as a district document, it was presented to all principals who were subsequently directed to present it to all their teachers. While this may have been done as directed, it was not readily apparent during the teacher interviews. Only those teachers who were involved as implementation team members were aware of the model details. Despite the lack of detailed understanding of the model, all teachers were aware that there was a model which guided team decisions and the activities of implementation. There was unanimous agreement of all those interviewed that there existed a process that was quite different than they had previously experienced and that as a consequence, cooperative learning, the initiative that they had chosen to implement a year ago, was being successfully implemented. Opinion regarding whether all teachers needed to understand the model varied; however, the majority of teachers indicated that such knowledge was a concern for administration and the team, not all teachers. If they were to become part of the team at some point then they would expect to learn the process. Most were quite comfortable that their implementation needs were being met and that they could see, not just increased use of cooperative learning, but also, more collaboration among colleagues. Teacher recognition that the implementation model was being employed and that it was a significant factor in the success of their initiative are best demonstrated by the following comments of six teachers:
Cooperative learning is the buzz word in the school. There is more focus than in the past. It is obvious that there is a formal structure. People are aware that there is an implementation model that is being used as a guide.
Now there is a definite plan. Everyone knows the steps to be followed year by year. In previous plans, it was impossible to meet the varied demands of all schools as they jumped from one issue to another. Everyone had the best of intentions but little change resulted. The coordinators' job was to trouble shoot while going. It was difficult to be proactive.In response to the same question another coordinator noted,
Now everything comes from the school. They suggest what sessions they need and how to proceed. Previously, this has been left entirely in the hands of the coordinator. Follow-up is planned but often not followed through in previous approaches. Inservice is often a one shot deal. Now the staff is insistent on necessary and timely follow-up. When a coordinator is involved in the process under this model, the coordinator and the staff feel as a team. Previously the school moved from one initiative to another with no real focus. No significant change was obvious.To determine the extent of use of the model during the implementation of this particular initiative, all teachers and implementation team members were asked to complete a survey, "Consideration of Implementation Factors". This survey contained the questions that were to be addressed by the implementation team both during initial planning stages of the implementation process and throughout the entire process. Using a 5-point likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, teachers and team members were asked to indicate to what extent they perceive that the implementation team has addressed or is in the process of addressing these questions. During analysis of the data, a rating 3 (uncertain) was interpreted as denoting that the factor is not perceived as being addressed. Only rating 4 and rating 5, agree and strongly agree, were accepted as indicating that the question had been addressed. Of the 55 questionnaire items , 33 items were perceived by the majority of teachers to have been addressed or in the process of being addressed (See Table 1). When questions were placed in categories according to the 12 model factors, 10 factors were perceived as having been or in the process of being addressed. Two factors, collaboration and evaluation, were perceived as being addressed by 39 percent and 17 percent respectively. Original committee members indicated that all factors were addressed or being addressed; however, one new member indicated that there were 26 items that were not addressed suggesting that the model has not been directly employed throughout the process since original plans were composed.
Another assessment of whether the model was being employed was to determine if objectives and a time line were developed as required by the model. Analysis of the action plan document revealed that both were developed and that time lines had been adjusted to accommodate changes resulting from an unexpected work stoppage. To determine whether these elements guided practice, all teachers were asked to complete the Time Line/Objectives Survey. Of the 12 objectives, 8 were perceived by the majority of teachers as having been addressed (See Table 2). Those objectives that were not viewed as having been addressed related to evaluating cooperative learning and providing time for teachers to develop cooperative lesson plans, and to problem solve. In respect to the time line, there were more difficulties, only five of the time line objectives were perceived as having been met (See Table 3). However, the primary difficulty in this regard was the interruption brought about by the provincial teachers' strike during the spring of the first year of implementation. This changed the original time lines. The team had composed a new time line which they gave to each staff member during the fall of the second year of implementation. Review of this revised time line showed that all items indicated by the staff as not consistent with the original time line had been rescheduled. This is one example of the non linear nature of the change process and the necessity of continued team involvement in the process.
In order to determine the degree to which the process of implementation was effective in changing teachers' classroom practices, one instrument employed was based on the innovative profile that was accepted by the implementation team as indicative of various stages of implementation. For each of five levels, there were three identifying behaviors. For the purposes of this study, if teachers indicated that two of the three behaviors at a particular level described their classroom activity, they were designated as working at that level. Analysis of the data (Table 4) indicate that the largest percentage of teachers were working at Level 3. Slightly over 50 percent were working at a Level 4 and approximately 30 percent at Level 5. The implementation team accepted that behaviors listed at level 4 and level 5 indicated that the innovation was being used without a great deal of adaptation. Only 28.6 percent of the teachers indicated that they were engaged in all three behaviors at each of those levels.
These survey findings are supported by the CBAM Level of Use interview procedure (Hord et al., 1987) and through semi-structured interviews. Interviews were conducted with a representative sample of teachers in various subject areas. A list of eleven interviewees was developed by the vice-principal and verified by the principal and two other teachers as being representative of the subject areas and people whom they would perceive as varied in their level of use along the continuum of use to non-use. Through the Level of Use interview, two teachers were placed at level 1, not using, but currently looking for more information about it and hope to use it sometime in the future; two teachers were at level III, using, but had concerns related to use; four teachers were at Level IVA, use was stabilized, and there was little thought to making changes, except perhaps to increase their repertoire of cooperative learning strategies; one teacher was at level IVB, concerned about evaluating cooperative learning strategies to improve the impact on student outcomes; and two teachers were at level 5, concerned about the impact on students and were collaborating with other users. Approximately 66 percent of those interviewed indicated that their use of cooperative learning was at least stabilized.
During the semi-structured interviews, in response to the question, "What percentage of time do you spend operating in a cooperative learning mode in your classroom?", only one indicated non-use of cooperative learning; two teachers indicated that they were using cooperative learning 5-10 percent of the time; and one teacher indicated using it 10-20 percent of the time. The other seven teachers indicated use more than 20 percent. Three teachers noted that they used cooperative learning more than 50 percent of the time. (See Table 5). When asked to what extent they perceived cooperative learning was being used in the school, seven of the eleven teachers interviewed perceived that at least 50 percent of the teachers were using cooperative learning at least 10 percent of the time, and five teachers felt that at least 20-30 percent of the teachers were using cooperative learning at least 30 percent of the time (see Table 6). One teacher responded, "I find it quite difficult to put a percentage on the number of teachers using cooperative learning, but what I can tell you is that there is enough use to make me feel uncomfortable about my limited amount of use. It is forcing me to get serious about cooperative learning as a practice that can improve my teaching."
The increased use of cooperative learning indicated by the teachers, was supported by coordinators and school administrators. For example, one coordinator stated:
There is more cooperative learning going on than before. There is significantly greater commitment to trying cooperative learning. There is a climate of collaboration at the school that did not previously exist. There is a feeling in the school among teachers that they can do something about what is happening in the school. I believe this is because of the constant focus that this model demands. Teachers see that they have control and that this is not just another bandwagon; rather this is a step by step plan that provides the direction they believe to be necessary in their school.This use was further substantiated through observation. The researcher was a participant observer in a school professional development day held in April, Year 2. It was apparent that the staff were enthusiastic. A good atmosphere was apparent. This was noted by other visiting teachers and the program coordinators as well as the researcher.
While the activities of session 1 was primarily conducted by program coordinators, all participants clearly understood that these coordinators were acting on a mandate from the school team. The session began with a small group activity to review the essential elements of cooperative learning. Responses were posted. It was apparent from all group responses that there was a strong core of understanding of these elements among staff members. Since the groups were assigned randomly, it was apparent that the degree of expertise that was revealed resulted from the general pervasiveness of knowledge.
Session 2 was a sharing session. Thirteen individual staff members reported on cooperative learning projects they have employed in their classrooms. Subject areas represented were English, special education, career education, French, mathematics, and science. Issues presented ranged from detailed explanation of the process employed to how they have learned to deal with concerns such as time management and teaching cooperative learning skills to students. Several quotations taken from the various teachers during this session reveal the progress that has been made in the process of implementation:
Cooperative learning works well for review. Students have reacted to it well when used for that purpose.The difficulties associated with the use of the model were primarily ascertained through observation and interviews. During the early stages of implementation of the model itself, teachers and coordinators expressed a great deal of difficulty with its application. It appears that they were expecting a model which provided a clearly laid out plan. This model does not provide the plan, but rather the guiding principles and the factors to be considered. Teams were required to develop a plan of action within the context of their own school that used the guidance of the model. The difficulty which resulted from the required problem solving that is inherent in the model was expressed in the interviews by teachers and coordinators. In response to the question, "What do you see as the primary difficulties associated with the current implementation process?", one coordinator responded:
Members of the team might not understand the process. Team members need training. In fact, often the informal leader that you need involved may lead the school in other directions.
Question 4: What are the strengths of this model?All those interviewed indicated that the major strength of this model is that when used it works. One teacher stated "It has led to the professional growth of the staff; it has created an air of excitement that did not previously exist; it has provided a structure that can be followed, but allows for adjustments where necessary; it has brought about collaboration among staff members; it has ensured a more concrete connection between the school and district office; and has given a focus to professional development efforts." Another teacher commented, "Had it not been for the structure provide by the model, cooperative learning would have been abandoned by many, as other initiatives have." And yet another noted, "If cooperative learning is working in this school, it is because of the model. I would rate it an "A". In like manner, one coordinator stated,
Teachers and the principal have learned a great deal from the process. This is apparent in respect to the principal's performance relative to his previous experience as principal in another school where his strengths were not so obvious. He is now a strong proactive leader. Differences can be observed in the school. The school has a vision to increase achievement and to deal with social difficulties that have persisted there. The school is moving at a steady pace toward the achievement of their goal through a step by step approach where every step is planned and evaluated carefully. Major differences are apparent in just one year.
Question 5: What is the nature of leadership that supports implementation within the context of this model?During interviews this question was asked with specific reference to identified groups or individuals as follows: principal, teachers, department heads, program coordinators, and district administration.
Principal. The most common term used to describe
the principal's role in the process was that he was supportive of the initiative.
This support was described generally as indirect influence through his
obvious commitment to cooperative learning. Staff meetings were conducted
using cooperative learning structures; there was a cooperative quotation
of the week included on the announcements; the principal was a member of
the Implementation Team, provided inservice time, and promoted the use
of cooperative learning by maintaining a constant focus. One coordinator
stated, "The principal must mobilize the others and must have a definite
vision of where the school should be going. The current principal
has been involved in the process and has been key in moving the school
forward. The model has assisted the principal in keeping the focus
with the staff and has strengthened his leadership. The model will
not work without the leadership of a strong principal." Another coordinator
supported the essential role of the principal as well, stating,
The principal is the liaison with the staff and is aware of staff concerns relative to the implementation. Following the recent two day inservice he requested that each staff member employ at least three cooperative learning structures by the end of May. Also, he employees cooperative learning strategies in his staff meetings. He is a key player and is acutely aware of the politics of his staff.
Teachers. During interviews, the majority of teachers highlighted the importance of team work, collaboration, and peer coaching that had developed since the beginning of the implementation process. Three or four teachers were recognized as lead teachers. These teachers had an open door policy so that others could observe cooperative learning in practice. These were recognized by teachers as early users who had developed some degree of expertise. These teachers for the most part were members of the Implementation Team. They organized inservices and other cooperative learning sessions in staff meetings. Generally, teachers felt that collaboration among teachers was growing. One teacher commented,
"There are four or five teachers who are lead teachers. These teachers who come from various subject areas have been the driving force behind my efforts. They might suggest, 'Here are some things you can try.' I have not been forced. They present materials and ideas, then I choose what is appropriate for my classes."
Confirmation of the importance of teacher leadership was provided through observation at the April inservice. When teachers were asked to identify the most significant and worthwhile aspect of the inservice, the session of teacher presentations of their practices was identified by all groups.
Department Heads. Department heads encouraged teachers to engage in cooperative learning strategies and suggested strategies that could be used in their particular subject area. There was a great deal of overlap between this discussion and discussion regarding other teachers, in that department heads were not viewed as a separate category by teachers. It is apparent that those department heads that were perceived as early users were noted as supporting the implementation directly, whereas those that were not early users were viewed as providing moral support to the initiative.
Program Coordinators. Those program coordinators
who were involved as facilitators on the Team were viewed as making an
excellent contribution to the implementation. However, outside of
these involved coordinators, teachers did not perceive a great deal
of input from coordinators in respect to the implementation of cooperative
learning. A team member remarked, "They have given excellent support!
We would not have gotten it off the ground without them. They had
insights. They helped develop the team approach. They facilitated
and led, but did not dictate." Most other teachers recognized
the role they played in training, but were not aware of the critical role
of facilitator recognized by the school administration and the team members.
The following comment is representative of teacher's responses when asked
to discuss the role of the coordinator in the implementation process: "I
don't have much to do with coordinators. Other than their role at
inservices that we have had on cooperative learning, I have little to do
with them. Once they give their inservice they are gone. No
other follow-up as such." Observations and document analysis indicate
quite clearly that the coordinators who were involved as facilitators played
a significant role in the success of the initiative. They acted as
liaison between the school and district, assisted in working out "bugs"
in the model, and acted as catalysts for change when others may have given
up on the process. This observation was substantiated in
interviews with the principal, vice-principal, and team members. Coordinators
that were interviewed stressed the importance of the facilitative role,
and the need for training relative to that role and use of the model. For
example, one coordinator stated,
The coordinator is a facilitator. He/she is absolutely key to provide the energy and time that is required to obtain necessary materials and references to help the staff develop their focus and then to assist them to develop their plans and to carry them out. The coordinator must be familiar with the process model of implementation and must be strong in facilitator skills. Also, it is important that the coordinator assist in obtaining necessary funding. Training is required for coordinators in developing these skills.
I feel that I, as well as most other coordinators, need training relative to the role as facilitator using the process model of implementation. Most of us are not comfortable with it.
Assistant Superintendent. The role of the assistant
superintendent was not included as a question in the interview with teachers
as the model did not provide for his/her direct involvement with the teaching
staff during the implementation. However, it was included as part
of the interview with the principal and the coordinators. All indicated
that the assistant superintendent was key to assisting in the development
of the model and was part of the initial planning as required by that model.
The researcher observed that the assistant superintendent suggested appropriate
program coordinators to act as facilitators, committed time for professional
development, and committed requested financial support. Also, it
was noted that while this person was not an active part of the implementation
team, he/she remained in constant contact with the team as they developed
their plans. The assistant superintendent assisted in providing essential
information such as what resources were available and also, acted
as gatekeeper to ensure that only projects that were consistent with the
model principles were approved. One coordinator commented,
The assistant superintendent must be the gatekeeper. He/she must know what is happening throughout the district. He/she must ensure that the schools operate within the district framework and must approve only those major initiatives that are planned within the context of the process model. Also, he/she must provide both the funding, training time, and the moral support to schools throughout the process; otherwise it will fail. This year all commitments made to the school have been honoured. The degree of training and funding support is indicative of moral support; however, the moral support could have been more overt and direct. The assistant superintendent must get into the school to "pat a few backs".
Summary and Recommendations
It is apparent that the model for growth and improvement is in the process of being implemented in this one school and that it is supported by the district. To the degree that it has been implemented, it is perceived by teachers, and school and district administration to have positively influenced the implementation of one initiative in that school over a two-year period. Beyond these perceptions of success related to the implementation of one initiative, teachers have noted that model use has contributed to professional growth and increased collaboration, as well as strengthened connections between district office and the school. The primary weaknesses identified related to the complexity of the model and the lack of training of individuals expected to employ it.
If the model is to be successfully implemented (institutionalized) in either the pilot school or other schools, training must be provided to district facilitators and school teams. In that teachers indicated that issues of evaluation and collaboration were not adequately addressed, and that team members indicated that these were the most difficult factors to be considered in the model, training should focus on these issues. Additionally, since there appeared to be much complacency among teachers regarding their need to understand the model or to be actively engaged in action research, there must be a training emphasis there as well.
Both district and school personnel perceive that the model is workable, that while it has weaknesses, it has had positive impact on the school's change efforts. Findings of this pilot will form the basis for further research and development, already underway, which will focus on planned change, leadership training, leadership approach, school-based management with teachers as action researchers, the learning organization, and student outcomes.
Anderson, B. (1993). The stages of systematic change. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 8-17.
Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation of educational innovation. Educational Forum, 40(3), 345-370.
Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers' perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 142-163.
Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teacher perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 589-610.
Brown, J. (1994). Leadership in secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.
Caldwell, B., Smilanich, R., and Spinks, J. (1988). The Canadian Administrator 27(8).
Calhoun, E. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Change and challenge: A strategic economic plan for Newfoundland and Labrador, (1992). St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Cox, P. (1983). Complementary roles in successful change. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 10-13.
Crandall, D. (1983). The teacher's role in school improvement. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 6-9.
Cranston, N. (1994). Translating the 'new organization' into educational settings. Studies in Educational Administration, 60(Summer), 24-31.
Deal, T. (1990). Reframing reform. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 6-12.
DeMont, J., Fennell, T., & Quinn, H. (1993a, January). What's wrong at school?. Macleans, 28-41.
DeMont, J., Fennell, T., & Quinn, H. (1993b, May). Our schools' parents press for change. Reader's Digest.
Department of Education (1994). Adjusting the Course, Part II: Improving the Conditions for Learning. St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Drouin, M. & McCamus, D. (1992). Inventing our future: an action plan for Canada's prosperity. Ottawa: Steering Group on Prosperity, Government of Canada.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Some schools work and more can. Social Policy, 9(5), 28-32.
Evans, R. (1993). The human face of reform. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 19-23.
Foster, W. (1989). Toward a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical Perspectives on Educational Leadership. New York: The Falmer Press.
Fuhrman, S., Clune, W., & Elmore, R. (1988). Research on education reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90(2), 237-257.
Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In R. Elmore and S. Fuhrman (Eds.), The Governance of Curriculum: The.
Fullan, M. (1993a). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. New York: The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (1993b). Coordinating school and district development in restructuring. In J. Murphy and P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts (pp. 143-164). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M., Bennett, B., & Rolheiser-Bennett, C. (1990). Linking classroom and school improvement. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 13-19.
Fullan, M. & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-752.
Fullan, M. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Genge, T. & Walters, L. A proposal for funding under the Canada/Newfoundland Cooperation Agreement on Human Resource Development: Leadership Institute for school teams. Corner Brook, NF: Western Integrated School Board.
Gezi, K. (1990). The role of leadership in inner-city schools. Educational Research Quarterly, 12(4), 4-11.
Griffiths, D. (1988). Administrative theory. In N.J. Boyan (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 27-51). New York: Longman.
Goodlad, J. (1992). On taking school reform seriously. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(3), 232-238.
Goodman, J. (1995). Change without difference: School restructuring in historical perspective. Harvard Educational Review, 65(1), 1-29.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York: State University.
Hallinger, P., & McCary, C. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 89-107.
Hargraves, A. (1989a, February). Cultures of teaching: A focus for change, Part I. OPSTF News.
Hargraves, A. (1989b, April). Cultures of teaching, Part II. OPSTF News.
Holzman, M. (1993). What is systematic change. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 18.
Hord, S. & Hall, G. (1987). Three images: What principals do in curriculum implementation. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 55-89.
Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking Charge of Change. Alexandria: ASCD.
Kanter, R., Stein, B., & Jick, T. (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change. New York: The Free Press.
Kindergarten to Grade 12 education plan (1994). Province of British Columbia.
Laroque, L. & Coleman, P. (1991). Negotiating the master contract: Transformational leadership and school district quality. In K. Leithwood & D. Musella (Eds.), Understanding School System Administration Studies of the Chief Education Officer. New York: The Falmer Press.
Leithwood, K. (1995). Effective school district leadership. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K., Dart, B., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1993). Building commitment for change and fostering organizational learning (Final report). Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Education.
Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes and consequences of principals' practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 88(4), 5-31.
Levin, B. & Young, J. (1994). Understanding Canadian schools: An introduction to educational administration. Toronto: Harcourt Brace.
Louis, K. (1994). Beyond managed change: Rethinking how schools improve. School effectiveness and school improvement, 5(1), 2-24.
Louis, K. & King, J. (1993). Professional cultures and reforming schools: Does the myth of Sisyphus apply? In J. Murphy and P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts, (pp. 216-250). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Madaus, G., Airasian, P. & Kellagan, T. (1980). School effectiveness: A reassessment of the evidence. Montreal: McGraw-Hill.
March, C. (1988). Spotlight on school improvement. Sydney: Allyn & Unwin.
McLaughlin, M. (1992). Employability skills profile: What are employers looking for? Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada.
McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
Miles, M., & Louis, K. (1990). Mustering the will and skill for change. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 57-61.
Murphy, J. (1992). Restructuring America's Schools: An overview. In C. Finn, Jr. & T. Rebarber (Eds.), Education Reform in the 90's (pp. 3-20). Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan.
Murphy, J. & Hallinger, P. (1993). Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts. In J. Murphy and P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts, (pp. 251-271). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Newfoundland & Labrador Educational Indicators System (1995). St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Nikiforuk, A. (1993). School's Out: The catastrophe in Public Education and What We Can Do About It. Toronto: MacFarlane Walter & Ross.
Nova Scotia Department of Education (1994). Preparing all students for a lifetime of learning. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Department of Education.
Nutt, P. (1986). Tactics of implementation. Academy of management journal, 29(2), 230-261.
O'Neil, J. (1995). On lasting school reform: A conversation with Ted Sizer. Educational Leadership, 52(5), 4-9.
Pellicer, L., Anderson, L., Keefe, J., Kelley, E., & McCleary, L. (1990). High school leaders and their schools. Volume II: Profiles of effectiveness. National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 139)
Peters, T. (1992). Liberation Management. Toronto: Random House.
Riley, M. (1992). If it looks like manure. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(3), 239-241.
Royal Commission of Inquiry into Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary, Secondary Education (1992). Our children our future. St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable Failure of Educational Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Slavin, R., Madden, N., Shaw, A. Mainzer, L., & Donnelly, M. (1993). Success for all: Three case studies of comprehensive restructuring of urban elementary schools. In J. Murphy and P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts, (pp. 84-113). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday
Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Smith, B., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Toronto: Currency Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sheppard, B. (1995, June). The transformational nature of instructional leadership. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Montreal, Canada.
Tye, K. (1992). Restructuring our schools: Beyond the rhetoric. Phi Delta Kappan, September, 8-14.
Verhalst, D. (1992). An innovative profile. Cooperative Learning, 12(2), 32-34.
Weber, J. (1989). Leading the instructional program. In School leadership: Handbook for Excellence. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 309 513).
Wright, R. (1982). A contextual model of curriculum implementation. An unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.