Change Processes and Strategies at the Local · PDF fileOntario Institute for Studies in Education ... Volume 85, Number 3 1985 by The University of Chicago. ... teachers with workshops

Change Processes andStrategies at the LocalLevel

Michael FullanOntario Institute for Studies in Education

The Elementary School JournalVolume 85, Number 3 1985 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.0013-5984/85/8503-0006$01.00

“Reformers have the idea that change can beachieved by brute sanity.”

George Bernard Shaw

The search for effect ive s t ra tegies forbringing about school improvements is atantalizing affair. On the one hand, re-search in a number of areas on school ef-fectiveness, classroom effectiveness, staffdevelopment, leadership, and implemen-tation is increasingly convergent and de-tailed in identifying factors related to im-provement, and the findings make commonsense. On the other hand, we know thatdeliberately attempting change is a com-plex, dilemma-ridden, technical, sociopol-itical process. Looked at one day, in onesetting, successful educational changeseems so sensible and straightforward; onanother day, in another situation, im-provement cannot be attained with themost sophisticated efforts. Change is atonce simple and complex, and therein liesits fascination.

The purpose of this paper is to considerchange processes at the school buildinglevel in order to formulate a number oflocally based strategies (at the school anddistrict levels) that hold some promise forsignificantly improving schools and class-rooms. The intention is to suggest changestrategy implications arising from the ef-fective schools research. To do this we must(a) recognize the consistent, powerful mes-sages in this body of research, (b) recognizethe limitations of this research vis-a`-visknowledge about change processes, and (c)draw on other literature that does providedata and insights into local district andschool improvement processes. Consider-

392 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

able attention in the paper is devoted toexplaining how change processes actuallywork because these processes are not welldescribed or understood in the effectiveschools literature, and such an understand-ing is a necessary precondition for design-ing effective strategies for improvement.

The analysis is developed in three parts.The first examines through illustrationwhat is known about successful changeprocesses at the school and classroom lev-els. The emphasis is on the actual processeswhereby individuals in a group settingchange. In the second section, I discuss thelimitations of knowledge about how tobring about change, as well as the limitsof moving from knowledge to strategiesfor using that knowledge. In the final sec-tion, I consider alternative strategies andideas within strategies that local personnelinterested in accomplishing improvementsat the school level might employ.

Despite a great deal of very good researchon factors related to school improvement,we do not have much specific knowledgeabout how and why improvement occurs.(For reviews of this research see the fol-lowing selected sources: on school effec-tiveness, Cohen [1983]; Good & Brophy[in press]; Purkey & Smith [1983]; on class-room effectiveness, Brophy [1983]; on staffdevelopment, Joyce & Showers [1980]; onprincipal leadership, Dwyer, Lee, Rowan& Bossert [1983]; Leithwood & Montgo-mery [1982]; on implementation, Crandallet al. [1983]; Fullan [1982.] The simplebut powerful phrase “change is a process,not an event” connotes that something ishappening over a period of time to trans-form individuals and situations (Hall &Loucks 1977). The question in this sectionis, What do we really know about the de-tailed processes of transformation withinschools? When one describes an effectiveschool and identifies the factors associatedwith its success, what information is nec-essary to understand how it got that way?

The vast majority of research on schoolimprovement ignores the specific dynam-ics of change, but some studies describethe change process qua process better thanothers. Studies that trace change over aperiod of time (even short periods) are es-sential to inferring how people change.Research needs to go beyond theories ofchange (what factors explain change) totheories of changing (how change occurs,and how to use this new knowledge).

To illustrate what might be called anemerging theory of change processeswithin schools, I will draw on four recentstudies of successful change that are par-ticularly revealing of the nature of the pro-cess at work: Huberman’s (1981) case studyof the Exemplary Center for Reading In-struction (ECRI), Stallings’s (1980) pro-gram on improving the teaching of read-ing in secondary school c lassrooms,Showers’s (1983a, 1983b) work on thetransfer of training, and Little’s (1981) re-search on school norms and school success.None of these studies comes from the “ef-fective schools” research, which indicatesthat this latter research has not examinedprocesses of change. Some very recentwork moves in this direction (e.g., Clark &McCarthy 1983) but still does not analyzethe processes at work. In the change lit-erature, Huberman and Crandall (1983)and Huberman and Miles (1984) are es-pecially revealing and detailed sources ofdescription of successful change processesat the local level (in the section entitled“Strategies for Improving,” I draw morespecifically on Huberman and Crandall).The main purpose in describing these fourcases is not to generate a complete list offactors associated with improvement butrather to provide some insight into howsuccessful change processes might operateat the individual teacher level in a schoolcontext.

Huberman’s study of ECRIECRI is a structured reading instruc-

tion program available through the Na-

JANUARY 1985

Change processes within schools

SCHOOL-LEVEL STRATEGIES 393

tional Diffusion Network. Huberman(1981) conducted a case study of one schooldistrict’s use of the program and foundwidespread implementation in classrooms(see also Huberman & Crandall 1983). Twoof the explanatory factors singled out were“the quality and amount of technical as-sistance” and “sustained central office andbuilding level support” (p. iii). The districtarranged for certain principals and teach-ers to receive training at the developer’scenter. All teacher users received trainingand follow-up assistance from the principaland other helping teachers who had re-ceived the initial training. Huberman(1981, p. 68) comments, “It was also de-cided that ongoing assistance should beprovided, hence the idea of a ‘helpingteacher’ who would give workshops, dem-onstrate the ECRI techniques, providesupplies and materials, chair a monthly in-service meeting between users, provide on-demand consultancy.”

The developmental nature of learninghow to do something new was recognizedby a policy of easing teachers into ECRIrather than expecting comprehensive im-plementation at once. Moreover, Huber-man found that early difficulties were typ-ical: “Teachers, trainers and administratorsall talk of a ‘difficult,’ ‘overwhelming,’sometimes ‘humiliating’ experience dur-ing the first six months, and for some dur-ing the initial two years” (p.81). He notesthat almost every respondent attributed thesurvival of ECRI during this period to thestrong administrat ive support and the helping teacher. Activities mentioned asvaluable included frequent in-servicemeetings “during which teachers ex-change tips, war stories, encouragements,complaints and formulated requests to thehelping teacher” (pp. 70-71).

As Huberman describes it, the initial 6months is a period of high anxiety and con-fusion. After some settling down, there stillremains a significant period of relating thespecific behaviors to the underlying ra-t ionale of the new program. After 6

months, “there is cognitive mastering overthe individual pieces of ECRI, but littlesense of the integration of the separateparts or, more globally, why certain skillsor exercises are related to specific out-comes. Concern for understanding thestructure and rationale of the programgrows as behavioral mastery over its partsis achieved” (p. 91).

In other words, changes in attitudes,beliefs, and understanding tend to followrather than precede changes in behavior.

Stallings: a secondary school readingprogramStallings (1980, 1981) carried out a

four-phase program in several districts inCalifornia, focusing on training secondaryschool teachers to improve reading skillsof students. In phase 1 the researchers ob-served in 46 classrooms to examine the re-lation between what teachers did to ad-dress reading problems and what studentsachieved. The result of this phase was theidentification of specific instructional ap-proaches that seemed to work. In phase 2,the researchers used findings from phase1 to work with 51 teachers; 26 weretrained, and 25 (the control group) re-ceived training only at the end of the ex-perimental period. In phase 3, teacherswere trained to conduct workshops forother teachers in the district. In phase 4,selected teachers were trained to act asleaders of training programs in their owndistricts.

The 26 teachers who were trained at-tended five workshops, held 1 week apart.Using pretest and posttest data, the au-thors found that the teachers who weretrained did use the instructional activitiesand did achieve greater gains in studentreading ability over the year. Of the 31criterion variables (measuring the imple-mentation of specific instructional activi-ties), the trained teachers changed over theschool year on 25, while the control teach-ers changed on only three. Phase 3 wasinteresting because it allowed comparison


of the effectiveness of workshops led byteachers with workshops led by the projectleaders. The authors found that teacher-led groups performed as well as groups ledby the project leaders. (Both groups im-plemented 17 of the 26 criterion activitiesused as indicators.)

Stallings (1981) characterized the ap-proach as a “staff development masterylearning model” with four components:pretest (observe teachers, start where theyare), inform (link theory, practice, andteacher experience, provide practical ex-amples), organize and guide practice (pro-vide conceptual uni ts of behaviors tochange, support, assess, provide feedback,integrate), and posttest (observe and pro-vide feedback to teachers and trainers).

Stallings’s description does not providea clear idea of what was happening be-tween workshops-that is, during the pro-cess- though it offers some glimpses. Forexample, after the first session, each suc-ceeding session started with the questions,“What did you try last week?” and “Howdid it work?” If a teacher’s attempt did notsucceed, other teachers offered sugges-tions of methods they used for achievingthe particular objective. At the end of thesession, teachers selected another behav-ior from the profile to try and were askedto read some background material.

In addition to the classroom and directtraining variables influencing success,Stallings and Mohlman (1981) examinedseveral school-level variables in eightschools. They found that teachers changedtheir behavior more in schools where theprincipal was supportive and where theschool policy was clear, consistently en-forced, and arrived at collaboratively. Evenwithout at tempting to influence theseschool variables (something that could bedone in future attempts to implement themodel), the treatment group achieved 6months more gain in student reading scoresthan the control group.

Showers’s program of coaching andtransfer of trainingIn reviewing literature on in-service ed-

ucation, Joyce and Showers (1980) con-cluded that the following five componentswere essential for fundamental change:theory, demonstration, practice, feedback,and coaching. Although they did not pro-vide specific examples of how these ele-ments actually worked in practice, one canintuitively relate them to the previous twocase examples. That is, these successfulchange processes consisted of teachers in-teracting and learning about the under-lying theoretical principles of an innova-tion, seeing it demonstrated, practicing it,and obtaining feedback and ongoingcoaching or support.

Showers (1983a, 1983b) designed atraining application based on the aboveprinciples in order to test and specify them.Other experiments that reinforce Show-ers’ f indings are Sharan and Hertz-Lazarowitz (1982) and Mohlman-Sparks(1983). Showers (1983a, p.1) notes thatthe mastery of a new teaching approachrequires the teacher “to think differently,organize instruction in fresh ways, and helpchildren adapt to new approaches to teach-ing.”

In the experiment reported, 17 juniorhigh language arts and social studies teach-ers were trained for 21 hours in threemodels of teaching during a 7-week period(Showers 1983a, 1983b). Following initialtraining, the sample was randomly as-signed to a coaching treatment group(N = 9) and a control group (N = 8) .Coaching is conceived by Showers to com-bine several elements: providing compan-ionship, giving technical feedback, andanalyzing application. Coached teacherswere observed once a week for 5 weeksand after each observation met with a con-sultant for a coaching conference. One ses-sion provided opportunities for teachers toshare specific lessons. All teachers wereasked to “transfer” their learning by pre-

JANUARY 1985


paring and teaching a lesson using the sameset of materials but receiving no assistancewith respect to instructional strategies.Transfer scores were derived through ob-servation with respect to (1) teachers’ tech-nical competence in the use of models, (2)ratings of the appropriateness of the mode1used given the objectives, and (3) ratingsof the teachers’ ability to teach the mode1to students as indicated by students’ re-sponses (Showers 1983a, 1983b). Transferof training scores for the coached teachersshowed a mean of 11.67 compared with5.75 for uncoached teachers.

Showers (1983a, p. 11), makes an in-teresting observation: “During teaching ofthe final unit, coached teachers spent ap-proximately twice as much instructionaltime at the conceptual and theoretical lev-els of information processing as did un-coached teachers.” Recall that uncoachedteachers received the same initial trainingas coached teachers. Factors that contrib-uted to success included “practice with newmodels of teaching, successful experienceswith the trained strategies, and under-standing the requirements of transfer”(p. 16). Showers (1983b, p. 8) corroboratesone of Huberman’s (1981) main findingsthat all teachers were initially “stymied bythe discomfort of using a strategy awk-wardly and unskillfully” and that most ofthe uncoached teachers did not get beyondthis “difficulty of fit” state.

Showers also notes that the design wasindividualistic rather than organizationalin focus, and that for the most part littlesupport existed in the schools for the de-velopment of new teaching behaviors. Sheconcludes that for coaching to occur on abroad scale, peer coaches will have to betrained. Showers (1983a, p.19) observes,“Peer coaching will necessitate some or-ganizational changes for most schools, iftime for observation and conferencing ofteachers by teachers is to be possible. Fur-thermore, the establishment of conditionsfor peer coaching will necessitate thebuilding of school norms which encourage

and legitimize ongoing collegial attentionto curriculum and instruction.”

Little’s study of six urban schoolsLittle’s (1981) in-depth research in six

schools is significant because it focuses onthe school norms and work conditions con-ducive to staff development and improve-ment, factors that Showers and Stallingscited as important but missing or unevenin the schools in which they worked. Little(1981, pp.12-13, her emphases) providesa concise summary of the role of theseschool-level factors:

School improvement is most surelyand thoroughly achieved when:

Teachers engage in frequent, con-tinuous and increasingly concrete andprecise talk about teaching practice (asdistinct from teacher characteristics andfailings, the social lives of teachers, thefoibles and failures of students and theirfamilies, and the unfortunate demandsof society on the school). By such talk,teachers build up a shared language ad-equate to the complexity of teaching,capable of distinguishing one practiceand its virtue from another. . . .

Teachers and administrators fre-quently observe each other teaching, andprovide each other with useful (if po-tentially frightening) evaluations of theirteaching. Only such observation andfeedback can provide shared referents forthe shared language of teaching, andboth demand and provide the precisionand concreteness which makes the talkabout teaching useful.

Teachers and administrators plan,design, research, evaluate and prepareteaching materials together. The mostprescient observations remain academic("just theory") without the machineryto act on them. By joint work on ma-terials, teachers and administrators sharethe considerable burden of develop-ment required by long-term improve-ment, confirm their emerging under-standing of their approach, and makerising standards for their work attain-able by them and by their students.

Teachers and administrators teacheach other the practice of teaching.


Two of the six schools in Little’s studyevidence a high percentage of these prac-tices.

SummaryTo summarize, change at the individ-

ual level is a process whereby individualsalter their ways of thinking and doing (e.g.,teaching in this case). It is a process of de-veloping new skills and, above all, of find-ing meaning and satisfaction in new ways ofdoing things (see Fullan 1982; Marris1975). The four case examples elaborateon this process in mutually reinforcing waysin that they describe or imply that (1)change takes place over time; (2) the initialstages of any significant change always in-volve anxiety and uncertainty; (3) ongoingtechnical assistance and psychological sup-port assistance are crucial if the anxiety isto be coped with; (4) change involves learn-ing new skills through practice and feed-back- it is incremental and develop-m e n t a l ; ( 5 ) t h e m o s t f u n d a m e n t a lbreakthrough occurs when people cancognit ively understand the underlyingconception and rationale with respect to“why this new way works better”; (6) or-ganizational conditions within the school(peer norms, adminstrative leadership) andin relation to the school (e.g., external ad-ministrative support and technical help)make it more or less likely that the processwill succeed; and (7) successful change in-volves pressure, but it is pressure throughinteraction with peers and other technicaland administrative leaders.

In short, it is necessary to understandthe psychological dynamics and interactionsoccurring between individuals in schoolsas they experience change before we candecide which strategies are most effective.

Limitations to strategies for improvementThere are limitations in our understand-ing of what makes effective schools work,and these are further compounded bycomplexities in transferring the under-standings we do have to other settings. It

is difficult to grasp the range of problemsassociated with school improvement be-cause the potential problems are numer-ous and diverse. That is, they occur at dif-ferent levels of abstraction; some areinternal to understanding examples of suc-cess, some are related to designing effec-tive strategies for new situations, others areexternal to the particular situation at hand,and most are related to the simplicity-complexity paradox that characterizes so-cial processes of change. In this section, Idiscuss briefly six types of limitations onour ability to bring about improvementthrough deliberate means: unsolvableproblems; the nature and narrowness ofgoals; demographics; abstraction, misun-derstanding, and incompleteness; trans-fer/sequencing; and subtle combinations.I do not claim that the list is complete, butit is far-ranging and includes at least majoraspects that people contemplating or en-gaging in change should carefully con-sider. I contend that it is essential to un-derstand these issues before initiatingimprovement programs.

Unsolvable ProblemsThere are two reasons some problems

may be unsolvable. First, there may be cer-tain problems for which no adequate so-lutions exist. For example, although therehas been substantial progress in the pastdecade in specifying the nature of effectiveclassrooms and schools (primarily urban,public schools) that promote achievementin basic skills, there is still a long way togo in understanding and developing effec-tive instructional programs for what Doyle(1983, p. 170) calls “academic work”:“Studies of the cognitive processes under-lying academic work have revealed theenormously complex character of the op-erations and decisions that academic com-petence entails, a complexity that is oftenoverlooked when the goals of school arediscussed.”

The effective schools research dem-onstrates that some goals (usually in r e a d -

JANUARY 1985


ing and mathematics measured by stand-ardized tests) can be addressed relativelysuccessfully; this does not necessarily meanthat other higher-order cognit ive andpersonal-social development goals can beachieved. Rutter, Maugham, Mortimer,Ouston, and Smith (1979), Weiss, Janvier,and Hawkins (1982), and Wynne (1983) doaddress other goals, but this extension intoother areas is only at the early stages.

Thus, teaching basic reading and math-ematics is one thing; teaching students tothink abstractly, analyze and solve prob-lems, and write effectively is another; ac-complishing effective special educationprograms is still another. There are pro-grams available that address a broad rangeof educational goals, but many may not yetbe sufficiently developed to address theproblems adequately.

Second, in their desire to bring aboutneeded changes, policymakers frequentlyneglect or seriously underestimate issuesof resources and feasibility relative to im-plementation. Sarason (1972) refers to thisphenomenon as “the myth of unlimited re-sources,” Wise (1977) as “the hyperration-alization of reform.” It is not that policy-makers believe that there are unlimitedresources but that many policy solutions toeducational problems fail to consider whatwould be realistically needed for the policyto work. For example, to say that effectiveschools depend on instructionally activeprincipals is a far cry from having suchprincipals in the majority of schools. (Andthis is only one factor.) I refer to this gen-eral problem as unsolvable because thereare not, in fact, enough resources availableto address even the major policies and goalsthat are already on the books. As with somany other aspects of the change process,factors working at cross-purposes must bereconciled high expectations and limitedresources.

The narrowness of goalsAnother problem concerns the total set

of goals for which the school is responsi-

ble. Devoting resources and attention toone or two objectives is certainly a goodway to improve performance in those areas.But if this is done without considerationof other domains, it is likely that the latterwill suffer. Schools have a number of ma-jor goals, and any improvement effortshould explicitly consider not only the areasthat improvement projects focus on butalso the implications (i.e., unintended con-sequences) of improvement for other do-mains.

DemographicsResearch on school effectiveness is also

limited by the kinds of populations studied(Cohen 1983; Purkey & Smith 1983; Ro-wan, Bossert, & Dwyer 1983). Much of theresearch is based on small samples involv-ing at least quasi-volunteer populations ininner-city elementary schools that alreadyhave effective programs in existence (asdistinct from studies that design and in-troduce new programs). The performanceof the effective schools on a small rangeof goals is then compared with that of in-ferior schools (low-scoring rather thanaverage-scoring schools). There are a fewexceptions: Neufeld, Farrar, and Miles(1983) (see also Farrar, Neufeld, & Miles1983; Miles, Farrar, & Neufeld 1983) fo-cused on effectiveness in secondary schools,as did Rutter et al. (1979) and Stallings(1981). Clark and McCarthy (1983) andEubanks and Levine (1983) report on ef-fective schools “projects” intended to bringabout improvement through design (as dis-tinct from identifying naturally occurringexamples). These studies are exceptions,however. We do not know enough aboutcommunity variables, differences in teacherpopulations, rural and suburban settings,large schools, longitudinal attempts at de-liberate change, broader goals and mea-sures of effectiveness, and the like. Theselimitations are especially critical for the re-maining three problem areas: abstraction,transfer/sequencing, and subtle combi-nations.


Abstraction, misunderstanding, andincompletenessEffective schools research takes a highly

complex phenomenon and represents it ina vastly simplified manner by citing factorssuch as strong administrative leadershipfocusing on instruction, high expectationsfor students, clear goals, an orderly at-mosphere, a system for frequent monitor-ing of progress, ongoing staff training, andparent involvement as characteristics of ef-fective schools.

I should like to raise three problemsabout understanding these findings suffi-ciently in order to use them in other sit-uations. First, the factors are an abstractionacross several situations. They have somegeneralizability, but at the expense of un-derstanding fully any particular schoolcontext. For any specific situation otherfactors could dominate-a history of lead-ership instability, the relationship betweenteachers and the school board, an indus-trial strike in the community, and so on.Second, the factors represent statisticallysignificant correlations rather than full ex-planations of results. The strength of therelationships should be examined as wellas the relative contributions of differentfactors, and comparisons with a range ofother schools (not just with ineffectiveschools) in different community settingsshould be made. (See Purkey & Smith[1983] and Good & Brophy [in press] foradditional technical criticisms of school ef-fectiveness research studies.)

Third, and above all, the existing re-search tells us almost nothing about howan effective school got that way; it tells uslittle about the process of change. We needto look at the issue of causality. In almostall cases, it is not known how a good schoolgot to be one. How did the characteristicsof effective schools evolve in a particularschool’s context? Did certain factors existbefore others? How and why were thesefactors present? How did and do the fac-tors affect each other over a period of time?To illustrate, most of this research aggre-

gates data at the school level. We do not,for example, have information on the dif-ferential success of classrooms within so-called effective or ineffective schools. Wedo not even have indirect data on the in-traschool processes that influence individ-ual classrooms in the effective schools.Moreover, each factor is a surrogate for ahost of actions and interactions that makeup its underlying meaning and impact.

Remember also that the majority of thisresearch is on schools that somehow cameto be effective, not ones that some groupdeliberately set out to improve. There aresome recent descriptions of improvementprojects (Clark & McCarthy 1983; Eu-banks & Levine 1983) that are more spe-cific about the phases and elements of pro-grams. Even these potentially morerelevant projects, however, do not providemuch information on the process-the dy-namics of selecting schools, the obstaclesencountered, how problems were re-solved. By contrast, for an excellent illus-tration of recreating and tracing complexcausal chains in the school innovation pro-cess, see Huberman and Miles (1984). Sim-ilarly, the purpose of the first section wasto suggest and elaborate on some plausibledescriptions and explanations of the pro-cess of improvement.

In sum, understanding school successinvolves knowing how factors operate in aparticular context rather than merely list-ing factors associated with higher studentachievement.

Transfer/sequencingEven if we possessed quite complete

knowledge about what causes improve-ment and how it occurs (which, as the pre-vious point indicates, we do not), it wouldstill be very difficult to transfer that knowl-edge to other situations because knowingsomething is critical in one context andimplementing it in another are two differ-ent things. In the 1970s the question was,How do I implement X or Y program? Theresponse was, Build better implementation

JANUARY 1985


plans, taking into account factors A, B, C,and so forth. In the 1980s the question(ironically) has become, How do I imple-ment the implementation plan? Imple-menting improvement plans is proble-matic because (a) people may resist(unwillingness), or (b) people may not havethe skills (inability), and (c) more generally,implementing a new program of improve-ment is a complex process in its own right,each potent ial solut ion represent ing awhole new set of “hows.” It is difficult toimplement any one of the major factorsknown to affect improvement; it is, ofcourse, much more problematic to attemptto alter and contend simultaneously withseveral factors that affect one another.What works in one situation may not workin another, and there is not much researchavailable on issues related to such ques-tions as where to start, how to sequenceevents, and what approaches might workunder what conditions.

Subtle combinationsThe last limitation is an overriding one.

It concerns the simplicity-complexity par-adox of change. On the one hand, exam-ples of successful improvement make com-mon sense. They can be explained byreference to a small number of key vari-ables. It is obvious that they work, al-though how they work is not necessarilyclear. On the other hand, the intrinsic di-lemmas in the change process, coupled withthe intractability of some factors, makesuccessful change a highly complex andsubtle social process. Effective approachesto managing change call for combining andbalancing factors that do not apparentlygo together-simultaneous simplicity-com-plexity, looseness-tightness, strong lead-ership-participation (or simultaneousbottom up-top downness), fidelity-adap-tivity, and evaluation-nonevaluation. Morethan anything else, effective strategies forimprovement require an understanding ofthe process, a way of thinking that cannotbe captured in any list of steps or phases

to be followed. I will pursue these distinc-tions in the next section in the course ofmaking some specific recommendations fordeveloping effective strategies for schoolimprovement.

Strategies for improvementJust as there are many different ways tofail, there is more than one way to succeed(although as with any skilled performancethere are a nearly infinite number of waysto fail but a much more sharply limitednumber of ways to succeed). This sectionis divided into two parts. The first discussessome elements that are common to suc-cess; that is, it describes what an effectiveschool is. The second part considers alter-native strategies or leverage points thatmight be used for making schools moreeffective. The focus is on recommenda-tions for local districts and individualschools.

What effective schools areMy main interest is not in carrying out

yet another review of effective schools (seeGood & Brophy, in press). I do however,want to describe what an effective schoolis in order to highlight aspects of processthat have been neglected. Following a di-vision that Purkey and Smith (1983) sug-gest (but not their precise list), I find ituseful to divide the factors into two groups:the first group is a list of eight organizationvariables that are typical of the character-istics of effective schools described in theliterature; the second group consists of fourprocess variables that have been largelyoverlooked or inadequately understood.Taken together, these 12 factors identifyin a more systematic manner the theoret-ical framework that underlies the success-ful case examples described in the first sec-tion of the paper (see fig. 1).

Organization variables of effectiveschools. The organization variables needonly be named because they are so famil-iar. There are slight variations from studyto study, but the following eight factors


EightOrganization

Factors Improvement

Four processfactors

e.g., .Achievement of goals.Sense of communityand meaning.Capacity for furtherimprovement

FIG. I.- The school improvement process

are as accurate and complete as any: (1)instructionally focused leadership at theschool level, (2) district support, (3) em-phasis on curriculum and instruction (e.g.,maximizing academic learning), (4) cleargoals and high expectations for students,(5) a system for monitoring performanceand achievement, (6) ongoing staff devel-opment, (7) parental involvement and sup-port, and (8) orderly and secure climate.

Process variables. The main problemfrom a strategy point of view, as I statedearlier, is that such a list of organizationvariables indicates neither how the factorsoperate nor how to implement them in aparticular school. They represent the tipof the iceberg. They say nothing about thedynamics of the organization. To compre-hend what successful schools are really likein practice, we have to turn to additionalfactors that infuse some meaning and lifeinto the process of improvement within aschool. In reviewing material that moreclosely addresses process issues, there arefour fundamental factors that in my viewunderlie successful improvement pro-cesses: (1) a feel for the improvement pro-cess on the part of leadership, (2) a guidingvalue system, (3) intense interaction andcommunication, and (4) collaborativeplanning and implementation. In additionto the material in the first section, I havedrawn on Purkey and Smith’s (1983) dis-cussion of process variables, Cohen’s (1983)analysis of social conditions in effective

schools, the implementation literature(Fullan 1982), and Peters and Waterman’s(1982) review and description of “excel-lent” companies. The latter review, al-though not on schools, is compellinglycongruent with the effective schools lit-erature. As I will indicate later, Hubermanand Crandall (1983) provide one of themost specific and insightful descriptionsavailable of the processes of change (in-volving the adoption and implementationof innovations).

It is these process factors that fuel thedynamics of interaction and developmentof the previous organization variables.

Leadership feel for the improvement process.It may seem that something as amorphousas “feel for the process” should have noplace in any serious discussion of strategy.It is, however, essential to understand thischaracteristic of effective leaders. It is bestdescribed in Peters and Waterman’s (1982)discussion of America’s best-run compa-nies and in Schon’s (1983) work, The Re-flective Practitioner. There are two reasonsfor referring to this aspect as “feel.” First,the number of factors that leaders mustcontend with in running and helping toimprove organizations defies step-by-step,rational planning. There are simply toomany variables to remember, let alone tomanage. For example, Hall and Hord(1984) documented nearly 2,000 interven-tions in one school year in a study of nineprincipals as each principal facilitated the

JANUARY1985


implementation of a relatively simple cur-riculum innovation. Second, processes ofimprovement are intrinsically paradoxicaland subtle. James March captures this ina marvelously accurate metaphor: “orga-nizations are to be sailed rather than dri-ven” (cited in Peters & Waterman 1982,p. 107).

Organizations are complex, and ironi-cally, the way to manage complexity is bysimplifying matters. Peters and Waterman(1982, pp. 55-56) refer to several relatednotions of feel: " As information proces-sors, we are simultaneously flawed andwonderful. On the one hand, we can holdlittle explicitly in mind, at most a half dozenor so facts at one time. Hence there shouldbe an enormous pressure on manage-ments-of complex organizations espe-cially-to keep things very simple indeed.On the other hand, our unconscious mindis powerful, accumulating a vast store-house of patterns, if we let it.”

Peters and Waterman (1982, pp. 66-67) refer to an experiment in which chessmaster players were asked to look for 10seconds at a game in progress. “Chess mas-ters could later recall the locations of vir-tually all the pieces. That doesn’t fit withshort term memory theory at all. . . . Si-mon [the researcher] believes . . , that thechess masters have much more highly de-veloped long-term chess memories, and thememories take the form of subconsciouslyremembered patterns. . . . They begin withthe patterns: Have I seen this one before?In what context? What worked before?”

Later Peters and Waterman (1982, p.287) state, “An effective leader must bethe master of two ends of the spectrum:ideas at the highest level of abstraction andactions at the most mundane level of de-tail. . . . It seems the only way to instillenthusiasm is through scores of dailyevents, with the value-shaping managerbecoming an implementer par excellence.In this role the leader is a bug for detail,and directly instills values through deedsrather than words: no opportunity is too

small. So it is at once attention to ideasand attention to detail.”

I have quoted from Peters and Water-man because I believe they are describingexactly the more holistic, life-blood, realprocess of managing improvement that ishidden behind superficial phrases such as“focus on instructional leadership.” Thesmall number of studies in education thatdo attempt to portray the effective prin-cipal in action tend to corroborate this in-terpretation (Barth & Deal 1982; Blum-berg & Greenfield 1980; Dwyer et al.1983). Managing and facilitating improve-ment involve a way of thinking about theimprovement process that draws on knowl-edge about the major factors associatedwith success but employ them in a non-mechanical manner along with intuition,experience, and an assessment of the sit-uation as a whole. It is simultaneously hav-ing and using knowledge about factorscommon to success and possessing the ori-entation and ability to appreciate each sit-uation to a certain extent as unique (Lind-blom & Cohen 1979; Schon 1983).

The point of this section is that we mustunderstand the true nature of leadershipbefore we can develop strategies for moreeffective instructional leadership in schools.Moreover, such strategies may not be asmysterious and difficult to develop as it ap-pears. They require knowledge of com-mon factors related to success (which is rel-atively straightforward) and opportunityfor training and reflection in action (whichis complicated). Schon (1983, p. 243) re-fers to the powerful potential of the latter,untapped source of learning: “Managersdo reflect-in-action, but they seldom re-flect on their reflection-in-action. Hencethis crucially important dimension of theirart tends to remain private and inaccessi-ble to others. Moreover, because aware-ness of one’s intuitive thinking usuallygrows out of practice in articulating it toothers, managers often have little accessto their own reflection-in-action.”


Finally, the very process of becoming amore effective leader, from a psychologi-cal and learning point of view, parallels theprocess of becoming a more effectiveteacher as indicated in the first section; thatis, it requires theory, practice, demonstra-tion, feedback, and support. In short, itinvolves developing new skills and concep-tions about how organizations can be im-proved.

Values. A second major enabling factordistinctive of effective schools and orga-nizations is the presence of an explicit, im-plemented value system. In the effectiveschools research the specific values iden-tified are high expectations for students,commonly shared goals, and a strong senseof community (see Cohen 1983). The in-structional mission of the school is valuedas primary, along with clear rules, genuinecaring about individuals, collegiality, anda commitment to quality through exami-nation of detail (solid, specific informa-tion) and continuous improvement.

Again, the f indings of Peters andWaterman (1982) are remarkably similar.Successful companies are “close to the cus-tomer,” are obsessed with meeting theneeds of clients, have a strong sense of careand respect for individuals, and have “abias for action” (they do things). Excellentcompanies are clear on what they stand forand create a shared sense of highly valuedpurpose: “the culture regulates vigorouslythe few variables that do count” (p. 105);and “a set of shared values and rules aboutdiscipline, details and execution can pro-vide the framework in which practical au-tonomy takes place routinely. . . . The rulesin the excellent companies have a positivecast. They deal with quality, service, in-novation, and experimentation” (p. 322).

Intense interaction and communication.The case examples in the first section wereespecially illustrative of the ongoing, in-teractive character of successful changeprocesses. Interactive relationships takeplace with a range of partners (otherteachers, the principal, parents, external

support personnel), in a variety of formats(one to one, small group, larger group,training sessions, planning and sharingmeetings, etc.), on a sustained basis, andfocus on specific problems or innovations.Getting people acting and interacting rep-resents a major route to change (i.e., be-liefs, new conceptions follow action morethan they precede it).

Peters and Waterman’s (1982, pp. 51,121- 122) findings strongly support andelaborate on the critical role of constantcommunication:

After all, who in his right mind wouldestablish Management By WanderingAround as a pillar of philosophy, as[Hewlett-Packard] does? It turns out thatthe informal control through regular,casual communication is actually muchtighter than rule by numbers, which canbe avoided or evaded . . . .

The nature and uses of communi-cation in the excellent companies are re-markably different from those of theirnonexcellent peers. The excellent com-panies are a vast network of informal,open communications. The patterns andintensity cultivate the right people’s get-ting into contact with each other, reg-ularly, and the chaotic/anarchic prop-erties of the system are kept well undercontrol simply because of the regularityof contact and its nature.

The constant communication and in-formation sharing serve as continuoussources of support and pressure amongpeers. As Peters and Waterman (1982,p. 240) observe, “Nothing is more enticingthan the feeling of being needed, which isthe magic that produces high expecta-tions. What’s more, if it’s your peers thathave those high expectations of you, thenthere’s all the more incentive to performwell.” Coupling the action focus with in-tense interaction and information sharingtends to produce positive change. In thefield of education, Huberman and Cran-dal l (1983) provide almost identical con-f i r m a t i o n i n t h e i r s u m m a r y o f t h eDissemination Efforts Supporting School

JANUARY 1985


Improvement (DESSI) study, which clearlyindicates how and why this process of pres-sure and support works to produce im-provements in schools.

Collaborative planning and implementa-tion. The question of collaboration be-tween leaders and implementers repre-sents another paradoxical area. There iscertainly clear evidence that change ef-forts initiated either centrally or exter-nally to the school can work well and mayindeed be essential in many situations ifanything is to happen (Eubanks & Levine1983; Huberman & Crandall 1983). Hub-erman and Crandall (1983) explain in somedetail that central office pressure along withhigh assistance is a powerful combination(whereas pressure without assistance is dis-astrous). On the other hand, several stud-ies have found that collegial decision mak-ing within the school is strongly related toimprovement (Berman & Gjelten 1982;Berman, Weiler, Czesak, Gjelten, & Izu1981; Cohen 1983; Eubanks & Levine1983; Little 1981; Purkey & Smith 1983).

I believe that the apparent contradic-tion can be explained in two ways. First,there is no contradiction. As stressed ear-lier, successful change processes combineelements that on the surface appear to becontradictory. In this case, central initia-tion and direction are coupled with decen-tralized (school-based) analysis and decisionmaking. For school-based improvement ef-forts to work, central office staff must takean active interest in them by providing di-rection, assistance, and prodding and byexpecting and asking for results. Eubanksand Levine (1983, p. 42, their emphasis)describe the combination.

Our examination of the effectiveschool approaches described in this pa-per indicates that they tend to includeboth a top-down and a bottom-up em-phasis in planning and implementation.

In each of the projects, for exam-ple, central management has delineatedsome of the elements that must be ad-dressed in individual school plans, has

acted (or tried to act) to make sure thatadequate assistance is provided for par-ticipating schools, has closely monitoredproject development in the schools, andhas been or is in the process of formu-lating plans to intervene at less success-ful sites.

On the other hand, each project alsoplaces heavy emphasis on planning andadaptation at the individual school level,on providing process assistance to sup-port bottom-up planning and decisionmaking, and on helping participatingschools address problems that are par-ticularly salient to them.

The second explanation is that for somechanges-namely, innovations that are welldeveloped, validated, s tructured, pro-grammatic, and focused-district decisionmaking combined with intense assistancethat promotes school implementation canand does work. There appears to be littleparticipation by school personnel in deci-sions. The success of the Direct Instruc-t ion Model of Follow Through is pat-terned on this approach (Gersten, Carnine,Zuref, & Cronin 1981) and Huberman andCrandall’s (1983, p.65) depiction of oneof the main routes to improvement thatthey found in the DESSI field study alsodescribes this process: "The central officeadministrator, who is usually responsiblefor curriculum and special projects, putspressure on users to adopt or develop thepractice. Such strong-arming can, andoften does, lower users’ initial commit-ment. When, however, substantial assis-tance is supplied, it tends both to increaseusers’ level of technical mastery and sub-sequently their commitment. . . . The gen-eral picture is one of administrative deci-siveness, accompanied by enough assistanceto increase user skill, ownership and stableuse."

Although such a process may be en-tirely appropriate for some changes, in myview it tends to be limited to already well-developed innovations that focus on class-room changes; it can result in major changein the classroom, and this is no small feat.


However, for schoolwide changes (e.g., al-tering the eight organization factors citedearlier), more top-down/bottom-up com-binations are required, and it is, of course,much more difficult because more funda-mental changes are being attempted.

To summarize, the model of successfulchange processes is one whereby the eightorganization factors, supported and fueledby the four process variables, produceschool improvement (see fig. 1).

Most of all, it is imperative to under-stand and appreciate the actual dynamicsof the change processes as they unfold.However change is initiated, once it be-gins, it involves anxiety and uncertainty forthose involved and (if successful) the de-velopment of new skills, cognitive under-standings, beliefs, and meanings. Whetherthe process is successful depends on cer-tain organizational conditions that supportand propel the process. Finally, leadersmust alternately and simultaneously bal-ance and contend with several dilemmas,paradoxes, and subtleties: simplicity-com-plexity, top-down/bottom-up, tightness-looseness, evaluation-nonevaluation, andcommonness-uniqueness of situations.

Strategies for school changeWhat should superintendents armed withthe knowledge and understanding of thematerial discussed up to this point do ifthey wish to bring about improvement atthe school level? Recall that this paper ad-dresses the question of strategies for localdistricts. Strategies for other roles (teach-ers, parents, principals, the state, etc.)should also be developed (see Fullan 1982).Of course there are some obvious impli-cations for some of these other roles in thispaper. I will discuss two options: aninnovation-focused strategy and a school-wide (or department-focused) strategy. Theinnovation strategy is presented in consid-erable detail because many of the specificideas are common to effective approachesin bringing about schoolwide change (al-

though the latter represents a much moreformidable task).

There is one central issue common tostrategies that warrants comment at theoutset. Strategies usually involve the de-velopment and implementation of plans(certainly the effective schools strategiesdo). We know very little about school-levelplan making and execution. As Good andBrophy (in press) point out, research doesnot indicate that more effective schoolshave more formal plans, but only that thereis a greater consensus among the staff thatstudents can learn. Starting with a formalplan may or may not be a good idea. More-over, there are good and bad plans andtoo much as well as too little planning(Good & Brophy, in press). We need re-search that describes individual schoolplans, considers criteria for evaluatingthem, and investigates how plans are de-veloped as well as the quality of their im-plementation. Again, existing researchdoes not tell us that the best way of trans-lating research findings on effective schoolsis through the development of formalplans. Nonetheless, strategies imply im-provement through deliberate means, andthis section attempts to make explicit thecomponents that effective plans should in-corporate.

In the concluding section of the paper,I will comment on possible differences be-tween elementary and secondary schoolsand between rural and urban communitiesand take up four difficult issues that arevexing in any strategy: what to do aboutvoluntary versus involuntary participation,small versus large-scale efforts (few schoolsversus many), fidelity versus adaptation (orhomogeneity versus variation in imple-mentation), and where to start, especiallyin relation to formal plans.

Innovat ion-focused s trategyIt is helpful to think of three broad

phases of the change process-initiation(including mobilization, adoption deci-sions, development), implementation (put-

JANUARY 1985


ting the change into practice), and insti-tutionalization (building in the innovation)

very important, especially if the plan rep-

(Berman 1981; Huberman & Crandallresents an approach to bringing about

1983). Continuous planning, action, andchange that is new to the district. The de-

reflection are required at all three phases.gree of collaboration in this level of plan-

The innovation-focused strategy is onening can differ. It is possible for a small

whereby the main approach to school im-group to develop a plan, provided that the

provement is through the identification,plan is not too complex at the outset and

adoption, or development of specificcan later be modified. Obtaining wider

proven or promising new programs. Al-representation can be helpful in develop-

though there is not one best way (largelying a more sound plan initially. One must

because each situation has its own historybe cautious, however, in enlarging the

and combination of factors), the followingplanning group; energy spent on elaborate

eight guidelines have some support in theplanning can be at the expense of energy

literature: (1) develop a plan, (2) clarify andspent on implementation. It is better to do

develop the role of central staff, (3) selecta small amount of preimplementing plan-

innovations and schools, (4) clarify and de-ning and a large amount of implementa-

velop the role of principals and the criteriat ion planning/support rather than vice

for school-based processes, (5) stress staffversa. And no matter how representative

development and technical assistance, (6)the planning group, any decisions they

ensure information gathering and use, (7)make will be external for the majority of

plan for continuation and spread, and (8)users. Finally, the specifics of any partic-

review capacity for future change.ular plan will differ from innovation to in-

Developing a plan. The most generalnovation, depending on the nature of the

advice is to develop a plan consistent withchange, the scale of its implementation, the

the knowledge of effective change pro-characteristics of the schools using it, and

cesses. This is not as vague as it sounds.so on. The underlying principles and guid-

First, it assumes that a plan should be de-ing actions, however, are common to most

veloped (although, as stated above, it is notsuccessful efforts. The superintendent and

at all clear at what stage the plan shouldother central office program leaders should

be formalized). Superintendents (or otherget in the habit of developing plans based

leaders), both individually and in collabo-on their experiences, knowledge of the sit-

ration with those around them, shoulduation, and research findings and should

think through and develop some proce-try out, reflect on, and modify the ap-

dures for change. There are reinforcingproaches. Deliberations on plans are nec-

checklists that can be used: How is each ofessary to ensure that the remaining seven

the eight organization factors being ad-guidelines are explicitly addressed.

dressed? The four process factors? Ap-Clarifying and developing the role of

proached from another angle, how doescentral staff. A second ongoing task relates

the plan systematically incorporate guide-to the need for the superintendent (or any

lines 2-8, which are discussed below?other program leader seeking improve-

There is an additional caution relativements) to clarify and develop the capacity

to the issue of formalization of plans: whenof central district staff to support innova-

one person or a small group develops ation development and implementation.

plan, it is only their plan; therefore, edu-Again, at the general level, this involves

cating and being educated by others whohelping them become aware of the re-

will be participating in the change processsearch on effective change processes and

is essential. Mechanisms for testing, get-supporting/pressuring staff to learn fur-

ting feedback, and altering the plan arether by doing. In the same way that theprincipal who interacts regularly with

4 0 6 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

teachers in relation to an innovation has astrong positive effect, the central districtleader who interacts regularly with districtstaff (and for that matter with principals)in relation to the innovation process im-proves their abilities as change facilitators.

The exact role of central office staffmembers differs from person to person or,sometimes, from innovation to innovation.The role of central office administratorsand staff has not been widely studied inrelation to implementation. Fortunately,Crandall et al. (1983) and Huberman andCrandall (1983) in their large-scale studyof the National Diffusion Network (NDN),Title IVC Adoption grants, and Title IVCDevelopment grants, traced and docu-mented the role of central staff and theireffects on change. Among the critical rolescentral staff play are scanners, adapters andadvocates of promising new practices, di-rect implementation assisters to teachers,teaming with facilitators external to thedistrict by providing implementation assis-tace after an external facilitator has con-ducted front-end training, and indirectroles such as the training of principals and/or resource teachers who provide directsupport to teachers. Crandall et al. (1983)found that central office administrators andstaff were primary initiators for identify-ing and advocating promising practices de-veloped outside the district and for pro-moting locally developed innovations.(Locally developed innovations, as theypoint out, were still external to most class-rooms using the innovations, since the lat-ter had been developed outside the schoolsof most teacher users.) And central staffwere critical for stimulating change at theschool level. (As indicated, this could rangefrom direct involvement with teachers toactive involvement with principals or otherinternal school facilitators.)

The message is clear. Central office ad-ministrators must be actively involved (di-rectly or indirectly) throughout the process,not just at the initial or final (evaluation)phases. The particular configuration of

central office staffing will vary, but Hub-erman and Crandall (1983) make six spe-cific suggestions derived from their re-search and insights.

First, invest selectively in preimple-mentation assistance. The biggest benefitappears to be materials rather than muchformal training at this stage.

Second, expect, but try to limit, changesin the innovation. If the innovation hasbeen well-developed and proven (e.g. ,NDN innovations), require more fidelity(faithful implementation) at the earlystages. These stages are always marked bydifficulties during which both assistance (tofacilitate mastery) and supervision (to keepusers on track) are necessary. Even with agood innovation and good support, therewill be major uncertainties at the initialstages of use. Huberman and Crandall alsonote that for local innovations that are stillbeing developed, the approach would bedifferent, and development (modifica-tions) during implementation would be en-couraged.

Third, keep central office administra-tors involved. Central office administra-tors deliver critical follow-up support andappear to keep principals busier minister-ing to the projects than would have hap-pened otherwise. Huberman and Crandall(1983, p. 55) suggest, “One could imagine,for instance, the benefits of providing aspecial mini-course on administrative fea-tures of the innovation and what it meansfor administrative support during imple-mentation.”

Fourth, invest more in later commit-ment of users rather than earlier commit-ment. People become committed as a re-sult of involvement more than as a preludeto it. Commitment comes from technicalmastery that occurs during implementa-tion. Central office administrators shouldtry to develop assistance and sharing dur-ing this period.

Fifth, specialize external facilitators.Some external developers, or consultants,are needed as initial trainers. Some facil-

JANUARY 1985


itators work better with teachers; somewith local facilitators or school adminis-trators.

Sixth, invest in local facilitators.Whether in the form of central office con-sultants, project directors, part-time re-source teachers at the school level, or acombination, local facilitators are criticalfor implementation. Huberman and Cran-dall found that implementation was fargreater in situations that involved externaland internal facilitators than in situationsin which only an external facilitator wasinvolved.

In short, work needs to be done on de-veloping the capacity of central office staffto fulfill and balance the initiating and as-sistance roles in implementing innova-tions.

Selecting innovations and schools.Three suggestions can be made pertainingto initial decisions, availability of neededinnovations, and school readiness.

In the initial choice of innovations, aschool district can take two different ori-entations, which can be labeled “relativelyschool-initiated” versus “relatively dis-trict-initiated.” The former approach in-volves district support of schools as theyconsider and make decisions about whichinnovations to adopt. In the latter, the cen-tral office staff is more active in proposingand deciding on innovations with varyingdegrees of agreement from the school.Note that districts can use both orienta-tions at once (i.e., encouraging and sup-porting individual schools to decide on in-novations, while touting and mandatingparticular ones from time to time) and that,although initial decision making may dif-fer, central office staff can play a majorrole in both cases. For example, in theschool-initiated change, central staff arecritical for making schools aware of po-tential innovations and for seeing to it (di-rectly or indirectly) that implementationassistance is available.

Second, a system should be developedfor scanning environments external and

internal to the district for potential inno-vations that meet a need in the district. Onthe one hand, this consists of searching forpromising new practices through the NDNnetwork, information-retrieval systems,various awareness conferences, and soforth, and generally looking for opportun-ities for identifying and introducingworthwhile changes, or for bringing themto people’s attention for possible adoption.On the other hand, it involves looking forinterest in and funding for the develop-ment of new practices internal to the dis-trict. In either case, the focus would be onquestions of need; clarity, availability, andquality of materials; and provisions for fol-low-up assistance (Huberman & Crandall1983). For externally adopted innovations,the emphasis would be on helping to getthe program into place (with or withoutadaptation). For internally generated pro-grams the first concern would be to pro-vide support for developing the program (interms of materials, provisions for followup, etc.). A secondary concern, the spreadof the innovation within the district, is es-sentially the same as for externally devel-oped changes (i.e., it would be external forall those users who were not involved inits development).

The third strategic matter relates to se-lecting schools on school readiness. Thiscan be pursued in different ways. Schoolscan be encouraged to select/develop theirown innovations; others can be invited toadopt a given innovation; they can be ad-vised that they should adopt a particularchange; or they can be mandated to par-ticipate. All other things being equal, vol-untary participation is obviously best. Butinitial indifference or even opposition canbe turned around if the innovation has highquality, meets a need (once tried), and usersare given helpful, ongoing assistance dur-ing the early stages of implementation(more about voluntary/involuntary partic-ipation later).

Principals and other school-based cri-teria. The single most important message


here is that superintendents must invest inthe instructional/change managementleadership role of the school principal.There has been an explosion of researchin the past 5 years on the role of the prin-cipal in school improvement (for summar-ies, see Berman & Gjelten [1982]; Bossert,Dwyer, Rowan & Lee [1982]; Crandall etal. [1983]; Dwyer et al. [1983]; Hall, Hord,Huling, Rutherford, & Stiegelbauer[ 1983]; Leithwood & Montgomery [1982];Mulhauser [1983]). This research is nowbeing followed by the rapid developmentof in-service training programs for prin-cipals (see Leithwood, Stanley, & Mont-gomery 1983; National Institute of Edu-cation 1982).

Approaches for strengthening the roleof the principal must be pursued at twolevels: specific (innovation-focused) andgeneral (ongoing mid- and long-term de-velopment). I have already discussed sev-eral aspects of the specific role. Principalsare very influential when they voice anddemonstrate commitment to an adoptedinnovation and follow through by seeingthat ongoing assistance, interaction, and soforth occur within the school. Sometimesprincipals assist directly; in other situationsthey actively facilitate assistance by others;in still other situations principals respondsupportively to the activities of teachers orother facilitators. Just as ongoing assis-tance to teachers is crucial, so is ongoingassistance to principals: interaction be-tween supervisors and principals, peersharing among principals, receiving ideas,trying them out, discussing them, takingmore action, and so forth.

The general strategy is directed to in-creasing on an incremental, ongoing basis,the capacity of school principals in the dis-trict as school improvement leaders. Foursuggestions can be made.

The f i rs t suggest ion concerns in-service education. The attention here isdevoted to increasing the capacity of ex-isting principals. In addition to encour-aging continuous professional develop-

ment in a variety of ways (e.g., supportingand encouraging principals as individualsto participate in leadership courses andworkshops), I believe that more direct stepsshould be taken. For example, conduct amini-course for principals (or subgroups)directly on the role(s) of the principal, fo-cusing on the types of administrative ac-tions that should be taken to support im-p l e m e n t a t i o n . T h e k n o w l e d g e a n dtechnology, as stated, are available for sucha course. Follow-through assistance forprincipals is essential. This training shouldprovide the opportunity to apply the ideasto the planning of a specific innovation andshould involve coaching for principals andpeer interaction.

The second concerns strengtheningpotential leaders. At the same time, dis-tricts should pay attention to identifyingand developing the talents of assistantprincipals, vice-principals, departmentheads, resource teachers, and so forth, asschool improvement leaders. This shouldbe done through formal means (mini-courses) and informal means (interaction,apprenticeship, etc.). Doing this serves thedouble purpose of improving the skills ofleadership staff in their current roles, aswell as developing a talent pool for futureprincipals.

The third relates to selection proce-dures for principals. Historically, and byand large currently, principals are not se-lected on the basis of their skills as instruc-tional improvement leaders (for one of thefew studies on this topic, see Baltzell &Dentler [1983a, 1983b] . Now that we pos-sess increasingly specific knowledge, schooldistricts should develop procedures andcriteria for selection of principals (and forthat matter, vice-principals and depart-ment heads) that are based on demon-strated interest and basic skills in leading/supporting school improvement efforts.

The final suggestion concerns transfer-ring, circumventing, and getting rid of in-effective principals. Although disticts arebest advised to concentrate on the pre-

JANUARY 1985


vious three strategies, it will also be nec-essary from time to time to figure out waysof moving principals who are not perform-ing capably to other schools (where a freshor more compatible start may be possible),transferring certain principals to nonprin-cipal positions, arranging for early retire-ments, and looking for alternative leaders(to the principal) for specific innovations(such as assistant principals, project direc-tors, resource teachers). Sometimes it maybe best to wait until a principal retires,making the best of the situation in themeantime. This is a very sensitive area, andschool districts contend with it one way oranother all the time. My own assumptionis that by putting into place the variousother approaches listed in the precedingsection, more and more principals will be-come effective change leaders (or put an-other way, it will be increasingly uncom-fortable for the few who are not).

To turn to the principal’s role withinthe school, I should like to stress otherschool-based criteria mentioned earlier. Itis the principal’s role to help create theclimate (collegiality, communication, trust)and mechanisms (time and opportunity, in-teraction, technical sharing and assistance,ongoing staff development) for supportingthe implementation of innovations. Thiswill form part of the in-service educationfor principals that is directed at helpingthem to establish with teachers the nec-essary organizational conditions for imple-mentation that have been described in thispaper.

In speaking of school-based criteria, Ihave said nothing about parents. The mes-sages of research on the apppropriate roleof parents in innovation are not clear.There is some evidence that involving par-ents in instruction (in the classroom as aidesand/or in home tutoring programs) at theelementary level has a positive effect onlearning (Fullan 1982) and there are somehorror stories of what happens if the com-munity is ignored when major innovationsare introduced (e.g., Gold & Miles 1981).

On the other hand, the DESSI study foundmany examples of major change in theclassroom where parents and the com-munity apparently played little or no role.The best advice for elementary schoolsseems to be that, at a minimum, they shouldbe wary that parents and the communityare not opposed to an innovation. At amaximum, they should involve parents inplanning and in instructionally supportiveroles in relation to an innovation.

Finally, I have said nothing about thedifferences between elementary and sec-ondary school principals. Most of the in-novation-focused research has been on el-ementary school principals, so there arelimitations to our knowledge. Some studieshave found that many of the issues in sec-ondary schools will be comparable (seeLeithwood & Stanley 1983). The main dif-ferences are likely to involve workingthrough and with vice-principals and de-partment heads, instead of more directlywith teachers, and working with propor-tionately smaller sections of the school atany one time (Farrar, Neufeld, & Miles1983).

Staff development and technical assis-tance. Staff development and assistancehave been stressed at several points, so thatI need only summarize the advice.

First, understand how the process oflearning to implement an innovation ac-tually works (e.g., the four case examplesin the first section). Remember that learn-ing to be proficient at something new in-volves initial anxiety, a variety of assis-tance, small experiences of success,incremental skill development, and even-tually conceptual clarity and ownership.

Second, invest selectively in front-endtraining good demonstrations, materials,awareness but not heavily in training (itis when people try out something that spe-cific training makes more sense).

Third, use as much assistance as pos-sible during the early stages (e.g., the firstseveral months, or the first school year).Use a variety of formats workshops, one-


to-one, sharing among users, meetings, vis-its, help from peers, administrators, dis-trict resource staff. Both event training(workshops, meetings) and ongoing assis-tance (one-to-one sharing, interaction withothers on a daily basis) are needed. Lookfor ways of finding small amounts of timeto foster interaction, whether formally orinformally (see Huberman & Crandall1983; Louis & Rosenblum 1981).

Fourth and finally, clarify and providetraining for assisters concerning who doeswhat at which stages among external con-sultants, district office resource staff, theprincipal, project directors, school re-source staff, peers. Different patterns canwork, provided that all phases of the pro-cess are attended to (front-end, early im-plementation, later implementation or in-stitutionalization) and that there is clarityas to who is responsible for different func-tions.

As Huberman and Crandall (1983,pp. 76, 51) emphasize, “Innovations en-tailing significant practice change live anddie by the amount of assistance they re-ceive. . . . Providing aid does not meanmobilizing or bankrolling large armies ofexternal consultants; most can be done lo-cally, and a little [regular contact] goes along way. Simply arranging for teachersnext door to one another to meet period-ically pays handsome rewards.” Smallamounts of release time combined withother ways of finding time through sched-uling can have a powerful influence, pro-vided that other critical factors in the changeprocess are in place.

Ensuring information gathering. Thereare three strategic tasks to be addressedrelative to information gathering: the typesof information to be collected, the degreeof formality/informality of data collec-tion, and the use of information. Good us-able information during the process ofchange obviously supports problem solv-ing and learning to use innovations moreeffectively. The first aspect the what ofinformation refers to three types of in-

formation: (1) What is the state of imple-mentation in the classroom? (Does class-room practice reflect the innovation?); (2)What factors are affecting implementa-tion? (What are the obstacles and facilita-tors to change in classroom practice, e.g.,role of the principal, assistants, etc.?); and(3) What are the outcomes? (e.g., studentlearning, skills and attitudes of teachers).

One type of information will be verylimiting without some knowledge of theother two types. Information on all threefacilitates more specific planning and as-sistance.

The degree of formality/informalityrelates to how to gather information. For-mal methods involve surveys, interviews,observation, testing, and the like; informalmethods consist largely of continuous in-teraction among peers, between peers andadministrators, and other facilitators. Bothformal and informal methods are used inmost school districts. It is a matter of rel-ative emphasis-a question that can be par-tially clarified by turning to the third task.

Unless formal information is linked ex-plicitly to a procedure for acting on it, itwill likely do more harm than good. Halland Loucks (1977) have developed a pro-cedure that has met with considerable suc-cess. It primarily involves collecting infor-mation on levels of implementation,concerns of teachers, and so forth, and usesthe information for such tasks as planningand carrying out more focused staff de-velopment, identifying specific leadershipactivities for principals, and so on (for oneapplication involving Hall’s procedure seethe summary of Jefferson County in Fullan[1982, pp. 170-172]. Others who studyinformation use in school districts alsostress the importance of linking informa-tion to instructional management strate-gies for using it (Bank 1981; Kennedy,Apling, & Neumann 1980).

Perhaps the most insightful and fun-damental point, however, is one Peters andWaterman (1982) stress. Increasing theamount and variety of informal commu-

JANUARY 1985


nication and interaction serves as a pow-erful, information-based system of influ-ence. Most of the previous tasks doprecisely that; the role of central office staffvis-a`-vis schools, the role of principals, thenature of staff development and assistanceall function to increase the flow, variety,and intensity of interaction and informa-tion. Stated another way, an effective in-formal communication system serves aformative evaluative purpose by influenc-ing action, without which even the mostsystematic formal data-gathering proce-dures are next to useless.

Planning for continuation and spread.Successful implementation attainingstrong technical mastery of and commit-ment to a new practice-is not the end ofthe story. In the absence of deliberatemeasures to build in the continuation ofthe innovation, the natural forces of at-trition will result in its disappearance (seeMiles 1983). Of course, it may be desirableto replace an implemented practice with abetter one through deliberate decisions,but the point here is that good, imple-mented innovations should not disappearby accident or neglect . Huberman andCrandall (1983) report from their studythat accomplishing technical mastery ofcomplex changes took some 18 months.What happened after that period was crit-ical to the future of the innovation in theschool. They observe, “New practices thatget built in to the training, regulatory, staff-ing and budgetary cycle survive; othersdon’t” (p. 70).

The advice, then, is to have plans totrain and assist new teachers as they areappointed, incorporate the new practiceinto formal curriculum plans and job de-scriptions, and allocate regular budget lineitems for materials to ensure that re-sources continue to be available, and aboveall, when replacing people in leadershiproies (principals, project directors, re-source teachers), be clear about expecta-tions and provide orientation and assis-tance to new leaders (see Miles 1983).

Within the school, the principal can per-form or oversee the steps necessary forsupporting continuation, while the centraloffice staff can perform the same roles inrelation to schools.

A second extremely important aspectof durability in the district (and importantin its own right) that starts long before theinstitutionalization phase concerns the re-lation between initial users and other po-tential users in the district. District staffwould be well advised to consider this mat-ter from the outset and to attend to it fromtime to time during the process. First, itmay be that the district strategy is to stressindividual school autonomy. In this case,there would be more concern that eachschool is deciding on appropriate innova-tions for itself than about whether eachschool is adopting the same innovation (thedissemination or spread of particular in-novations across schools would be encour-aged but not insisted upon). Second, dis-tricts may involve all eligible schools/usersfrom the outset, although this is unlikelyif a large number of schools are involved(it would not be feasible to provide ade-quate assistance of the type described ear-lier).

In any case, let us assume that the de-cision is to start with a smaller number ofschools that represent a portion of eligibleusers, and the longer-term desire is to seethe innovation spread. There are two stra-tegic questions to address: what to do dur-ing the first phase, and what to do in mov-ing from the first to the second phase. Asto the first phase, there is very little if anyresearch on the relation between first usersand nonusers during the process. How-ever, it is probably undesirable to ignorealtogether eligible nonusers. For example,if the first group comes to be seen or seesitself as an elite group of progressive in-novators, it is bound to create resentmentand barriers to spreading the innovation.Therefore, it seems wise to establish someinformal lines of communication betweenusers and nonusers to allow the latter to


become at least somewhat familiar with thechange. This no doubt represents a di-lemma since familiarity may result in de-mands to use the innovation before thedistrict is capable of supporting use.

Concerning the second phase thespread from first- to second-generationusers there is at least one advantage andone disadvantage. The advantage is thatthe results of the first cycle can be used asan infrastructure for dissemination; that is,materials, training, procedures, and per-sonnel skilled in the new practice shouldbe used to provide the assistance and ad-ministrative pressure/support for new im-plementers. Assuming implementation andattainments have been successful in the firstphase, new users will likely be influencedpositively by concrete examples, demon-st ra t ions , and endorsements by otherteachers. Further, as Huberman and Cran-dal l (1983) note, if procedures for insti-tutionalization have been attended to, themeans of extending the practice will bebuilt in. The disadvantage is that first usersoften have a pioneer status that is self-mo-tivating and that by definition is not avail-able to later users. However, this may bemore than counterbalanced by the refine-ment in practices, materials, and supportthat can facilitate commitment throughquicker technical mastery and correspond-ing goal achievement for later implemen-ters.

Reviewing capacity for future change.The ultimate goal of innovation strategiespresumably is not merely to implement aninnovation but rather to increase the ca-pacity of the district to identify, consider,implement, and institutionalize any num-ber of appropriate innovations. I recom-mend, therefore, that from time to timeand certainly at the end of any cycle andthe beginning of another one, districtsconsider questions such as, How good arewe at implementing innovations that bringabout improvements? and, Are we gettingbetter at it?

In a sense, these questions represent ageneric assessment of the basic factors con-sidered in this paper: Are we making prog-ress on the eight organization and fourprocess factors discussed earlier in this sec-tion? Have we increased our capacity tocarry out the previous seven tasks listedhere? Successful efforts should improveparticipants’ skills and attitudes. Huber-man and Crandall (1983) refer to severaltypes of capacity change. Most of their ex-amples relate to changes in pedagogicalskills; in addition, there may be positivegains in “change process capacity,” suchas attitudes and skills involving collabo-ration among teachers, principal-teacherrelationships, and leadership skills of dis-trict or building staff. Districts should bearthese more general goals in mind from theoutset, monitor them periodically, andcarefully take stock at the end of majorcycles. After all, it is conceivable that adistrict could put tremendous effort into aparticular program and be highly success-ful at implementing it but that the effortcould demand so much from personnel thatthey do not want to try another innovationfor a long time. Change involves pressure,assistance, and skills, but people must feelgood about their relationships, sense ofcommunity, and sense of progress that re-sult from their efforts.

Schoolwide strategyThe schoolwide strategy is presented in

much less detail for two reasons: (1) manyof the underlying principles and strategicemphases are the same as those for theinnovation-focused approach, and (2) thereis not nearly as much research available onimplementation processes within schools.The essential difference compared withinnovation-based strategies is that theschoolwide strategy takes a more compre-hensive approach. Instead of implement-ing a given innovation in a few classrooms,the schoolwide strategy engages the wholeschool or major subsections of it and at-tempts directly to alter some of the orga-

JANUARY 1985


nizational and process factors indicated infigure 1 as well as to focus on instructionalimprovements. More precisely, it attemptsto change certain organizational condi-tions as a means to instructional improve-ment. Note, however, that compared withthe previous set of strategies, the school-wide strategy contends more explicitly withinnovation of the school, not just innova-tion in the school. As such, it is much moredifficult and time consuming. Fullan, Miles,and Taylor (1980), in a review of Orga-nization Development (OD) programs, es-timate that it takes at least 5 years to es-tablish an effective OD program (even ifeverything is done right). Joyce, Hersh, andMcKibbin (1983) propose a multiyear,three-stage process refinement, renova-tion, and redesign for bringing aboutschoolwide improvement. In some re-spects the strategy can be made more man-ageable by starting with one or two majorgoals and/or with subsections of the schooland expanding gradually.

The main elements of the schoolwidestrategy can be outlined by referring totwo types of effective schools programs thathave met with some success California’sSchool Improvement Program (SIP) (Ber-man et al. 1981; Berman & Gjelten 1982)and some second-generation effectiveschools projects (based on effective schoolsresearch) in four major cities (reviewed byEubanks & Levine 1983; also see Clark &McCarthy 1983).

Berman et al.'s (198 1) evaluation of SIPhas not yet been completed. Their prelim-inary findings indicate some of the ele-ments of success. Berman and Gjelten(1982, p. ii) describe the purpose of SIP:“The program is aimed at improving thequality of instruction for a wide variety ofstudent outcomes. . . . SIP requires a broad-based participatory planning process inwhich school staff and parents (and stu-dents in secondary schools) regularly re-view their school’s instructional programs,design and implement improvements, ev-alute the results, and replan accordingly.

To implement SIP, the Department of Ed-ucation has devised a mix of incentives,guidelines, and assistance, together with acombination of regulation and programreviews, all designed to promote local re-sponsibility.”

Some of the noteworthy features of theapproach are as follows: schools receivefunding directly (i.e., not through districtoffices), which provides substantial discre-tionary funds solely for SIP work; parentsare involved in program planning; theschool plan is directed at schoolwide co-ordination, not to single innovations; thecontent of school program decisions is notprespecified but is left up to the school;the state trains and uses peer reviewers toprovide formative feedback to schools ontheir plans.

Berman and his colleagues identifiedthree types of improvement that occurred:student-centered (i.e., instruction), orga-nization-centered (climate, resources, etc.),and community relations. In a sample of48 schools, using field workers’ assess-ments, Berman and Gjelten (1982) foundthat a little over one-half of the schoolshad “improved” (45%) or “improvedgreatly” (7%) over a 5-year period. Ber-man and Gjelten (1982, p. 27) describe the“ideal” approach that many of the suc-cessful schools attempted to approximate:“A SIP school (a) develops a plan that aimsto make gains in curriculum or instruction;(b) continuously evaluates the plan and im-proves it as needed; (c) engages in a broaderschoolwide planning process; (d) estab-lishes a school-site council (SSC) that de-cides on central issues in the school; (e) in-volves parents actively in SSC; and (f)supports staff development activities.”

In searching for explanations that dif-ferentiated successful from nonsuccessfulsites, Berman et al. (1981) tentatively iden-tify four factors. Although these factorsbeg other questions, they are helpful inpointing to areas of investigation. Specif-ically, they found that successful schoolshad active school-site councils, SIP was


central to the school’s program (as distinctfrom “just another project”), the SIP planwas actually implemented, and the schoolsvolunteered rather than were mandated.There are hints about other factors re-lated to success, including active interestand performance of the principal at theelementary level, staff development andschool climate, and difficulties of bringingabout change at the secondary level. Al-though many of Berman et al.’s findingsare congruent with those in the previoussection, we do not know how to implementthem. Further, SIP schools received sub-stantial additional funds beyond their reg-ular budgets.

The second-generation effective schoolsprojects provide more direct and specificguidance for school improvement (but stilldo not give details on implementation pro-cesses). The New York City School Im-provement Project has eight phases: “(1)program introduction, including selectionof schools and accommodation of the li-aison [each school has a liaison facilitator]into the school community; (2) a needs as-sessment conducted by the liaison; (3) for-mation of a school planning committee; (4)development of a school improvement planbased on the five school effectiveness fac-tors [strong administrative leadership, highexpectations for children, etc.]; (5) plan re-view and approval; (6) implementation ofthe plan; (7) plan evaluation and revision;and (8) maintenance, during which imple-mentation, evaluation and revision pro-cesses become cyclical” (Clark & McCarthy1983, p. 18).

Clark and McCarthy report that planswere implemented in those schools wherethe principal was actively involved, thatvoluntary participation by the principal andstaff was a significant variable, and that theliaison role is a complex one in providingassistance while avoiding overdependence.

Eubanks and Levine (1983) report onsimilar effective schools projects in four ci-ties: Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, andNew York. Their descriptions give more

mention of the assistance activities (mate-rials, in-service, follow up) and monitoringactivities (review of plans, informationgathering) conducted to combine supportand pressure toward better implementa-tion.

Given the attractiveness of effectiveschools projects and the lack of detail onprocess, what response should be made tothe local decision maker seeking advice?The first piece of advice is a caution. Noth-ing would be worse than establishing agrand scheme putting all schools in the dis-trict through the paces of developing ef-fective schools plans. The best strategiescome from combining the insights of theinnovation-focused and effective schoolsresearch. The precise plan and range offactors addressed will vary according to theneeds, interests, and conditions within adistrict. The following list of guidelinessuggests some factors that must be at-tended to. Note that it is not far removedfrom the innovation-oriented list pre-sented earlier, except that the initial focusis on the school, not on an innovation; forthat reason we should expect that moreeffort and time will be required.

1. Develop a plan. The school effec-tiveness approach views the school as theunit of change. The overall plan shouldconsider how the main organization andprocess factors will be addressed. Cohen(1983) divides the factors into three lev-els, classroom, managerial, and sharedvalues. The point is to have an overridingframework of criteria. It may be advisableto have the plan evolve through interac-tion with those participating, rather thanstarting with a formal plan.

2. Invest in local facilitators. As withinnovations, and as with the successful ef-fective schools projects, each school mustbe assisted by someone trained in sup-porting the endeavor. In the case of effec-tive schools, the assistance is directedtoward facilitating and prodding the pro-cess.

JANUARY 1985


3. Allocate resources (money and time).Because effective schools projects attemptmore, they require more resources. Thereviewed projects allocated additionalfunds to schools for materials, technical as-sistance, and release time for training andplanning. It is important to note that it isnot the availability of resources per se thatcounts but rather their interaction withother factors on the list. But extra re-sources and time are required for teachersand others to observe, share, plan, act, andevaluate.

4. Select schools and decide on scope ofprojects. There is some argument aboutwhether voluntary or mandated ap-proaches should be used. If the programis a good one and reasonably well sup-ported, there should be enough voluntaryparticipating schools in most districts (evenso-called voluntary programs are, strictlyspeaking, not all that voluntary when thesuperintendent touts them). Mandated ap-proaches, as in the innovation example, canwork if the school plan is well imple-mented. This means that fewer schools canbe worked with at one time because im-plementing a plan in an initial nonvolun-tary situation requires more intense assis-tance and follow-up. Note also that initialmandates can and should be followed byparticipation at the school level in deci-sions about the nature of the school plan.People develop competence and commit-ment during implementation (see Miles,Farrar, & Neufeld [1983] for further evi-dence on voluntary and mandated pro-grams). Scope concerns the number ofschools and the proportion of personnel inany given school in the program. In rela-tively voluntary situations, it is possible towork effectively with 15-20 schools at atime (Eubanks & Levine 1983). Related tothe matter of number of schools is thequestion of how comprehensive and fun-damental the reform should be within aschool. Eubanks and Levine recommendthat, unless one is working with only oneor two schools, manageable changes be at-

tempted (what they label “incremental,multischool reform”). In practical termsthis means concentrating initially on oneor two instructional areas (e.g., reading,math at the elementary level, or workingwith departments or other subsections ofthe school at the secondary level) andspreading outward gradually. To say thatonly a small number of instructional areasshould be addressed is no small matter, be-cause whatever the focus, the various or-ganizational conditions supporting imple-mentation must also be explicitly taken intoaccount.

5. Concentrate on developing the prin-cipal’s leadership role. The same sugges-tions as in the innovation-focused strategyapply here, except that the focus of lead-ership training is on developing schoolplans. Training and follow-up supportgeared specifically to managing/leadingthe particular school improvement planwould be required.

6. Focus on instruction and the link toorganization conditions. To start with aqualification, it is possible that certain non-instructional goals might be entirely ap-propriate (e.g., community relations, cli-mate, attendance, etc.). The recommendedsuggestion to focus on instruction is tohighlight the central function of schoolsand to take advantage of our recent knowl-edge about how to bring about instruc-tional improvements. In the effectiveschools research critiqued earlier, it wasnoted that the link between schoolwidefactors and individual classroom changewas obscure. Thus, effective schools strat-egies should focus on classroom instruc-tional change. There are several good ex-amples of instructional improvementideas Stallings’s (1981) case described inthe first section, Brophy’s (1983) review ofeffective classrooms, and Huberman andCrandall’s (1983) selection or develop-ment of appropriate innovations. In otherwords, the effective school plan will incor-porate and make explicit the relationshipbetween instructional improvements at the


classroom level and corresponding orga-nizational and value or normative changes,using methods (such as survey feedback)derived from OD (Fullan et al. 1980; seeCohen [ 1983] for a discussion of the threelevels of classroom, managerial, and valuechanges). The one additional recommen-dation is to broaden the interest in instruc-tional goals to include higher-order cog-nitive and self- and social-developmentgoals .

7. Stress ongoing staff development andassistance. The sine qua non role of staffdevelopment has been described in theprevious strategy. The same ideas applyhere in the service of front-end and initialimplementation assistance in developingand implementing school plans. The assis-tance is of two types: (1) assistance in plandevelopment and implementation (or, ifyou like, help in the process of improve-ment), and (2) technical assistance at thelevel of the classroom in implementing se-lected instructional improvements.

8. Ensure information gathering anduse. Again, the idea is similar to the sug-gestions under the innovation strategy. Asystem for information gathering would beestablished relative to the nature of schoolplans and to their implementation (i.e.,their degree of implementation, obstaclesencountered, and outcomes). The tensionand balance between formal and informalsystems of information would be consid-ered. The use of information during thefirst phases of planning and implementa-tion should focus on school-level planning.

9. Plan for continuation and spread.Identical ideas apply to this aspect of con-solidating school improvement as to an in-novation, except that the school effective-n e s s p l a n i s t h e i n n o v a t i o n t o b einstitutionalized. The spread of school-wide planning to other schools can also fol-low essentially the same principles de-scribed in the earlier section with onemajor qualification; planning for the spreadof schoolwide projects is exceedingly morecomplicated than planning for the spread

of a single innovation; most effectiveschools programs underestimate the diffi-culties of dissemination.

10. Review capacity for future change.At the end of a school-plan cycle (presum-ably directed at some significant area ofinstructional improvement) the districtshould assist or support the school in re-viewing its experience. This represents ageneral evaluation of whether the expe-rience has been positive, whether it hasincreased the school’s capacity to conductschool-based planning and implementa-tion, and what should be modified for thenext cycle. Furthermore, the goal of ca-pacity building should be explicitly rec-ognized at the beginning of any cycle as afundamental mid-term and long-termpriority.

Summary. Schoolwide strategies areusually more comprehensive than specificinnovation strategies, with the school-basedplan and its implementation being the in-novation. The 10 guidelines outlined abovedo not represent the single best way of im-plementing schoolwide changes. A per-fectly acceptable and more streamlined ap-proach may be to take a well worked outeffective schools project that already exists(e.g., Eubanks & Levine 1983) and adaptit. However, because of the lack of atten-tion to and/or information on the pro-cesses involved and because schoolwidechange processes are subtle and complex,the single most important additional rec-ommendation is to apply the 10 guidelines(or some similar version of organizationand process factors) as a checklist to ensurethat the basic details of effective changeprocesses are considered.

ConclusionI should like to close with a few importantthemes and loose ends: strengths and lim-itations of the two strategies; context dif-ferences with respect to elementary andsecondary schools and rural and urbanschools; problematic dilemmas pertainingto voluntary/involuntary, small-scale/

JANUARY 1985


large-scale, fidelity/variation orientationsto change and the perplexing question ofwhere to start.

The advantages of the innovation-fo-cused strategy are that it is very specific,there are many well-developed and vali-dated innovations available, and we knowa great deal about how to go about it. Ifwell implemented, this strategy accom-plishes significant change in the classroom,with positive outcomes for students andteachers. It is cost-effective in that smallamounts of additional funds used to fosterregular interaction go a long way. Its maindisadvantages are that in most cases thestrategy ends up being narrow (piecemeal).Thus, it usually lacks perspective in as-sessing the overall goals of the school.

The schoolwide strategy has the ad-vantage of considering the school as a unit,although in many circumstances it too hasaddressed limited goals. It addresses di-rectly the school-level organizational andprocess factors that form the foundationfor effective change processes. It engagesthe whole school or large parts of it in acollective effort of school improvement. Itsdisadvantages are that it is more costly, wehave less knowledge on exactly how tomake it work in the classroom, and thereis more danger that school planning willbecome a ritualistic exercise that does notproduce worthwhile plans and/or plansthat are effectively implemented. In short,it could become a bandwagon, with the la-bels, trappings, and formal elements of ef-fective schools projects being adopted, butnot understood or implemented with anymeaning or substance. Nonetheless, thereare several examples of successful projects,and the best advice is to realize the atten-tion to implementation detail that is re-quired.

Earlier I referred to elementary/sec-ondary comparisons. We do not knowenough about these differences, becausethere have not been many attempts to re-form secondary schools. Studies that haveconsidered the differences suggest that

secondary schools are less likely to change(e.g., Berman & Gjelten 1982). On theother hand, Stallings (1981) was successfulin bringing about classroom change, andFarrar et al. (1983) make a number of sen-sible recommendations that are congruentwith knowledge of the change process:clarify and work on specific goals, workwith departments or other subunits, focuson curriculum and the classroom (some-thing that has been neglected), use facultytask forces, specify front-end and ongoingtraining, and establish more opportunitiesfor program developers and users to shareand collaborate. I might add the need todevelop in-service programs for secondaryschool principals, vice-principals, and de-partment heads relative to their roles inthe improvement process.

I have not carried out a literature searchon possible strategy differences betweenrural and urban communities, so I will onlyemphasize the need to examine this issue.Huberman and Crandall (1983) suggestthat rural districts need more help in find-ing out about available innovations, andmore assistance in front-end training be-cause they do not have the district staff oraccess to information that urban districtsdo. One would expect also that differentapproaches to the community would beneeded. There is some evidence that oncea process is initiated, rural schools are eas-ier to work with because they are smallerand more conducive to establishing thekinds of staff interaction necessary for suc-cess (Huberman & Crandall 1983).

I have alluded to four problematic di-lemmas throughout the paper. First, whatshould be done about voluntary versus in-voluntary participation? My response hasbeen manifold: go with volunteers, be-cause there are usually enough; in invitingvolunteers make it clear that participationby all is eventually expected; make the in-vitation as attractive as possible by stress-ing the resources for assistance and col-laboration among users; mandate someinvolvement if you will, but realize that


more intensive assistance and direction willbe required; use peers to influence otherpeers (within schools and across schools);use school leadership as a leverage forchange (through in-service, selection cri-teria, transfers, etc.).

Second, should one use small-scale orlarge scale approaches? Again there is noclear answer. In fact, there are two aspectsof scale-the sheer numbers (of teachers,schools, etc.) and the magnitude or degreeof significance or complexity that thechange represents individual users. Mypreference is to go with changes of signif-icant complexity but to do it through in-cremental development, starting with asmall number of schools and spreadingoutward.

Third, what about fidelity versus vari-ation? Huberman and Crandall’s (1983)recommendation is that, when workingwith a validated innovation, one shouldemphasize faithful implementation at theinitial stages because most users will re-duce the degree of change. Variation andfurther developments can be accommo-dated at later stages. On the other hand,if one is not working with well-proven in-novations (or effective schools projects), orif one is deliberately emphasizing schoolautonomy, variation at the outset shouldbe fostered because this is tantamount todeveloping the innovation through use (seeBerman 1980).

Fourth, the question of where to startis crucial, but the answer is by no meansclear. Research reviewed in this paper fre-quently advocates the development of aschool plan in order to achieve consensus,focus, and a sense of direction. But we donot know whether the early developmentof a formal plan is a better method forachieving consensus compared, for ex-ample, with more informal activities de-signed to promote observation of otherteachers’ work, interaction, and dialoguefor some time prior to the formulation ofany plan (Good & Brophy, in press). Re-ferring to the discussion of “leadership feel

for the process,” the effective superin-tendent looks for a number of leveragepoints, depending on the conditions, andemploys several simultaneously workingwith principals, professional developmentof teachers, figuring out ways of maximiz-ing interaction, creating commitment inshort, establishing a number of footholds,promoting them incrementally in mutuallyreinforcing ways in an attempt to generateschool improvement. The advice is to startsmall and expand as one gets better at thechange process through experience in aparticular setting. The guidelines in thispaper present clear directions and sugges-tions, but the process is fraught with di-lemmas and subtleties.

To summarize, our knowledge of schoolimprovement and implementation is be-coming increasingly sophisticated. Thespecific strategies that work are eminentlysensible. Putting them together in a par-ticular setting o n an ongoing basis is dif-ficult and requires leadership with both acommitment to and skills in the changeprocess. In some situations of high conflictand internal or external crises (sometimescalled turbulent environments), it will notbe possible to bring about any of the im-provements described in this paper, untilthe issues of conflict are addressed or sub-side. Timing, readiness, and preconditionsmust be considered. When successful im-provements are accomplished, they in-volve individuals working in small groupsand other collective ways, attaining tech-nical mastery, a sense of success, and newmeanings.

Strategies of the future, above all ,should be based on collective professionaldevelopment within the school rather thanon individualistic professional autonomyor its opposite, excessive dependence,which have characterized school norms andpractices of the past.

Note

This paper was commissioned by the Na-tional Institute of Education, Teaching and In-

JANUARY 1985


struction Division, contract no. 400-79-0035. Ithank Ken Leithwood and Matt Miles for help-ful comments on an earlier version of this pa-per.

References

Baltzell, C., & Dentler, R. (1983a). SelectingAmerican school principals: a research report.Cambridge, MA: Abt.

Baltzell, C., & Dentler, R. (1983b). SelectingAmerican school principals: a source book foreducators. Cambridge, MA: Abt.

Bank, A. (1981). School district managementstrategies to link testing with instructionalchange. Paper presented at the meetings ofthe Evaluation Network, Austin, Texas.

Barth, R., & Deal, T. (1982). The principalship:views from without and within. Paper pre-pared for National Conference on the Prin-cipalship, sponsored by National Instituteof Education, Washington, DC.

Berman, P. (1980). Thinking about pro-grammed and adaptive implementation:matching strategies to situations. In H. In-gram & D. Mann (Eds.), Why policies succeedor fail. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Berman, P. (1981). Toward an implementationparadigm. In R. Lehming & M. Kane (Eds.),Improving schools. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Berman, P., & Gjelten, T. (1982). Improvementmaintenance and decline: a progress report.Berkeley, CA: Berman, Weiler.

Berman, P.; Weiler, D.; Czesak, K.; Gjelten, T.;& Izu, J. (1981). How schools view and use theSchool Improvement Program. Berkeley, CA;Berman, Weiler.

Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. (1980). The ef-fective principal. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bossert, S.; Dwyer, D.; Rowan, B.; & Lee, G.(1982). The instructional management roleof the principal. Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 18, 34-64.

Brophy, J. (1983). Classroom organization andmanagement. Elementary School Journal, 83,265-285.

Bussis, A.; Chittenden, E.; & Amarel, M. (1976).Beyond surface curriculum, Boulder, CO:Westview.

Clark, T., & McCarthy, D. (1983). School im-provement in New York City: the evolutionof a project. Educational Researcher, 12, 17-24.

Cohen, M. (1983). Instructional, managementand social condition in effective schools. InA. Odden & L. D. Webb (Eds.), School fi-

nanc e and school improvement: linkages in the1980's . Fourth Annual Yearbook of theAmerican Educational Finance Association.Cambridge, MA: Balinger.

Crandall, D., et al. (1983). People, policies andpractices: examining the chain of school improve-ment (10 vols.). Andover, MA: The Net-work.

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Ed-ucational Research, 53, 159-l 99.

Dwyer, D.; Lee, G.; Rowan, B.; & Bossert, S.(1983). Five principles in action: perspectiveson instructional management. San Francisco:Far West Laboratory for Educational Re-search and Development.

Eubanks, E., & Levine, D. (1983). A first lookat effective school projects at inner-city el-ementary schools. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, Montreal.

Farrar, E.; Neufeld, B.; & Miles, M. (1983). Re-view of effective schools programs. Vol. III. Ef-fective schools programs in high schools: impli-cations for policy, practice and research.Cambridge, MA: Huron Institute.

Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educationalchange. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M.; Miles M.; & Taylor, G. (1980). Or-ganization development in schools: the stateof the art. Review of Educational Research,50(1), 121-183.

Gersten, R.; Carnine, D.; Zuref, L.; & Cronin,D. (1981). Measuring implementation ofeducational innovations in a broad context.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Asso-ciation, Los Angeles.

Gold, B., & Miles, M. (1981). Whose school is itanyway? Parent-teacher conflict over an inno-vative school. New York: Praeger.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (in press). Schools ef-fects. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbookof research on teaching. Chicago: RandMcNally.

Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1984). Analyzing whatchange facilitators do. Knowledge: Creation,Diffusion , Utilization, 5(3), 275-307.

Hall, G.; Hord, S.; Huling, L.; Rutherford, W.;& Stiegelbauer, S. (1983). Leadership var-iables associated with successful school im-provement. Symposium paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Edu-cational Research Association, Montreal.

Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1977). A developmentalmodel for determining whether the treat-ment is actually implemented. American Ed-ucational Research Journal, 14, 263-276.

Huberman, M. (1981). ECRI, Masepa, NorthPlains: case study. Andover, MA: The Net-work.


Huberman, M., & Crandall, D. (1983). People,policies and practices: examining the chain ofschool improvement. Vol. 9. Implicationsfor ac-tion, a study of dissemination efforts supportingschool improvement. Andover. MA: The Net-work.

Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (1984). Innovationup close: how school improvement works. NewYork: Plenum.

Joyce, B.; Hersh, R.; & McKibbin, M. (1983).The structure of school improvement. New York:Longman.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving in-service training: the messages from re-search. Educational Leadership, 37,379-385.

Kennedy, M.; Apling, R.; & Neumann, W.(1980). The role of evaluation and test infor-mation in public schools. Cambridge, MA: Hu-ron Institute.

Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). Therole of the elementary school principal inprogram improvement. Review of Educa-tional Research, 52, 309-339.

Leithwood, K., & Stanley, K. (1983). Alterna-tive patterns of secondary school principalbehavior. Paper presented at the CanadianSociety for Study in Education, Vancouver.

Leithwood, K.; Stanley, K.; & Montgomery, D.(1983). Training principals for school im-provement. Paper presented at the Cana-dian Society for Study in Education, Van-couver.

Lindblom, C., & Cohen, D. (1979). Usable knowl-edge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Little, J. (1981). The power of organizationalsetting: school norms and staff develop-ment. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Los Angeles.

Louis, K., & Rosenblum, S. (1981). Linking R&Dwith schools: a program and its implications fordissemination and school improvement. Cam-bridge, MA: Abt.

Marris, P. (1975). Loss and change. New York:Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Miles, M. (1983). Unravelling the mystery ofinstitutionalization. Educational Leadership,41, 14-19.

Miles, M.; Farrar, E.; & Neufeld, B. (1983). Re-v i e w of effective schools programs. Vol. 2. Theextent of adoption of effective schools programs.Cambridge, MA: Huron Institute.

Mohlman-Sparks, G. (1983). A study of in-service training, teacher characteristics, andteacher change. Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Montreal.

Mulhauser, F. (1983). Recent research on the prin-cipalship: a v i e w from NIE. Washington, DC:National Institute of Education.

National Institute of Education. (1982). Direc-tory of inservice training programs for princi-pals. Washington, DC: National Institute ofEducation.

Neufeld, B.; Farrar, E.; & Miles, M. (1983). Areview of effective schools research: the messagefor secondary schools. Cambridge, MA: HuronInstitute.

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search ofexcellence. New York: Harper & Row.

Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools:a review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452.

Rowan, B.; Bossert, S.; & Dwyer, D. (1983). Re-search on effective schools: a cautionarynote. Educational Researcher, 12, 24-31.

Rutter, M.; Maugham, B.; Mortimer, P.; Ous-ton, J.; & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousandhours: secondary schools and their effects on chil-dren. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Sarason, S. (1972). The creation of settings and thefuture societies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. NewYork: Basic.

Sharan, S., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1982). Ef-fects of an instructional change program onteachers’ behavior, attitudes, and percep-tions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,18, 185-201.

Showers, B. (1983a). Coaching: a training com-ponent for facilitating transfer of training.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Asso-ciation, Montreal.

Showers, B. (1983b). Transfer of training. Pa-per presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Associa-tion, Montreal.

Stallings, J. (1980). The process of teaching basicreading skills in secondary schools. Menlo Park,CA: SRI International.

Stallings, J. (1981). Testing teachers’ in-class in-struction and measuring change resulting fromstaff development. Mountain View, CA:Teaching and Learning Institute.

Stallings, J., & Mohlman, G. (1981). School pol-icy, leadership style, teacher change, and studentbehavior in eight high schools (Final Report).Washington, DC: National Institute of Ed-ucation.

Weiss, J.; Janvier, R.; & Hawkins, J. (1982). Theschool improvement project: descriptive overviewfor teachers and building principals. Seattle:Center for Law and Justice, University ofWashington.

Wise, A. (1977). Why educational policies oftenfail: the hyperrationalization hypothesis.Curriculum Studies, 9, 43-51.

JANUARY 1985


Wynne, E. (1983). School award programs: put-ting effective school research into practice.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Associa-tion, Montreal

Documents

Change Processes and Strategies at the Local · PDF fileOntario Institute for Studies in Education ... Volume 85, Number 3 1985 by The University of Chicago. ... teachers with workshops