ED 249 658

AUTHORTITLX

INSTITUTIOb

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTE

PUB TYPE

DOCUMENT RESUME

ILA 017 255

Crandall, David P.; Eiseman, Jeffrey W.Coordinating Assistance in School ImprovementEfforts: Issues to Consider.Network of Innovative Schools, Inc., Andover,Mass.Department of Education, Washington, DC. Office ofPlanning, Budget, and Evaluation.Apr 8313p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association Montreal,Quebec, Canada, April 11-15, 1983).Reports - Research/Technical (143) --Speeches /Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICL NT01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Administrator Role; Change Agents; Consultants;

Educational Innovation; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Federal Programs; *Government SchoolRelationship; *Linking Agents; Principals; *ProgramAdministration; Programr Effectiveness; *ProgramImplementation; *Technical Assistance

IDENTIFIERS *Study of Dissemination Efforts Support Sch Improv

ABSTRACTThis paper summarizes some of the main conclusions of

the Study of Dissemination Efforts Supporting School improvement,specifically those regarding the process of innovationimplementation. The focus is on the contributions of potentialassisters to various implementation outcomes, from which implicationsfor policy and practice are derived. The major emphasis is on thecrucial (and unanticipated) role of district-level personnel incatalyzing and coordinating successful efforts. The primaryck.nclusion derived from the research is that, in any schoolimprovement effort, the key actors tend to contribute in differentways: principals contribute to both practice-related mastery andplans for continuation; local facilitators contribute to both teachercommitment and perceived efficacy; and external facilitatorscontribute to practice-specific mastery. Practical implications ofthese findings are provided for principals, central administrators,and facilitators. The paper concludes with three generalrecommendations related to coordinating assistance in schoolimprovement efforts: (1) both local and external facilitators shouldperceive implementation in terms of the 10 outcomes listed in table1; (2) local and external facilitators should work out a division oflabor; and (3) facilitators should locate and involve a centraladministrator committed to successful implementation. (TE)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by ELLS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

DEVANTINENT OF EOUCATTEENNATRINAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATiON(lot zoitiNAL fit`MLINCf% iNft/NMATiON

thum

)1(

T f f fefev ,Virt oat.* eK1

MI 111 t1ft ftwv offffort, rit ff fOrtIliatottri

,,f 114 41

rms.,', rn4fiet It/ ngnrwr

tyle wito t. gr..ff

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS SEEN GRANTED SY

TAt A.J6DAm t K

. 411,1011% Iffdiff0 if of din t, TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESCOrrn,fI 1.1,1 .It ff." rs,*,,fttf. ,..terl^wf ft tItiH dl Nit INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

cr COORDINATING ASSISTANCE IN SCHOOLIMPROVEMENT EFFORTS:ISSUES TO CONSIDER

cn

David P. CrandallThe NETWORK, Inc.

Andover, Massachusetts

and

Jeffrey W. EisemanUniversity of Massachusetts

at Amherst

Presented as part of Symposium 30.38,Configurations of Assistance in School Improvement Efforts:

International Perspectives at the Annual Meetingof the American Educational Research Associat:kon,

Montreal, Canada, April 1983

Printed in USA

The research referred to in this paper was cone tad undercontract with the U.S. Department of Education, the Office ofPlanning, Budget and Evaluation. The opinions expressed are thoseof tt author and do not necessarily reflect the position orpolicy of the Department of Education, and no endork.ement by heDepartment should be inferred.

As has been described earlier in this symposium (Cox, 1983)various configurations of internal and external assistors whosupport local improvement efforts can contribute materially to theattainment of quite different outcomes. (The master report seriesof the Study of Dissemination Efforts Supporting School Improvement[Crandall and Associates, 1982] offers the interested readerconsiderably more detail than we can present here.) In this paper,we would like to rapidly summarize some of our main conclusionsregarding the process of innovation implementation and schoolimprovement, especially the contributions of potential assistors tovarious implementation outcomes, and share what we see as some ofthe principal implicat.ons for policy and practice. Our majoremphasis is on the crucial (and unanticipated) role of districtlevel personnel in catalyzing and coordinating successful efforts.

Recall that we collected data from individuals nominated by thelocal school people in our sample; 96 external facilitators and 78local facilitators (individuals within districts but outside theparticular buildings where new practices were being implemented).These individuals were interviewed and completed a questionnaireregarding their general strategy of assistance, as well as anotherset focused on their site-specific assistance activities. Theywere alzo queried regarding various aspects of their work setting,their prior experience, their various roles, and their perspectiveson school improvement efforts. Volume II of our master reportseries (Lc.ucks, Cox, Miles and Ruberman, 1982) provides fulldescriptive information about this sample of helpers. Thesefacilitators were affiliated with one of the four programs weinvestigated (the National Diffusion Network (NDN] , the BEN MarketLinkage Program, State Administered Dissemination (ESEA Title IV-CAdoption-Adaptation Grants], and ESEA Title IV-C LocalInvention/Development efforts). They held a variety of roles: intheir agencies, and played a large number in their work. Theiractivities were directed at promoting school improvement in theirservice areas. Figure 1 reflects our revised model and the generalrelationships we discerned.

Figure 1: Our Revised Model of External Facilitator Activity

Program/RoleType

GeneralAssistance

Let us walk briefly through it.

6i-i of? ,2.51

Site-SpecificAssistance

4

Individual-Level

Outcomes

School-LevelOutcomes

We found that the general orientation of external facilitators issomewhat shaped by their characteristics and contexts, but not bythe program with which they are affiliated, nor their particularrole in that program. On empirical grounds, the predictor in whichwe have most confidence is Project Director. In particular, ifexternal facilitators are project directors, they are more likelyto be predisposed toward arranging and conducting awarenessactivities as well as toward working closely with administrators.

That is to say, the general predispositions of externalfacilitators appear to combine with their program/role type toinfluence the nature of the assistance they provide in particularsites. Perhaps the most important general assistance predictor ofthe kind of site-specific assistance external facilitators give isthe extent of their predisposition to work closely withadministrators. This allows us to build the following chain: ifexternal facilitators are project directors, they are more likelyto he predisposed to work closely with administrators; those whohave such a predisposition are less likely (than those externalfacilitators who are project staff) to work closely with teachers.

With regard to school improvement outcomes, we need to lookseparately, both at the level of the individual and the level ofthe school. With respect to the former, our data suggest thatexternal facilitators contribute indirectly to such individual-level outcomes as fidelity and practice-related mastery. Beyondthis, our data suggest that what external facilitators do probablydepends upon whether the innovation implementers in a local schoolhave local facilitators to assist with the implementation of thepractice. When local facilitators are present, we believe thatexternal facilitators perceive less need to be involved withteachers. Nevertheless, when they provide teachers with technicalassistance and follow-up training, or help them plan implementationschedules and work out procedural details, they prove helpful.

With regard to school-level outcomes, we consider our mostimportant finding to be the confirmation of our hypothesis that theamount of external facilitator activity predicts the number ofprincipal-identified organizational changes.

It is clear that assistance makes a critical difference, bi:t thatthe source of the assistance can vary from setting to setting.Stated as a conclusion, the key actors in the teachers' environmenttend to contribute to the achievement of different outcomes, and todo so in different ways. Table 1 splays the nature of the opactthat three key actors have on ten different implementationoutcomes. Apparently, while principals and local facilitators tendto contribute directly, external facilitators tend to contributeindirectly. Furthermore, while all three contribute to perceivedbenefits, principals alone appear to contribute to bothpractice-related mastery and plans for continuation, localrabiTTEEEErs alone appear to contribute to both teacher commitmentand the degree the practice is perceived to solve problems, NFU--external facilitators alone appear to contribute topractice-specific mastery.

Table 1: Nature of the Contributions of Principals, Local Facilitators,and External Facilitators to Ten Iopleamntation Outcomes.

PerceivedBenefits

DegreePractice

is

Perceivedto

SolveProblems

TeacherCommitment

Changein

Practice

Practice-SpecificMastery Fidelity

Organi-zational

Change

Institu-tionali-vale,

PracticeFelatedMastery

Plans forContinuation

Principals Direct Direct Direct Indirect Direct Direct

LocalFacilitators

Direct Direct Direct Direct

External

Facilitators

Direct Indirect Indirect Indirect Direct Indirect

Saying that an actor contributes directly to the production of an implementation outcome means that some activityof that actor has achieved at least borderline significance as a direct predictor of that outcome; saying that anactor contributes indirect! means that some activity of that actor has achieved at least borderline significanceas a predictor of ano ner variable that is a direct or indirect predictor of that outcome.

*Excerpted from Models of Change, Bauchner, Eiseman, Cox and Schmidt, Volume II, in the aster report series of theStudy of Dissemination Efforts Supporting School improvement, People, Policies and Practices: Examining_ the Chain

of School Improvement, Volumes I-X, David P. Crandall and Associates, The NETWORK, Inc. ,1982.

7

For any given actor, different aspects of his/her activititycontribute to different outcomes. One exam01-4-b-fthIS1-Ihatwhen external facilitators spend a lot of time on awarenessactivities and other initial contacts, it tends to result inreasonably good practice-specific mastery, whereas when theyconcentrate on helping with specifics, it tends toresult in reasonably good fidelity, and reasonably substantialchange in practice.

Note also that we found that external facilitators tend toconcfmn`rate their energies on sites in which local facilitatorsare eitaer absent or only minimally involved.

What do these findings imply for these individuals in their work,and for those who set the policies which surround such work?

Implications for Principals

From our data, it appears that principals should refrain fromentangling themselves in the details of the implementation of thepractice unless they are the district expert on it. However, theyshould overtly demonstrate their commitment to the successfulimplementation of the practice by ensuring:

that teachers have access to personnel either within oroutside of the district who have practice-releventknowledge and experience,

that the relationship between the practice and theschool's top priorities is clear and known to all staff,

that teachers understand that there is an expectation thatall of the practice's components are to be implementedTexceptions should only be authorized by designatedindividuals who have intimate knowledge of the practice),and

that a school-wide environment conducive to ongoing,systematic problem-solving be maintained.

Implications for Central Administrators

We believe that our data and that of Miles and Huberman (1982)support the following proposition:

The proper role for central administrators is first tounderstand the process of implementation, especially thefactors that predict success on various outcome measures, andsecond, to apply this understanding by taking whatever stepsare necessary to ensure that each of the other actorsinvolved do that which maximizes the likelihood of suchsuccess.

4

Chief among the steps we have in mind are:

taking an active role in involving appropriate externalfacilitators,

participating in the selection of appropriate localfacilitators (including themselves) and ensuring that theyhave sufficient released time to prepare for and carry outthis role,

ensuring that all the actors and the activities arecoordinated in such a manner so that all of the necessaryfunctions are performed to the extent needed, and

ensuring that all tie principals who are presiding overschools in which the prctice will be implementedunderstand how both principals and teachers can increasethe likelihood of favorable outcomes.

Implications for Facilitators

Collectively, the facilitators that were involved in the sites westudied played a traceable role in producing two of ourimplementation outcomes (fidelity and institutionalization), asubstantial role in producing two more (perceived benefits andplans for continuation), and a aecisive role in producing fourothers (change in practice, theliiiFiithe practice is perceivedto solve problems, teacher commitment, and practice-s ecificmastery). However, while the roles facilitators p ay nEFEEiiTrating successful implementations are crucial, there arethree points that must be kept in mind when basing future actionsupon our findings:

Although our data show that both kinds of facilitatorswere involved in producing some implementation outcomes(change in practice and perceived benefits), each type offacilitator appeared to pursue a rather unique mission.In particular, local facilitators appeared to focus theirtalents on inducing in teachers a productiveproblem-solving orientation (local facilitators wereuniquely associated with the outcomes the degree to whichthe practice is perceived to solve problems and teachercommitment); external Facilitators aprgFff to concentratetheir efforts on inducing teachers to implement thepractice-under-study. (This latter conclusion is basedupon two kinds of data. First, compared to localfacilitators, external facilitators are uniquelyassociated with three implementation outcomes: fidelity,practice-specific mastery, and organizational change.Second, two kinds of external facilitator activity weresingled out as playing crucial roles in producing theseoutcomes: awareness activities and other initial contactsand help with mplementation spec cs.)

we tlid not collect data about the extent to which localfacilitators and external facilitators spent timetogether, either agreeing to divide up the turf orcollaborating, but we do know that external facilitatorstended to spend more time in sites in which localfacilitators either were absent or projected a low profile.

we want to avoid the "naturalistic fallacy," that is, wewant to avoid recommending that because there is adivision of labor between local and external facilitators,therefore, there ought to be.

Accordingly, we note that the current division of labor seemsappropriate for typical situations. That is, since externalfacilitators usually have more content expertise, it makes sensefor them to concentrate on helping teachers achieve fidelity,practice-specific mastery, and the various organizational changesthat are associated with the practice. And similarly, sincecompared to external facilitators, local facilitators are usuallybetter informed about their own system, its staff, and itsproblems, it makes sense for them to be the ones working ongalvanizing the staff, inducing them to think about the problemsthey are facing, and the ways in which the new practice can helpaddress them.

Nevertheless, sometimes experts are too involved with the detailsand refinements to help those for whom the practice is new.Furthermore, external facilitators usually cannot spend as muchtime with local teachers as the latter group may need. Finally,local facilitators who have been given special training may bemore expert than those external facilitators who work with severalpractices (e.g., NDN state facilitators). Similarly, localfacilitators may be too caught up with the system, or may be toomuch the prophet in their own hometown to be successful atinducing teacher commitment or a problem-solving orientation. Inshort, what may work typically may not be what is best for avariety of cases.

Let us conclude with three recommendations related to coordinatingassistance in school improvement efforts:

Both local and external facilitators should perceive theimplementation task as a process of working toward theachievement of the ten implementation outcomes listed inTable 1. Our intent here is to suggest more than justdeveloping a particular perspective. We also have in mindthat facilitators develop the requisite skills.

What kind of skills will help facilitators produceperceived benefits or the perception that the practicesolves problems real problems? Obviously facilitatorscannot work toward these objectives in isolation. Theremust be real benefits to perceive, and the practice has tobe making a noticeable dent in problems the teachersrecognize and consider important. So in the beginning

achieving other outcomes takes precedence. But even atthe beginning, important groundwork must be laid. Forexample, with respect to the solves problems outcome, thefacilitator should help teachers identify the kinds ofproblems they are having that the practice might help themsolve.

But the direct answer to our rhetorical question is thatfacilitators need skills related to helping teachersreflect upon their experience. These include incudingteachers to think about and discuss their answers to suchquestions as why is this activity part of the practice?What would heppen if I left it out? How have my studentsreacted when I tried to use it? Has the practice helpedme in the way that I had hoped? Has it made a differencein other aspects of my teaching?

we did not discuss what facilitators might do to worktoward the achievement of the other outcomes. That isbecause the other outcomes are more straightforward.Howevet, we !should add that our data imply that threekinds of activity have special payoff: appropriategroundwork with administrators (including the arranging oftraining), awareness activities and other initial contactswith teachers, and work on implementation specifics. Futanother way, facilitators should perform the "in thetrenches" assistance tasks of assessing needs, developingschool-level support and commitment, conducting training,and providing follow-up.

Local and external facilitators should collaborative'1757EWITE an a hoc v s on o labor. ome peop e oelievethat the best way to get toothpaste out of a tube is tostart at one end using a careful, systematic, cyclicalsqueeze-and-roll process. Others feel better when theyplunge their thumb into the middle of a virgin section ofthe tube. It is our position that the important issue iswhether whatever process that is used eventually gets allthe toothpaste out of the tube. Similarly, we believethat local and external facilitators should meet todiscuss their strengths, weaknesses, and preferences andwork out an arrangement that ensures that progress can bemade on all fronts.

The facilitators should locate and involve a centraladministrator committed to the succeiinl-implementation6T the practice to bless and coordinate their dfiairoT5751-labor agreement. Of course a central administrator notonly may have initiated the district's involvement withthe practice, but also may have recruited the variousfacilitators. If so, fine; he or she may take on theblessing-and-coordinating responsibility on his owninitiative. If not, then the facilitators should figureout who should assume this responsibility, and act ontheir decision.

1170

we would urge that the issues raised by the foregoing be givenprompt attention. Uncovering the key contribution that aknowledgeable central administrator can make to success was one of

ur most striking findings. At a time when budget cuts in manylocales threaten such support positions, we urge extreme caution,for these individuals seem a vital part of successful efforts.Men they team with external helpers, the payoff multiplies.Plans for leaner district management should not overlook thedownstream consequences of eliminating such individuals. Let uskeep our fingers crossed that these key coordinators remEinavailable for the challenging changes we face in the future.

12

8.

References

Bauchner, J. E.. Eiseman, J. W., Cox, P. L., & Schmidt W. B.Models of Change, Volume III. Andover, MA: The NETWORK, Inc.,1982.

Cox, P. L. Inside-out and Outside-in: ContIgurations ofAssistance and Their Im.=ct on School Im rovement Efforts.Andover, MA: T e NETWORK, Inc., 1'83.

Crandall, David P. and Associates. People, Policies, andPractices: Examining the Chain of School Improvement,Velumes I-X. Andover, MA: The NETWORK, Inc., I912.

Loucks, S. F., Cox, P. L., Miles, M. B., fi Huberman, A. M.Portraits of the Changes, the Players, and the Contexts,Volume II. Andover, MA: The NETWORK, Inc., 1982.

Mlles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., et al. Innovation Up Close: A

Field Study in Twelve School Settings, Volume IV. Andover, MA:The NETWORK, Inc., 1982.

I.3

9.