Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]On: 21 August 2013, At: 11:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
School Leadership & Management:Formerly School OrganisationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20
Teacher resistance against schoolreform: reflecting an inconvenienttruthEwald Terhart aa Institute of Education , University of Münster , Münster ,GermanyPublished online: 17 May 2013.
To cite this article: School Leadership & Management (2013): Teacher resistance against schoolreform: reflecting an inconvenient truth, School Leadership & Management: Formerly SchoolOrganisation, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2013.793494
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.793494
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Teacher resistance against school reform: reflecting an inconvenient truth
Ewald Terhart*
Institute of Education, University of Munster, Munster, Germany
In this article, the contexts, forms and consequences of teacher resistance againstschool reforms based on quality assurance policies are discussed. The problemsare demonstrated by recurring on research devoted to the acceptance and/orresistance of (German) teachers against standards-based accountability policies.These results demonstrate that the majority in the teacher force ignores,misinterprets or misuses the feedback information from standards-based perfor-mance tests aiming at a data-driven development of classroom teaching. Only asmall part shows an adequate usage of feedback information, especially thoseschools that already have developed a culture of internal evaluation. In general,the success or failure of educational innovations is difficult to estimate, because itis a matter of interpretation and post hoc reconstruction.
Keywords: teacher resistance; school reform; standards-based accountabilitypractices
Some years ago, in November 2004, the OECD (2005) presented its large
international comparative study Teachers Matter on the teaching profession and
teacher education. One of the keynote speakers was Andy Hargreaves, one of the
best-known international experts in the field of school reform, teaching and teacher
professionalism. He talked about the situation of teaching and teachers in times of
increasing standardisation, evaluation, inspection and accountability. In particular,
he spoke about the reactions of teachers to this new ‘educational managerialism’, as
he called it. He described the largely sceptical, even defiant attitude of the long-
grown, traditional teacher culture towards these new forms of control. I can no
longer remember his precise words, but he commented that the gathering of
educational experts, educational researchers and school developers � and he
explicitly included himself in this number � should recognise that teachers ‘totally
despise us, they really do’.
At this point, his audience became rather restless: some laughed, because
someone had finally issued a simple, but often shamefully concealed truth; others
raised semi-noisy opposition because they took this to be an incorrect description of
the majority view of teachers; others looked upset because they believed Hargreaves
had insulted them personally. Polite and well-mannered as we usually are in these
circles, the whispers and roars soon calmed down and the speaker was able to
continue his keynote.
So what had happened? With his brief rhetorical intermezzo Hargreaves had put
his finger on the spot. Although educational researchers, school reformers and
*Email: [email protected]
School Leadership & Management, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.793494
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
educational developers assume that teachers and schools await their programmes,
proposals and new practices with baited breath, we should accept the fact that a
considerable majority of teachers and schools in fact simply want to hear nothing of
reform, innovation, new forms of teaching and so on. Quite frequently, they feelforced to take part in reform and development processes. This should come as no
surprise; the culture and convictions of educational administrators and reformers
and the culture and convictions of teachers in classrooms and staffrooms really are
miles apart. Indeed, self-confident teachers may regard the approaches, ideas and
recommendations of educational researchers, instructional psychologists, teacher
developers, didactical coaches and so on concerning their very own field of work �classroom teaching � as being strange, clumsy or even clueless.
Many educational experts and school reformers are utterly convinced by theurgent necessity of their innovative mission and believe that schools, principals and
teachers cannot wait to hear all about their new concepts, models and practices in
order to be lifted up to the newest heights in pedagogical development. And if this is
not the case, then they will certainly teach the teaching profession manners and
transform it into something modern, correct and innovative. Correspondingly great
is the disappointment and disillusionment when, at school level, they realise that
teachers display no zeal for innovation and that in fact they may even experience
backlashes and hidden or even open forms of resistance or obstruction againstinnovation. It is here that we can witness ironic contempt for the ‘experts’ coming
from in the outside who � in the eyes of those at shop-floor level (i.e. the teachers) �seem to be moving like elephants in a china shop: they cannot understand anything,
they cannot change anything and they certainly cannot make a difference. With a bit
of luck if teachers hold out for just long enough then the experts will be gone in a few
weeks or months. It was this personal observation and experience which Hargreaves
had articulated in his comment � thus causing the aforesaid commotion.1
In this paper I use Hargreaves’ anecdote to discuss the attitudes and position ofteachers in school reform processes. It should be specified that I will not deal here
with system-wide structural reforms of the school system as a whole, but will be
referring instead to change processes at the level of the single school and above all,
change processes and innovations on the didactical level of classroom teaching. A
discussion of teacher resistance against didactical innovations is a rather delicate
endeavour, especially when raised in front of a mixed audience of teachers,
researchers and administrators. It is difficult because the topic ‘resistance of teachers
against school reform’ is steeped in mutual misperceptions, blame and a fair amountof moralising. It is also a thorny issue because the concept ‘reform’ is one of the
eternal, fundamental and major issues of education and pedagogy: each educational
reality falls short of current educational demands. In this respect, any educational
reality can and has to be improved, ‘reformed’. In addition, since reform is always
right, reform scepticism or even reform resistance automatically seems to be suspect.
1. Resistance to change � in general
‘You cannot accomplish school reform against the will of the teachers, but only with
the teachers!’ This notion is shared by all past and present school reformers alike, but
what is to be done when teachers do not want reform, especially when the reform does
not target at external things such as the structure of a school system or school
2 E. Terhart
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
administration, but when they are called upon to change their beliefs and practices at
classroom level? This is the problem of all theories and strategies of organisational
change in institutions: the bosses want change, but those who will have to carry out the
work lower down do not want change � and the change they want they do not get from
their bosses. All theories of change management, organised change, organisational
development and so on ultimately circle around this theme of resistance to innovation
(Harvey and Broyles 2010; Ortiz 2012). Change is war (Hargreaves and Fullan 2009) �but a war in disguise. Therefore, theories and programmes of change have seldom
addressed resistance in an open, frank way; in one way or another, the problem is
always hidden or circumscribed. The agencies of change feel more comfortable if they
paint a picture of a highly innovative world in which all difficulties and reluctances can
be overcome by good, convincing communication and where, in principle, the agents
of change march on from one success to another. This explains why originally
economic- and business-based concepts and strategies of change management exude
to some extent a penetrating odour of pedagogy. It also explains why these concepts
have so often and easily been transferred to pedagogical institutions and processes.
For companies, firms, corporations, etc., it is of vital importance to react to
changes in market conditions; a constant change process assures their profitability
and survival. Resistance to change might be a threat to their existence. Nevertheless,
resistance to change can be felt even in this business and profit-oriented context.
Resistance can be triggered and manifested in different phases:
(1) Argument: why change things? First, it can be doubted whether there is a need
for change in the first place. In complex service organisations in particular,
where professionals with individual qualifications and skills have developed
specific processes and routines for their work, professional knowledge can be
highly personal. Innovations and change processes usually trigger feelings ofinsecurity and are regarded as an attack on professional competence and
identity.
(2) Operation: how will that work? If new ideas, processes or procedures, and son
are proclaimed by the organisational leaders, those on the lower, executive
and work levels immediately raise the question: how can these new
procedures be implemented and thus find their way into practice? In general,
there is great uncertainty when common and usual paths of practice need to
be replaced by new ones that have not yet been established. This in turncreates uncertainty and resistance, which usually causes an opposite reaction.
This happens in particular if the new procedures of work are being
experienced as a compression of work, an intensification of work, or as a
restriction of individual autonomy in work � or as a combination of all these
experiences.
(3) Effect: what is in it for me? Of course, for employees at all levels the question
of how they will personally benefit in and through the change process is
crucial. What and how do I gain in position and identity during the changeprocess � or do I have to learn new things, work differently and probably even
more, without any direct or symbolic gratification? The internal economy of
work (be it simple and boring, or complex and demanding) is always based
on the relationship between effort and results and is challenged by change
processes.
School Leadership & Management 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
Relating to the problem of overcoming resistance against innovation David
Gleicher developed his well-known ‘energy formula for change processes’ (see
Beckhard 1969):
C ¼ a � b � dð Þ> x;
where C is the amount of energy for change, a the degree of dissatisfaction with the
existing state, b the clarity of vision, the goal, d the first visible steps towards the
desired change and x the material and emotional costs of change.
The formula reads that the change in energy C is sufficient if the product of the
three factors (a) degree of dissatisfaction with existing state, (b) clarity of vision with
respect to goal and (d) first visible steps towards the desired change is greater than
the material and emotional cost of change x.The formula ‘mathematises’ a highly complex problem which has to be handled
carefully in the corporate culture of an organisation. By no means can the course or
results of change be predicted precisely. The formula does not serve an actual
mathematical, but rather an illustrative purpose and makes plain that various factors
need to be in balance if a change process will actually lead to success. The
aforementioned factors are not determined objectively, but are experienced and
judged differently by the different actors, by different groups of actors, by the
different divisions and levels of an organisation. The formula creates no clearstatement, but indicates that change is an opaque, incremental process that is
constantly fluctuating. Its course and outcome can also be perceived very differently:
what is seen as a success by the one group may be seen as a failure by the other.
Even if we take all of these obstacles into account we have to accept that in the
organisation of factories, insurance companies and so on, there is a clear criterion for
success: the result or profit. When profit is supported or even increased, then the
innovation is deemed ‘successful’, regardless of whether the change process in fact
has actually produced the increased profit. It is not easy to transfer this notion intothe context of schools, staffrooms and classrooms.
2. Resistance to change in schools and by the teachers
A transfer of concepts and procedures of quality management from the private
economic sector to institutions in the public sector (new public management) hastaken place all over the world and of course has not stopped in front of the school
gates or classroom doors. Instruments of evidence-based, results-oriented diagnosis
developed by educational administration and evaluation agencies determine the
educational debates about school systems and the work of teachers. This should not
lead to the assumption that teacher resistance to school and classroom innovation
has arisen together with this new managerialism in education. Teacher resistance is a
perennial phenomenon which all school reforms in the past have had to deal with,
and sociologists and psychologists of (educational) organisations have developeddifferent models to deal with resistance (see Table 1).
The fundamental limitations, practical difficulties and massively distorting
consequences of transferring management models and strategies developed for the
private economic sector to the public and � ultimately � to the educational sector
have already been described many times. Several strategies and techniques of
4 E. Terhart
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
Table 1. Four different perspectives on school reform (following Baum 2002, 176, fourth and fifth positions added by author).
Rationale Sociopolitical Psychodynamic Pragmatic Contemplative
Why do school
systems resist
new ideas or
practices?
The new ideas
offered do not
introduce
usable
knowledge.
There is no consensus
about what are
educational problems and,
consequently, which new
knowledge to consider or
how to use available
knowledge; in addition,
educators may be
constrained from taking
initiative in developing or
adopting usable
knowledge.
There may be consensus
about what are educational
problems, and there may be
usable knowledge available,
but social conflict and
unrealistic demands on
schools create not only
political obstacles, but also
unconscious anxiety, that
hinders considering or
acting on usable knowledge.
Schools systems and
schools are complex
systems with a
multitude of interest
groups pursuing
different aims. Different
groups and interests
bargain for influence
and outweigh or
paralyse each other. The
results of knowledge use
and change can hardly
be planned or foreseen.
Schools systems are not
guided by a precise goal or
purpose. They are multi-
purpose-organisations.
School systems and schools
cannot be steered precisely
towards a certain goal.
Their generic inner dynamic
changes them faster than
any reform from outside
ever could. Is school reform
really necessary?
What should
reformers do to
facilitate school
change?
Develop and
facilitate the use
of educational
knowledge.
Do that, but also develop
coalitions of actors
interested in education, so
as to get agreement on
problems and directions
for addressing them and to
take collective action.
Do both those things, but
give focused attention to
helping schools systems staff
analyse their concerns about
disorder and change, so they
can distinguish realistic fears
from amorphous anxiety,
helping them participate in
coalitions with others
interested in education, and
helping policy-makers and
society at large clarify what
schools can realistically
contribute to children’s
education and what else
must be done by other
institutions.
Do all three things, but
accept that in the end
you have to muddle
your own way through.
Play your role in this
process as an active
part, but accept that the
units or elements of the
field are only loosely
linked. Cause-effect-
and the intention-result-
relations are opaque
and unstable; often they
can be postulated
afterwards only.
Do all this or do nothing -
you will never reach the
goal you are trying to
reach. Nevertheless change
processes will take place,
and some of them might be
regarded by some groups as
positive!
Sch
oo
lL
ead
ership
&M
an
agem
ent
5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
performance-based management have been tried out: high-stakes- and standards-
based testing, accountability measures, school inspections, performance-related pay
for teachers, more administrative power and enhanced instructional leadership for
school principals, and so on.
The following sections which illuminate the problem of teacher resistance against
educational change start with an example from Germany: the so-called
Lernstandserhebungen (school performance tests) which are used in several ofGermany’s federal states, the Bundeslander. Lernstandserhebungen involve assessing
all students of a certain Grade in a specific subject (e.g. mathematics) by taking a
standardised performance test on one particular day. The results are gathered and
analysed centrally leading to a broad and detailed picture of performance data (in
math) at system level, single school level and even single class level. The feedback
given to the schools and their teachers includes information about the relative results
of the class related to other classes in a school, related to the average of classes in
comparable schools and to the general average of performance in the Bundesland.
Feedback is provided to trigger processes which are aimed at developing a higher
quality of classroom teaching. The idea is that a data-driven reflection on one’s own
teaching and instructional processes will lead to Unterrichtsentwicklung, i.e.
development in teaching skills. Note that there is no ranking of test results of
students, classes or schools inside or outside schools to prevent blaming and shaming
practices.
The central question is how will teachers react when confronted with the results
of state-mandated school performance tests? What happens in the staffrooms and
classrooms of schools when the results are released, discussed and then � hopefully �used as an opportunity for developing teaching? For the entire quality management
process, the question concerning the constructive use of feedback is of decisive
importance because the entire evaluation process will only make sense if reported
results actually lead to considerable consequences inside schools and classrooms.2
The general experience of school principals and educational researchers is that
this final keystone of quality management � constructive reaction to feedback � does
not occur, or only to a limited extent. This conclusion is based on several empirical
studies at national and international levels. A special branch of educational research
has become devoted to analysing the implementation of research findings, research
projects, administrative interventions and their consequences in schools and class-
rooms. If we concentrate on the empirical research on the reaction of teachers to
Lernstandserhebungen as a means of triggering processes of instructional develop-
ment, collegial collaboration, in-service teacher education and so on, it is quite
obvious that we can distinguish several groups: the rejectors, the disinterested, the
‘wait and see!’ fraction, the hanger-ons, the pragmatics, the cautious believers, and
finally the ever enthusiastic � whatever the reform’s intention is.
The following empirical studies highlight the fate of reforms in everyday school
and classroom life:
(1) Based on their analysis of interviews with 80 teachers from nine schools in the
UK, Moore et al. (2002) speak of compliance, resistance and pragmatism as
possible attitudinal or identity patterns within the teaching profession in
the face of managerial reform pressure. Excluding the two extremes of
acquiescence on the one hand and resistance on the other hand, Moore et al.
6 E. Terhart
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
distinguish between principled pragmatism and contingent pragmatism. In the
former, teachers engage with the new things pragmatically and present
themselves as bearers of reform, emphasising efficiency and performance.
The representatives of the second group (contingent pragmatism) are morereactive and feel uneasy when faced with the implementation of reform
initiatives. They proceed eclectically and feel forced to adapt to modern times.
The well-known political categorisation of teaching staff into either
‘traditionalist’ or ‘progressive’ camps originating from the 1970s � according
to Moore et al. � can no longer be regarded as being of significance; the
‘progressive’ generation of teachers has already retired or is just about to
retire.3 In contrast to this veteran generation, the current generation of
teachers seems to maintain a trend towards a depoliticised, pragmaticidentity which manifests itself in the two mentioned forms of a determined
offensive, or more defensive, ‘hesitant’ pragmatism.
(2) Maier (2009, 2010) conducted a questionnaire study (N�3444 and addi-
tional interviews) in Baden-Wuerttemberg (smaller group in Thuringia N�310) to discover how teachers use the results of standards-based testing for
the innovative development of their teaching practice (test-driven instruc-
tional development). His findings are sobering:
� Only a small number of teachers were informed about the official functions
and purposes of the standards-based testing procedure.
� The vast majority did not use the data from feedback in the context of
individual learning assessments and diagnoses.� Half of Baden-Wurttemberg’s teachers denied that the results of standards-
based testing contributed to a reflection and development of their own
teaching practice.
� In only a very few number of cases did collegial collaboration lead to
constructive conclusions based on the evaluation results. This only
happened in those schools where a culture of collaboration was already
prevalent.
� The level of acceptance of standards-based testing (already low from theoutset) diminished even further throughout the procedure.
Maier concludes that it does not make sense to increase accountability
pressure on schools because this in fact does not lead to an improvement in
teaching practices.
(3) Hartung-Beck (2009) interviewed 19 teachers in two German comprehensive
schools to get their view on the Lernstandserhebungen, their character, value
and usefulness. Their conclusion was that ‘the Lernstandserhebungen can only
be a resource for teachers if (1) the school‘s capacities and structures supporttheir use and (2) they have a close contextual application to the teaching
profession’. From the perspective of the teaching profession, the
Lernstandserhebungen are a threat to professional autonomy if they are (1)
designed as an external and heteronomous instrument of educational
administration (e.g. school management, inspectorates) overriding the profes-
sions’ own control instruments and (2) if the results from Lernstanderhebungen
are used inside schools as an instrument of internal accountability.
School Leadership & Management 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
(4) As part of a longitudinal study (1996�1998), Ingram, Seashore Louis, and
Schroeder (2004) analysed nine high schools in the USA which were regarded
as best practice examples for being innovative(!). Based on a total of about
200 interviews with teachers and a further 100 participants in groupdiscussions, the study researched the reactions of teachers to accountability
policies. In particular, Ingram, Seashore Louis, and Schroeder wished to
determine whether and how the teachers of these best-practice schools used
data from standardised test procedures for their own teaching and further
development (‘evidence-based teaching’). The research group identified seven
‘hurdles’ that, from the teachers’ perspective, needed overcoming (Ingram,
Seashore Louis, and Schroeder 2004, 1281�1282):
� Many teachers have developed their own personal metric for judging the
effectiveness of their teaching and often this metric differs from the metric
of external parties (e.g. state accountability systems and school boards).
� Many teachers and administrators base their decisions on experience,intuition and anecdotal information (professional judgment) rather than
on information that is collected systematically.
� There is little agreement among stakeholders about which student out-
comes are most important and what kinds of data are meaningful.
� Some teachers disassociate their own performance from that of their
students, which leads them to overlook useful data.
� Data that teachers want � about ‘really important outcomes’ � are rarely
available and are usually hard to measure.� Schools rarely provide the time needed to collect and analyze data.
� Data have often been used politically, leading to mistrust of data and data
avoidance
The outcome of the study can be summarised in brief as follows: ‘The
teachers interviewed for our study suggest overwhelmingly that the concept
of data-based decision-making and continuous improvement is ideal but,
under current conditions, is also unrealistic’ (Ingram, Seashore Louis, and
Schroeder 2004, 1283).
(5) In the summer of 2005, Kuhle (2010) conducted a survey with about 13,000
principals and teachers in schools in the German Bundesland Northrhine-
Westphalia to analyse their beliefs and convictions related to the value of
Lernstandserhebungen. On the basis of 7231 data-sets from school boards,
conference chairmen, coordinators and ‘ordinary’ teachers (ca. 3700;subjects: Mathematics, German, English) he came to the following conclu-
sions: there was a basic willingness and interest to use the information from
Lernstandserhebungen in general. However, there was also opposition from
nearly a quarter of all the people surveyed. The central precondition for a
constructive use of test data was the firm belief or conviction that test data
could tell you something important about your own work as a teacher. School
officials and educational administrators showed higher acceptance values
than teachers. The form of feedback was also critical: about 40% of theteachers reported that the data were of no use for them. Kuhle (2010, 294)
concluded that implementation at classroom level was ‘rather moderate’.
8 E. Terhart
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
(6) Studies on the reception of Lernstandserhebungen have consistently shown that
teachers do not view the results as feedback on their own classroom behaviour
and teaching strategies, but as additional information in the context of
assessing student performance. However, this is precisely what the qualityassessment procedure does not set out to do. In direct contrast with the official
policy, teachers integrate information about their teaching culture subjectively.
In his study about the reaction of teachers to feedback data, von der Gathen
(2006, 8) concluded: ‘It is clear that we are witnessing a clash of two cultures’.
(7) But there is also hope. Koch (2011) analysed teacher reactions to state-
mandated accountability practices and found out that reactions were
positive when teachers judged them to be clear and useful and when there
was a positive attitude towards accountability practices and experiencesfollowing previous external evaluations. As part of a quasi-experimental
study one group of teachers was given training in data analysis while a
comparable group was left untrained. Training was seen to have a positive
effect on the further processing of feedback. This again shows that where an
established culture of cooperation is already in place, then feedback data
will be used constructively to develop teaching practice. If these precondi-
tions are not given, data-driven quality assurance does not work (cf.
Schumacher 2008; Koch 2009). But it is precisely where such preconditionsare not given that it would be most necessary for the system to work!
Without an adequate support and training system the managerial, data-
driven approaches to raise the quality of teaching will have no effect � and
will therefore not work where it is most needed.
As in other professional cultures so, too, we have to consider the weight of human
interactions in the teaching profession. The majority of teachers accept that the
school system as a whole and schools as its individual units are in need of reform and
they also believe that improvements are necessary and possible. When asked in
interviews and questionnaires, a broad majority of teachers expresses a basic
willingness to participate in school reform and instructional development. However,
when asked if they are willing to change their own personal classroom and teaching
practice, a majority (of German teachers) is extremely averse to this notion.
So, how do teachers protect themselves against the winds or even storms of
change moving or even forcing them towards new practices? Which arguments do
they put forward? Here is a small selection:
� The ‘No time!’ � argument: probably every teacher sees the working day as
being filled to the brim. It is simply not possible to address or engage with the
new given the dearth of daily duties.
� The ‘I am innocent!’ � argument: there is no need to change one’s own practices.
Problems exist, of course, but other people, or groups, or the system, society,
etc. are responsible.� The ‘burnt child’ � argument: past reforms have brought nothing. A lot of time
and energy has been invested by many, but in the end nothing has led to
improved quality, not even an alleviation of everyday schoolwork and teaching.
� The ‘two worlds’ � argument: reforms are developed in the boardrooms of
administrators, quality managers or educational researchers. However, schools
School Leadership & Management 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
and teachers work in a completely different world; they are the ones who are ‘in
the firing line’ or ‘in the trenches’, and of lot of things concocted by the higher
instances do not work in practice.
� The ‘biographical’ � argument: it is now the turn for younger colleagues to takeover; us older ones have had our share of having to experiment with new-
fangled ideas. It is of no importance or value to us anymore.
� The ‘lack of personal benefit’ � argument: there is nothing in it for me, only
more work. School reforms only benefit those in school administration, school
supervision, ministries, universities and so on.4
3. What are the consequences?
The manner in which teachers generally deal with innovative impulses aimed at
changing their individual professional practice � namely very reluctantly, very
selectively or very ‘not at all’ � itself contains important messages. First identified instudies on the use of innovations in schools and classrooms during the 1960s and
since then repeatedly witnessed, this phenomenon has been labelled ‘resistance to
reforms’, ‘structural conservatism’, ‘inflexibility’, ‘professional ignorance’ and so on.
The school reform literature has frequently reacted with consternation and critique �and invented new and even more sophisticated and hopefully effective innovative
concepts and strategies for educational innovation. In order to learn constructively
from this permanent experience of widespread reform resistance among teachers, we
have to liberate ourselves from a moral and politically tainted negative attitudetowards reform reluctance and unwillingness among teachers. We need to under-
stand their attitude as being a completely normal reaction which may even have its
‘good sides’ (Gitlin and Margonis 1995). After all, why should teachers engage in
reforms when their daily work is already so demanding and arduous (Kennedy
2005)? Why should they engage in reforms that respond to problems they either do
not have or feel responsible for, or which do not relate to the problems they really
have in their work?
What then is the deeper meaning for this resistance? What can be learned (1) asan analyst of the system, who bears no responsibility for its planning or
administration? And what can be learned (2) as an implementor, designer or manager
of the system (politician, school administrator, principal) who, in fact, is responsible?
3.1. Analyst perspective
It seems important to accept that there is a difference between school reformers,
experts and innovators on the one hand and the teacher as a practitioner at the work
or delivery level in the school system, on the other hand. According to Larry Cuban
(2011), teachers are certainly intellectually capable of comprehending the reasons for
and programmes of school reform. However, they do not usually have the entire
school system or their school as a whole in mind, but tend to focus their attention ontheir own professional reality, their classes, their collegues as a background for their
interpretation of the innovation impetus. It is from this background that they
evaluate the value, usefulness and scope of an innovation. To some extent they seem to
follow a ‘what works’ � ethic5 � and their questions are really quite straightforward:
10 E. Terhart
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
1. Will the innovation or change help me as an individual to solve the learning
and teaching problems I am now facing, not those someone else has defined?
2. If the change does help me, how much of my time and energy will the
innovation take to learn in order for students to benefit?3. How can I adapt the change to fit the needs of my particular students? (Cuban
2011, 3)
Even innovation experts no longer believe that their ideas will spread like wildfire to
be transferred immediately and with high fidelity to the level of schools and
classrooms. This just does not happen. Innovation and change impulses are at best
used as long as they fit or can be adapted to the beliefs, attitudes and needs of teacher
culture in general and the needs and problems of each single teacher in particular.This process of transforming or adapting change impulses from the outside
sometimes even disfigures or distorts the impulse. However, it is through this change
process that the change becomes viable in the teachers’ world. Teachers do not
simply apply new knowledge and practices � they make creative use of it. It is
irrelevant whether innovations are organised ‘top down’ (Bishop and Mulford 1999)
or ‘bottom up’ or as something in between: it is always the same experience. Change
is a very obscure, incremental, yet contested process that is difficult to predict.6
It, therefore, seems very important to acknowledge that this issue � teachers’reactions to new accountability policies � is not a matter of adaption or resistance, but
more a matter of mixed experiences, mixed reactions and mixed attitudes. Sloan (2006,
145) draws three conclusions for further research from this: (1) teachers do not
experience and respond to such policies in predictable, mechanistic or unidimensional
ways; (2) there is a need for long-term, classroom-based engagement with teachers to
understand better the varied, even contradictory ways accountability policies
influence them and their classroom practices; and (3) researchers need to more
openly acknowledge that by the time accountability policies reach the classroom, themeaning and significance of these policies may have been significantly altered.
An increase of pressure to adopt innovation by establishing explicit state-
mandated and sanctioned control procedures (‘threat rigidity’) as has been done in
some reform programmes in the USA leads to negative consequences such as
centralised, limited flow of information, consolidation of control, preference for very
simple, more directive teaching methods and procedures of performance assessment.
In general, this leads to an increased pressure on school staff to display an
innovation-compliant behaviour (Olsen and Sexton 2009). Growing teacher fraudmay be one of the undesired effects (Koretz 2008).
This opaque and to some extent unforeseeable nature of innovation and change is
in fact good news for organisational developers: First, they no longer bear
responsibility for implementation and success as the buck is passed to actors in
the field. Second, a partial success or failure of the reform opens up new channels for
developers to explore, from which further reforms can originate and so forth.
3.2. Implementor perspective
While the analyst can now sit back and relax, those in charge must decide, act � and
bear the consequences. What conclusions can administrators, school principals, etc.
draw from the described phenomena and difficulties? If a reform affects the
School Leadership & Management 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
immediate work of teachers in the classrooms, they first need to ask themselves the
following questions:
� Is a change in teaching behaviour really so urgent, the pressure of problems sogreat � and can this be conveyed to a sufficient number of teachers?
� Is the cost of achieving a change in attitude or practice really justified in
relation to the perceived problems?
� Is there clear evidence of the effectiveness of initiatives undertaken and can this
convince the majority of teachers?
� Have there already been similar reforms that were unsuccessful? If this is the
case: be prepared for indifference, resistance, even contempt!
� Are reform projects currently under way that have yet to become implementedas standard? If yes: Wait!
� Are sufficient resources available and has there been adequate preparation and
training time so that the anxieties and uncertainties of leaving traditional paths
of action can be overcome step-by-step through training and practice of the
new forms?
� What might be the possible neutral and/or dysfunctional side effects if teachers
display a strategic and/or simulated fulfilment of the new requirements?
� Which of one’s current processes can make way to free up working capacity forthe new?
� Has it been made clear that if particularly great difficulties arise, or in the event
of failure, there will be no blaming and shaming, but additional support given �or the reform even stopped?
4. Concluding remarks
What does ‘failure’ actually mean in this context? Whether a particular school reform ingeneral has a defined end or is an ongoing effort, it is ultimately always a question of
interpretation whether we can speak of success, partial success, partial failure or
complete failure. We have to decide if the negative consequences outweigh the positive.
Decades ago, the German educational expert Blankertz (1977) concluded that from an
educational point of view success and failure of education reform can hardly be
assessed. It is not possible to make one decisive summative final evaluation.
‘Proponents and opponents of reform notice time and time again: School reforms
simply cannot fail’ (Blankertz 1977, 79). However, the logical counter conclusion to thisis also correct: school reforms cannot simply succeed. The issue remains controversial.
From an analytical viewpoint, we should regard failure as a normal phenomenon.
In all fields of decision-making and practical action, we have to learn how to deal
with failure, even constant failure in one or other respect.7 The overall pressure for
success, which is also the case in the field of education, can lead to misperception or
embellishment. Political administrations do not wish to read damaging reports.
However, if everything has to be and therefore is a success, the question arises as to
why we constantly witness the introduction of new reforms? The Swiss teacher Jean-Claude Baudet asks the following thought-provoking question: ‘Could it be that in
recent years we have been inundated with innovations in education and schooling to
prevent us from facing failure and from dealing with the questions resulting from
that?’ (Baudet 2010, 29).
12 E. Terhart
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
Once a programme or reform is under way, and especially if it is large and
prestigious, it seems to become unstoppable even if problematic side effects soon
become apparent. Too much energy, hope, resources or prestige have been invested
and now it is simply too late. Even if it is senseless or harmful, the reform will not be
stopped. Everyone has to continue � whatever the case. And so the reform gives birth
to the necessity for another. It looks as if we will have to accept this as being normal.
Notes
1. Teacher resistance against school reform is discussed by Muncey and McQuillan (1996),Freilich Hjelle (2001), Baum (2002), Achinstein and Ogawa (2006), Winkler (2009), Steins(2009) and Berkovich (2011). Richards (2002) and Zimmerman (2006) analyse the problemfrom the point of view of school principals.
2. The implications of New Public Management for teaching as a profession have beendiscussed elsewhere (Terhart 2011). For the same debate, notably in Great Britain, seeJohnson and Maclean (2008) and Gewirtz et al. (2009).
3. The situation of this now veteran generation of teachers in current state-driven reformpolicies is discussed by Goodson, Moore, and Hargreaves (2006).
4. These arguments show that educational change, especially when directed towards a changein teaching practice, always has a strongly emotional side and touches the feelings ofprofessional identity of all participants. Kelchtermans (2005), Van Veen and Sleegers (2006)and Kelchtermans, Ballet, and Piot (2009) have discussed this in the Dutch context,Hargreaves (1998, 2005) in an international.
5. This concept was first used by Doyle and Ponder (1978); Shulman (2004) speaks about ‘thewisdom of practice’.
6. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the inner anatomy of educational innovations byusing qualitative research methods. For a ‘classic’ example, see Wolcott (1977); otherexamples can be found in Muncey and McQuillan (1996); Jeffrey and Woods (1998);Kennedy (2005); and Ketelaar et al. (2012).
7. The sociology of organisations knows the permanently failing institution (Meyer andZucker 1989) as well as the sucessfull failing institution (Seibel 1992). Sarason (1990) wroteabout the predictable failure of educational reforms.
References
Achinstein, B., and R. T. Ogawa. 2006. ‘‘(In)Fidelity: What the Resistance of New TeachersReveals about Professional Principles and Prescriptive Policies.’’ Harvard EducationalReview 76 (1): 30�63.
Baudet, J.-C. 2010. ‘‘An einer guten Schule muss Scheitern moglich sein’’ [In a Good SchoolFailure must be Possible]. ph-akzente. Zeitschrift der Padagogischen Hochschule Zurich (3): 29.
Baum, H. S. 2002. ‘‘Why School Systems Resist Reform: A Psychoanalytic Perspective.’’Human Relations 55 (2): 173�198. doi:10.1177/0018726702055002182.
Beckhard, R. 1969. Organization Development: Strategies and Models. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Berkovich, I. 2011. ‘‘No, we won’t! Teachers’ Resistance to Educational Reform.’’ Journal ofEducational Administration 49 (5): 563�578. doi:10.1108/09578231111159548.
Bishop, P., and B. Mulford. 1999. ‘‘When will they ever Learn? Another Failure of Centrally-Imposed Change.’’ School Leadership & Management 19 (2): 179�187. doi:10.1080/13632439969186.
Blankertz, H. 1977. ‘‘Was heißt: ein Bildungswesen ‘padagogisch’ zu verbessern? [What isMeant by: Improving an Educational System in ‘Pedagogical’ Respect?].’’ In Grundlagen undProbleme der Bildungspolitik [Foundations and Problems of Educational Politics], edited byJ. Derbolav, 79�87. Munchen: Pieper.
Cuban, L. 2011. ‘‘Teacher Resistance and Reform Failure.’’ http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/teacher-resistance-and-reform-failure/.
School Leadership & Management 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
Doyle, W., and G. A. Ponder. 1978. ‘‘The Practicality Ethic in Teacher Decision Making.’’Interchange 8 (3): 1�12. doi:10.1007/BF01189290.
Freilich Hjelle, P. 2001. ‘‘Reading between the Lines: Teacher Resistance to Change.’’ PhDdiss., University of Pennsylvania.
Gewirtz, S., P. Mahony, I. Hexall, and A. Cribb, eds. 2009. Changing Teacher Professionalism.International Trends, Challenges and Ways Forward. London: Routledge.
Gitlin, A., and F. Margonis. 1995. ‘‘The Political Aspect of Reform: Teacher Resistance asGood Sense.’’ American Journal of Education 103 (4): 377�405. doi:10.1086/444108.
Goodson, I., S. Moore, and A. Hargreaves. 2006. ‘‘Teacher Nostalgia and the Sustainability ofReform: The Generation and Degeneration of Teachers’ Missions, Memory, and Meaning.’’Educational Administration Quarterly 42 (1): 42�61. doi:10.1177/0013161X05278180.
Hargreaves, A. 1998. ‘‘The Emotions of Teaching and Educational Change.’’ In InternationalHandbook of Educational Change, edited by A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, andD. Hopkins, 558�575. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hargreaves, A. 2005. ‘‘Educational Change takes Ages: Life, Career and Generational Factorsin Teachers’ Emotional Responses to Educational Change.’’ Teaching and Teacher Education21 (8): 967�983. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.007.
Hargreaves, A., and M. Fullan, eds. 2009. Change Wars. Bloomington: Solution Tree.Hartung-Beck, V. 2009. ‘‘Schulische Organisationsentwicklung und Professionalisierung. Folgen
von Lernstandserhebungen an Gesamtschulen’’ [School Development and Professionalism.Consequences of Accountability Strategies in Comprehensive Schools]. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-91489-3
Harvey, T. R., and E. A. Broyles. 2010. Resistance to Change: A Guide to Harnessing itsPositive Power. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ingram, D., K. R. Seashore Louis, and R. G. Schroeder. 2004. ‘‘Accountability Policies andTeacher Decision Making: Barriers to the Use of Data to Improve Practice.’’ TeachersCollege Record 106 (6): 1258�1287. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00379.x.
Jeffrey, B., and P. Woods. 1998. Testing Teachers. The Effects of School Inspections on PrimaryTeachers. London: Falmer.
Johnson, D., and R. Maclean, eds. 2008. Teaching: Professionalization, Development andLeadership. Festschrift for Professor Eric Hoyle. New York: Springer.
Kelchtermans, G. 2005. ‘‘Teachers’ Emotions in Educational Reforms: Selfunderstanding,Vulnerable Commitment and Micropolitical Literacy.’’ Teaching and Teacher Education 21(4): 995�1006. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.009.
Kelchtermans, G., K. Ballet, and L. Piot. 2009. ‘‘Surviving Diversity in Times ofPerformativity: Understanding Teachers’ Emotional Experience of Change.’’ In Advancesin Teacher Emotion Research. The Impact on Teachers’ Lives, edited by P. A. Schutz and M.Zymbylas, 215�232. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kennedy, M. M. 2005. Inside Teaching. How Classroom Life Undermines Reform. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Ketelaar, E., D. Beijaard, H. P. A. Boshuizen, and P. J. Brook. 2012. ‘‘Teachers’ PositioningTowards an Educational Innovation in the Light of Ownership, Sense-Making andAgency.’’ Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (1): 273�282. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.004.
Koch, S. 2009. ‘‘Einstellungsmuster von Lehrkraften als Ermoglichung und Begrenzung‘Neuer Steuerung’ � Eine empirische Rekonstruktion’’ [Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ‘NewPublic Management’ � An Empirical Reconstruction]. In Steuerungsprobleme im Bildungs-system. Festschrift fur Klaus Harney, edited by U. Lange, S. Rahn, and W. Seitter, 117�135.Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Koch, U. 2011. Verstehen Lehrkrafte Ruckmeldungen aus Vergleichsarbeiten? [Do TeachersUnderstand Evaluation Feedback?]. Munster: Waxmann.
Koretz, D. 2008. Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Kuhle, B. 2010. Zentrale Lernstandserhebungen � Ergebnisorientierte Unterrichtsentwicklung?[Does Standards-Based Testing Lead to Instructional Development?]. Berlin: Verlag Dr. Koster.
Maier, U. 2009. ‘‘Towards State-Mandated Testing in Germany: How do Teachers Assess thePedagogical Relevance of Performance Feedback Information?’’ Assessment in Education:Principles, Policy & Practice 16 (2): 205�226. doi:10.1080/09695940903076030.
14 E. Terhart
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
Maier, U. 2010. ‘‘Accountability Policies and Teachers’ Acceptance and Usage of SchoolPerformance Feedback � A Comparative Study.’’ School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement 21 (2): 145�165. doi:10.1080/09243450903354913.
Meyer, M. W., and L. G. Zucker. 1989. Permanently Failing Organizations. London: Sage.Moore, A., G. Edwards, D. Halpin, and R. George. 2002. ‘‘Compliance, Resistance and
Pragmatism: The (Re)Construction of Schoolteacher Identities in a Period of IntensiveEducational Reform.’’ British Educational Research Journal 28 (4): 551�565. doi:10.1080/0141192022000005823.
Muncey, D. E., and P. J. McQuillan. 1996. Reform and Resistance in Schools and Classrooms.An Ethnographic View of the Coalititon of Essential Schools. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.
OECD 2005. Teachers Matter. Attracting, Developing, and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris:OECD.
Olsen, B., and D. Sexton. 2009. ‘‘Threat Rigidity, School Reform, and How Teachers ViewTheir Work Inside Current Education Policy Contexts.’’ American Educational ResearchJournal 46 (1): 9�44. doi:10.3102/0002831208320573.
Ortiz, Chr. A. 2012. The Psychology of Lean Improvements: Why Organizations must OvercomeResistance and Change the Culture. London: Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1201/b11898.
Richards, J. 2002. ‘‘Why Teachers Resist Change (And What Principals can do about it).’’Principal 81 (4): 75�77.
Sarason, S. 1990. The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform. Can we Change Course Beforeit’s too Late? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schumacher, L. 2008. ‘‘Wodurch wird die Bereitschaft von Lehrkraften zur Mitarbeit anSchulentwicklungsprojekten beeinflusst?’’ [What Fosters the Readiness of Teachers toParticipate in School Development?] In Padagogische Professionalitat als Gegenstandempirischer Forschung [Educational Professionalism as an Object of Empirical Research],edited by E-M. Lankes, 279�290. Munster: Waxmann.
Seibel, W. 1992. Funktionaler Dilettantismus. Erfolgreich scheiternde Organisationen im ‘‘DrittenSektor’’ zwischen Markt und Staat [Functional Dilettantism. Sucessfully Failing Organiza-tions in the ‘‘Third Sector’’ between the Market and the State]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Shulman, L. 2004. The Wisdom of Practice. Essays on Teaching, Learning and Learning toTeach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sloan, K. 2006. ‘‘Teacher Identity and Agency in School Worlds: Beyond the All-Good/All-Bad Discourse on Accountability-Explicit Curriculum Policies.’’ Curriculum Inquiry 36 (2):119�152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00350.x.
Steins, G. 2009. ‘‘Widerstand von Lehrern gegen Evaluationen aus psychologischer Sicht’’[Teacher Resistance against Evaluations: A Psychological View]. In Lernen aus Evalua-tionsergebnissen. Verbesserungen planen und implementieren [Learning from Evaluations.Planning and Implementing Innovations], edited by T. Bohl and H. Kiper, 185�195. BadHeilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Terhart, E. 2011. ‘‘Lehrerberuf und Professionalitat: Gewandeltes Begriffsverstandnis � neueHerausforderungen’’ [Teachers and Professionalism: Changing Concepts � New Challenges].In Padagogische Professionalitat [Educational Professionalism], edited by R. Tippelt and W.Helsper, 202�220. Weinheim: Beltz.
von der Gathen, J. 2006. ‘‘Grenzen der innerschulischen Rezeption von Ruckmeldungen ausLarge-Scale-Assessments.’’ [Limits of Using Feed-Back from Large-Scale-Assessments inSchools.]. Journal fur Schulentwicklung 10 (4): 13�19.
Van Veen, K., and P. Sleegers. 2006. ‘‘How does it Feel? Teachers’ Emotions in a Context ofChange.’’ Journal of Curriculum Studies 38 (1): 85�111. doi:10.1080/00220270500109304.
Winkler, C. 2009. ‘‘Outputsteuerung und Unterstutzungssysteme fur Lehrkrafte im belasten-den Schulalltag’’ [New Public Management and Support for Teachers in the BurdeningEveryday-Life of School]. Zeitschrift fur Bildungsverwaltung 24/25 (2/1): 29�42.
Wolcott, H. F. 1977. Teachers versus Technocrats: An Educational Innovation in AnthropologicalPerspective. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management. (UpdatedEdition 2003).
Zimmerman, J. 2006. ‘‘Why Some Teachers Resist Change and What Principals Can Do aboutIt.’’ NASSP-Bulletin 90 (3): 238�249. doi:10.1177/0192636506291521.
School Leadership & Management 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
1:21
21
Aug
ust 2
013
