dr. arthur borgemenke - national forum of educational administration and supervision journal -...

7/28/2019 Dr. Arthur Borgemenke - National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal - William Allan Krit…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-arthur-borgemenke-national-forum-of-educational-administration-and-supervision 1/24

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 29, NUMBER 2, 2012-2013

AVOIDING THE CHANGE TRAP: STRATEGIES

FOR SCHOOL LEADERS IN TIMES OF CHANGE

Arthur Borgemenke

Amy L. BlantonCatherine J. Kirkland

Cynthia S. Woody

Texas A&M University-Commerce

ABSTRACT

School principals are often leaders who control budgets, interact with Boards of

Education, and coordinate the curriculum. Teachers are often lonely and in charge

only of their own classrooms and students. This is a study to illustrate how

collaboration involving teachers and principals can improve schools and result instudent use of personal and societal issues which can be used to improve student

learning. It ties research from Connecting Learning Assures successful Students

(CLASS) to results with reforms in science arising from Iowa Chautauqua. Teaching

outcomes change and encourage growth of programs that illustrate real science and

identify problems and work toward solving them. Schools and communities benefit. Key

Words: School Climate; Principal Leadership; Science Reforms; Collaboration for Greater

Success; the Power of Questioning

hange is an intrinsic challenge of leadership and helps ensure the

viability of an organization or system (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2006;

Kotter, 1996, 2008; Senge, 1993; Schlechty, 2005; Wagner, et al.,2006; Wheatley, 2006). Contemporary educational institutions are at a point

where they must undergo rapid and dramatic change if they hope to meetcurrent and future needs (Glickman, 1998; Meier, 2002; Pink, 2006; Wallis &

Steptoe, 2006; Wagner, et al., 2006). Unfortunately, according to Kotter

(2008), “in over 70 percent of the situations where substantial changes wereclearly needed, either they were not fully launched, or the change efforts

failed, or changes were achieved but over budget, late and with great

frustration” (p. viii).

C

42



43 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Most people struggle with change and would prefer to leave things as

they are (Kotter, 1996, 2008; Spencer, 2002). However, Kotter’s (2008)

findings revealed that some change efforts are highly successful, and that withforethought, planning, and reflection, leaders can greatly improve their

chances of leading successful change initiatives. The purpose of this study is

to explore the literature on the leadership of change, to describe some actualchange effort scenarios in public school settings, and to highlight practical

strategies which can be used by principals and superintendents to improve

their effectiveness in leading change.

Review of the Literature

Perhaps no author has been more associated with change leadership

than Kotter, author of the 1996 best seller, Leading Change. Kotter’s (1996)

eight step process for leading change includes: 1) establishing a sense of

urgency, 2) creating a guiding coalition, 3) developing a vision and strategy,4) communicating the change vision, 5) empowering employees for broad-

based action, 6) generating short-term wins, 7) consolidating gains and producing more change, and 8) anchoring new approaches in the culture. In

1951, almost half a century before Kotter emerged on the change leadership

scene, Kurt Lewin introduced a three step theory whereby leaders helpedfollowers or participants unfreeze, change, and refreeze their thinking to elicit

a paradigm shift (Schein, 1995). Most authors who write about change focus

on the same steps in some form or fashion although grouping of the steps may

be communicated differently. Fullan (2006) opined that regardless of theoryor the number of steps, the most effective change strategies involved 1)

motivation of the people involved, 2) a focus on capacity building and results,

3) learning which occurs in the setting where change is needed, 4) the abilityto impact the larger context (often through networking with other schools), 5)

reflective thinking which leads to action, 6) tri-level engagement of the school

and community, district, and state, and 7) persistence and flexibility in seeingthe work through to the end.



Arthur Borgemenke, Amy L. Blanton, Catherine J. Kirkland, & Cynthia S. Woody 44

Why Change?

Why change? This primary question must be answered if any changeeffort is to succeed (Kotter, 1996, 2008; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Kotter &

Whitehead, 2010; Wagner, et al., 2005). Rowland and Higgins (2008)

observed that when leaders created an energizing, compelling story about theorganization’s need to change, those affected by the coming change were

more likely to embrace the transformative practices necessary to achieve new

goals. Kotter (1996) identified this practice as the first and most critical step inany change process and felt so strongly about the importance of this step that

he devoted an entire book to the topic in 2008. In the preface, he wrote,

“When the urgency challenge is not handled well, even very capable people

and resource-rich organizations can suffer greatly. When the challenge ishandled well, even those who face formidable obstacles can produce results

we all want for our careers, employers, and nations” (Kotter, 2008, p. vii).

Change as the Test of Leadership

Society has undergone rapid and dramatic change as it entered the 21 st

century, but schools continue to operate for the most part as they did for the

majority of the 20th century (Pink, 2006; Wagner, et al., 2005; Wallis &Steptoe, 2006). “Groups that are incapable of change and cannot adapt to

emerging realities are as dysfunctional as are those that fall into anarchy and

confusion because they cannot gain sufficient conformity to function as a

purposeful unit” (Schlechty, 2005, p. 38). Senge (2006) found that powerfulleadership required all persons involved to utilize systems thinking in order to

become a learning organization. Collin Powell, former United States Secretary

of State, understood how to harness the power of a learning organization toachieve difficult tasks: “Leadership is the art of accomplishing more than the

science of management says is possible” (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2006).

Effective leadership requires, according to Senge, careful consideration of how each decision impacts other parts of the system, and it demands a

constant cycle of reflection and revision of goals and objectives as the system

constantly changes and tests the strength of the leader.

Bolman and Deal (1997) characterized organizations as complex,

surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous. Complexity, in their opinion, arose




from the irrationality of human behavior, noting that “almost anything can

affect anything else in a collective activity. The permutations produce

complex, causal knots that are hard to disentangle” (p. 25). Anyone who has been a school leader has certainly observed these complex, causal knots firmly

woven into the tapestry which is comprised of their faculty and

administration, student body, parents, community members, and other stakeholders. Bolman and Deal categorized organizations as being surprising

because today’s solutions often become tomorrow’s problems, and inputs

thought to lead to neatly planned outputs seldom turn out as planned.Deception is rampant within most organizations because of instinctive human

tendencies to protect themselves from harm, to avoid offending superiors, and

to be less than candid in communications (Bolman & Deal). Because

organizations are complex, surprising, and deceptive, it is only natural thatambiguity thrives in organizations and is manifested through lack of clarity in

vision, role confusion, loss of focus on goals, disagreement on what

constitutes success, competition for resources, and miscommunication

accompanied by misinterpretation of what is going on in the organization atany given moment.

Schools as a Special Type of Organization

To further compound the problem of leading organizational change in

school settings, Sergiovanni (2007) separated schools as unique organizations

in their own right. School leaders, he pointed out, must be very special people

capable of dealing with realities which exist only in schools: “After all,schools belong to parents and children, interact with the needs of local

businesses, churches, and other community groups, and have a unique

relationship with state governments….Schools also need special leadership because they are staffed by professionals who don’t react warmly to the kind

of hierarchically based command leadership or hero leadership that

characterizes so many other kinds of organizations” (p. 1). Sergiovanniasserted that the best school leaders acknowledge that the people they

supervise generally know more about how to perform their work than do their

supervisors, a phenomenon he termed ability-authority gaps. This reality leads

to even greater challenges in the work of school improvement.




Leadership of change in schools is not, however, a hopeless task. After

observing dozens of organizational change and improvement efforts fail,

Kotter (1996) concluded, “Available evidence shows that most public and private organizations can be significantly improved, at an acceptable cost, but

that we often make terrible mistakes when we try because history has simply

not prepared us for transformational challenges” (p. 18). George andTipperman (1983) noted that even twenty years ago, the challenge of a new

school administrator was to “manage transition so that leadership is quickly

assumed, disruption minimized, and changes smoothly implemented” (p. 66).They asserted that the most critical period in leading change is at the

beginning, when people are interested in hearing the leader’s vision and

proposed solutions to determine if they find merit in the ideas before joining

the effort. According to Yin Cheong (2010), contemporary educational leadersare expected to be more strategic and proactive in their decision-making

efforts than ever before, which means that principals and superintendents

often feel greatly underprepared to lead change and yet feel pressured to do so

in order to move their campuses and districts forward.

Methods and Procedures

The authors of this article contributed narratives about actual changeefforts in public school settings. These events occurred in two states of the

United States within the last ten years, and the facts were gathered through

first person participation in the situation or through interviews conducted with

persons involved in the change. Some of the narratives relate stories of successful initiatives, while others tell of situations where poor

communication, a false sense of urgency, limited planning, time constraints,

or lack of vision led to a failed change effort. The authors purposefully chosescenarios that were typical in public school settings so that the findings would

be more generalizable. The narratives were analyzed by comparing them to

findings generated by the review of the literature. Analysis of results led toconclusions about recommended practices and strategies which school

principals and superintendents might employ if they wish to lead a successful

change effort.




Results

Narratives contributed by the authors are reported below in the form of scenarios. The first scenario follows a new principal through her first year on

a campus and explores the changes that took place over time. Notice that the

principal in this case took time at the beginning to build a shared vision and togain insight into the issues on the campus she was going to lead. As George

and Tipperman (2010) observed, leadership transitions provide a window of

opportunity where a new principal has a chance not only to identify and frameissues, but also to build relationships, find common ground, and shape the

school culture.

Scenario 1

Well, it wasn’t the worst assignment she had ever gotten, but to

be hired in July and move from a campus in the city to a rural area was

definitely going to be a challenge. She looked at the school’s report. Itwasn’t stellar, but she had definitely seen worse. The campus had an

acceptable rating, but barely. The demographics she examined glaredat her from the report. African American students’ scores were low but

Hispanic scores were pitiful. There was that achievement gap. Yes, the

gap had been declared a national epidemic by many scholars, but thisleader was determined that the gap would become the rare occurrence

rather than the norm if she had anything to do about it.

What would these people think of me, she wondered? Wouldthey accept me or use passive resistance to stonewall my efforts? How

would the assistant principal, a fresh new administrative face, react to

my arrival? These thoughts both stimulated her adventurous side andriddled her dreams as she tried to sleep. Ouch. Oh, that cast. As if she

didn’t have enough on her mind, she had to work around the cast on

her arm from the accident. Well, maybe that could be the ice-breaker with these people. How formidable could she seem when she told her

new staff she’d gotten run over by a golf cart?

The move to the small town was not easy. She found a tiny,really tiny house to rent just across the street from the school. Her own

spacious house had easily been rented. “One good thing….You don’t




have to worry about traffic jams here,” she chuckled to herself. The

principal, as fresh as she could be in July Texas heat, walked over to

the campus and met her assistant. They shared thoughts and walkedthe halls together, dreaming of what could be. By the end of the day,

they had clicked. They shared a vision of a campus that would

welcome everyone. They saw a positive, professional staff who shareda love for children and a passion for teaching. They envisioned the

community embracing the campus as theirs with its unique identity

and a heartbeat that drummed, “ Kids matter, kids matter, kids matter.”

The next step was time consuming: meet the staff. Where were

the strengths and weaknesses? Who were the natural leaders she could

utilize to promote change? She perused certifications and assignmentsto look for anyone functioning outside their area of expertise. One by

one she contacted each teacher and met with them to introduce herself

and listen to their hopes, fears, and dreams. Small towns can be easy to

maneuver, she decided. When she called a home to ask to speak to a particular teacher, the child that answered announced that his mom

was at Wal-Mart. Small town, only one Wal-Mart; she called the Wal-Mart and had the teacher paged. Within 30 minutes she was meeting

with that teacher. Yes, small towns had their advantages. When

meeting with the staff, she picked up on a problem. This campus had anew principal every year for several years. The faculty had formed

themselves into a cohesive unit for lack of a consistent leader. Well,

that could be good or bad depending on how the leader approached the

staff. She decided to talk to the assistant principal about it to get moredetails and formulate a plan.

By the time school started, she had met virtually all staff members and had formed a solid partnership with the assistant

principal. They worked well together. Communication with staff was

direct and stated as positively as possible. The staff didn’t always likewhat she and her assistant said, but there was no doubt about the

togetherness of their decisions or the thinking behind them. The best

interests of the students always came first. She and the assistant

principal proved over time that they had the faculty members’ backs.Throughout the year, they met at the school early and stayed late,

choosing to touch base almost every day after the students left to




discuss new developments and issues. Change did not come quickly.

She chose to immerse herself in the community to understand the

small town way of thinking. She was glad she did. Urban schoolsystems of management and decision-making were not always needed

or understood. As teachers began to trust her commitment to them,

they loosened control and began to include her in their professionaland personal lives. She became one of them: a small town member

with close friends who never went to Wal-Mart without seeing

someone she knew.

Change leadership experts (Kotter, 1996; Kotter & Cohen, 2002;

Meier, 2002; Wheatley, 2006, 2007) would likely observe that much of the

principal’s success at her school was due to her consistent relationship- building efforts. This effort laid a foundation to help the principal create

urgency and led to teacher buy-in for the changes that had to take place to

close the gaps in student performance. In her 2002 book, In Schools We Trust ,

Meier discussed the importance of building trust as a critical element of school culture. In schools where administrators, faculty, and staff trusted each

other, progress was much more rapid and lasting. Even though transitions can be chaotic, Wheatley (2006, 2007) and Senge (2006) encouraged disruption to

systems and believed such disruptions as necessary for change to take place.

Because the principal and assistant principal took the time to buildrelationships and remained united, consistent, and focused on the vision, the

disruption to previous practices was embraced by the faculty.

The next scenario highlights the behaviors and actions which canoccur when key communication errors are made at the onset of a new project

or shift in practice. In Scenario 2, little attention is given to creating a sense of

urgent need for change, building a shared vision of how the change will helpthe school accomplish its mission and goals, or allowing time for affected

parties to mentally and physically prepare for the ways the change effort will

require them to modify their current practices.

Scenario 2

After an eight hour training session on Thinking Maps, thehigh school principals returned to their campus to discuss how they

would implement the new district initiative to use Thinking Maps on




their campus for the new school year. The principals sat around the

conference table in the front office and began to discuss different

strategies for how to present this new initiative to the teachers. It wasfinally decided that the head principal would present the content at the

opening faculty meeting when teachers returned in August. The

principal gladly agreed to put together a presentation similar to the onethey had seen during their in-service and present it to the faculty.

During the first day back for teachers in August the principal gave his

presentation as teachers sat and looked wide-eyed at the suggestion of ‘something new’ being added to their instructional focus.

Teachers left the faculty meeting that afternoon and quickly

began to discuss their concerns about Thinking Maps and their use inthe classroom. First of all, during the presentation the principal had

stated that Thinking Maps would now be an objective to be checked

off of their regular walkthroughs and administrators would be looking

for Thinking Maps to be displayed in some form in each classroom.Teachers who did not display their maps would be identified as not

following the district initiative. Teachers were furious that they nowwould have to go back and re-write their entire set of first six weeks

lesson plans because they now had to use Thinking Maps in all their

lessons. What the principal had failed to explain to the faculty was thatThinking Maps was a tool for students to use to organize their

thoughts. It was an instructional instrument for teachers to use to

evaluate the thought process of their students and could be a great

brainstorming tool. However, because of the miscommunication thathad taken place during the faculty meeting and the presentation of

Thinking Maps as a mandate from administration and not as a teaching

tool to help students and teachers, the faculty quickly becamedisgruntled about this new initiative.

During the first few weeks of the school year, teachersdutifully implemented Thinking Maps, but they were using them

because they felt that if they did not, they would be reprimanded,

rather than seeing the true benefit that Thinking Maps could provide

for their students. Teachers displayed their maps on their classroomwalls, doors, and hallways. After the first six weeks, however, the

campus administrators noticed that the maps were not changing; they




were the same maps that were displayed the first week of school. This

puzzled the administrative staff because they thought they made it

clear that teachers were to use Thinking Maps on a regular basis, notonly during the first weeks of school. At the next faculty meeting the

campus principal reiterated to teachers that they were to be using

Thinking Maps on a regular basis and were to change out their oldmaps so the campus administrators could see their continued use of the

program. When the principal opened up the end of the meeting for a

question and answer session a few teachers expressed their frustration.They complained that they were angry that they were not told last

spring that this district wide initiative would be taking place. Had

teachers been told during the end of the last school year, they argued,

they could have thoughtfully and carefully planned Thinking Maps togo with each of their units. However, because the information was

brought to their attention during the first faculty meeting of the year,

they felt they had not been provided adequate time to address this new

initiative or plan for the current school year.

The implementation of Thinking Maps was poorlycommunicated at the district level and at the campus level. It was

poorly communicated at the campus level because it was presented as

a mandate that teachers must use Thinking Maps and display them for their appraiser to view. It was poorly communicated at the district

level because teachers across the district were not aware of this new

initiative until the beginning of the school year and did not have an

adequate amount of time to plan. Now at the end of year one, ThinkingMaps are only posted in some rooms and are only utilized in the

classrooms where teachers have identified their advantages for

students’ thought process and organization. What lies ahead for Thinking Maps in this district is yet to come, and the opportunity for

early success has passed.

Even though the goal of implementing a new teaching strategy

should have been simple to achieve, this change effort was practically

doomed before it was presented to the faculty. Consider Kotter’s

(1996) eight steps. The first four steps involve the framing of amessage designed to motivate people to willingly join the effort to

improve the organization by making a change. Lewin (1951) termed




this stage unfreezing the thinking of people who were accustomed to

doing things a different way. Fullan (2006) concurred that effective

change initiatives always begin with motivation of people. The leadersin this process overlooked this critical part of a change effort which

could have been assimilated into school culture with relative ease and

were caught off guard by the emotional push-back from the teachers.In this case, well-meaning school administrators incorrectly assumed

that the usefulness of the teaching strategy itself would be sufficiently

motivating to ensure its application in most classrooms and that theadded incentive of framing it as a directive would serve to motivate

reluctant participants. Administrators rushed to implement the change

because they saw it as a powerful teaching practice, but in their hurry

they failed to include and empower key stakeholders. The changeeffort might still have been salvaged if the leaders had recognized that

the first evidence of Thinking Maps represented a small victory to be

celebrated by the faculty. Instead, teachers were chastised when the

initiative stalled shortly after it was launched. In all likelihood, theonly way to rescue this botched change effort would be to engage both

sides in reflective thinking as Fullan (2006) recommended, whichmight clear the air, reenergize participants, and help administrators

understand that quick change is seldom effective.

Scenario 3

The first clue that change was afoot was a very formal looking

survey in school mailboxes. This survey was distributed to all levels of staff in the school district and to select community members. Concerns

about the survey began to circulate through the district grapevine

immediately after the project was begun. The questions asked in thesurvey did not appear to address the nagging problems that had

plagued the district for many years. These included poor student

achievement scores, ill-defined roles and responsibilities, vague policies and procedures, duplication of efforts and poor

communication. The poor communication was illustrated by the

reception to the survey by the staff. Confusion, suspicion and apathy

about the process ruled the day. It was generally felt that the questionsasked were disconnected from the realities of the problems faced by

those at the ground levels of the institution.




A large Certified Public Accounting firm was used to

construct, distribute and analyze the data collected from the surveyinstrument. Many wondered how a firm that was not involved in

education could understand the issues at hand construct appropriate

questions and analyze the results in a fashion that truly reflected theneeds of the schools. The results of the survey were long in coming

and when finally released only reported in broad and general terms.

This lead to more concerns from staff about the nature and reason for the activity. The results seemed to be answering questions that were

not the ones thought to be most pressing by many of those closest to

the actual instruction at the campuses. The cost to the district for the

activity was in the mid six figure range. That generated much criticismthroughout the community and in the press.

The rationale for the nature and content of the survey was

revealed when the superintendent and school board announced asweeping change initiative during the summer following the release of

the results. The district would be split into four semi-autonomous“Areas”. The results of the survey were cited as the need for this

substantive action. The Areas would have newly hired Associate

Superintendents with far-reaching authority to implement policy anddetermine the educational path each would follow. Over the next year

the plan was rolled out and implemented.

The areas were comprised of relatively equal numbers of schools grouped mainly by geographical location. The basic idea

behind the reorganization had merit. Oversized organizations tend to

be more difficult to improve, change, or reform. Four smaller entitieswith loose ties and great autonomy could theoretically bring about

student achievement gains in a more efficient and rapid fashion.

The problems started to appear fairly quickly. The cost of this

reorganization was considerably more than was originally projected.

The district purchased a new central office building that became a

white elephant. The required renovations ran into the millions. Thisresulted in several board members becoming uneasy with the process

and also provided platforms for new candidates on which to run in the




upcoming board election. Staff members that were not formally

attached to campuses were assigned to areas in what appeared a

random manner. Individuals would be officed on one side of the largeschool district and travel through other areas to get to their new

assignments. Discussions about the efficiency of the new system were

constant topics in the newspaper, on talk radio and at school boardmeetings.

At the end of the first year of the reorganization a change in thelevel of support for the plan could already be felt from within the

district and from without. Year two brought changes in the school

board membership and changes in the reorganization. The four areas

were collapsed into three. Less autonomy was given to each area presumably because each of the four areas had expended more funds

than were budgeted the prior year. Stress among the employees within

the system seemed to be rising. There was an increase in the number of

transfer requests, as well as employee grievance processes filed.

The end of year three saw a collapse of the reorganization. Theschool board had a majority change. The new board was now not

supporting the superintendent and was moving towards ending the

employment contract. The areas were recombined into one largedistrict again. The new district central office building was vacated and

put up for sale. By the beginning of year four there were plans to

terminate the superintendent, and few remnants of the reorganization

were visible. The district still suffered from poor student achievementscores, ill-defined roles and responsibilities, vague policies and

procedures, duplication of efforts and poor communication.

Where did this district go wrong? Certainly the superintendent never

intended to make a bad situation worse by leading a change effort

which would end in the loss of public confidence and his job. Bolmanand Deal (1997) noted that today’s solutions can become tomorrow’s

problems. Instead of correcting district deficiencies, the change effort

depicted in Scenario 3 added several new layers of problems while

more deeply entrenching existing issues. In this scenario, the real problems were not identified, nor were their root causes explored. The

district reorganization came in response to a legitimate concern about




the difficulties of bringing about rapid reform in a bulky organization,

but the identification of organizational size as the key issue was based

upon assumptions. The survey, billed as stakeholder input, simplyserved as a carefully constructed and thinly veiled attempt to validate

this assumption without directly including stakeholders.

Johnson and Crispeels (2010) investigated the role of central

administration in district reform efforts, and their research led them to

conclude that relationships must be built between the central office andcampuses before any meaningful change can take place. “Because

school reform is a messy process, goodwill, cooperation, and

willingness to participate by all individuals involved are critical to

successfully moving reform efforts forward” (p. 767). Leaders of thisdistrict reform effort missed multiple opportunities for relationship

building by discounting stakeholder involvement. Poor planning

resulted in the collapse of the project, and leaders had none of Johnson

and Crispeels’ goodwill, cooperation, or willingness to fall back upon because they had ignored stakeholders in the planning stages and

beyond.

The superintendent in this scenario undoubtedly understood that he

needed to create a sense of urgency, and he might have thought thatthe survey results would serve in this capacity. Nevertheless, the

suspicion with which employees viewed the survey document

demonstrated a lack of trust between central administration and district

employees. Johnson and Crispeels (2010) urged central administratorsto strengthen relationships through openness and transparency and to

renew a focus on teaching and learning when attempting to lead major

change initiatives. Further, they emphasized the importance of face toface meetings and campus visits when central administration believes

change is in order. By choosing to use a disconnected survey created

and vaguely disaggregated by an outside entity, central administrationlost credibility before changes were even attempted.

If instead the district leadership team first had insisted on face to face

campus visits with staff, they might have realized early in the reform effortthat their concepts of critically needed transformation were divergent from the

perceptions of the majority of the staff. Rather than promoting an




organizational change, district leaders acted upon assumptions and ultimately

damaged relationships with teachers and board members, wasted money and

time, further tarnished the district’s reputation in the community, and allowed problems which negatively impacted student achievement to go unchecked.

Scenario 4

The new school year brought a new superintendent and a few

new teachers to the small rural school district. As always, there was a period of jockeying for position that occurs as teachers waited to see

who would draw which teaching and coaching assignments. In a

paradox typical of many small schools, most non-coaching classroom

teachers tended to stay forever; perfectly content with the expectationsof the community and the security of the small town pace, while

coaching positions were a revolving door in the pipeline of moving on

to bigger, more prestigious athletic programs.

This school year was no different. The new coaches were

recruited to fill staffing gaps in the athletic program and were then plugged into classrooms which matched their teaching certifications as

closely as possible. As in previous years, middle school and high

school science courses were split between two or three highly qualifiedscience teachers and a hodgepodge of less qualified, more reluctant

staff with little or no background or interest in science. English, math,

and history teachers picked up a period of science here or there to help

fill in the schedule. At the elementary school, the new superintendent’swife drew the fifth grade science teaching assignment. Though she had

never taught science or fifth grade before, she was a veteran educator

who had learned to be flexible through the years of her husband’scareer moves.

One factor made this year’s science instruction different from previous years. Students would be participating in field testing of a

new state-mandated standardized science test at grades five, eight, and

ten. The middle school and the high school science teachers fretted,

knowing that in two years the district would be held accountable for science test scores regardless of whether the classes were being taught

by “science people.” At the elementary level, where for many years




the primary emphasis had been placed on math and reading, the fifth

grade science teacher worried about how she could bring her students

– and herself – up to speed quickly enough to perform well by the timethe real test was rolled out.

Not surprisingly, science test scores were dismal two yearslater, and teachers were devastated. Even though they saw the train

wreck coming, they felt powerless to stop it because the problem with

science instruction was systemic. Teachers had limited backgroundknowledge of key concepts. Instruction relied heavily on textbooks

filled with interesting but often extraneous information, and the poorly

equipped labs were seldom used and underfunded due to budget

constraints. Science education, long viewed as a low priority across thestate, was negatively impacted at the local level by the turnover in

coaching staff and the early and exclusive emphasis on the three R’s.

Of course everyone in the system wanted to achieve superior science

exam results, but the system itself worked against that outcome.

Fast forward six years. The district’s science teachers, oncefrustrated and embarrassed over their students’ test scores, now have

earned recognition as one of the best district-wide science programs in

their very large state. Their scores continue to soar and have achievednear-perfection in some areas. They proudly wear their matching

denim shirts as they take their “Road Show” team out to work with

other teachers and administrators, and their participation in science

conferences and teacher mentoring programs has garnered themmultiple awards. So how did this remarkable turnaround happen?

A new teacher was hired in the fall following the publication of the first set of science test scores. She brought word of a collaborative

science teachers’ network which had recently formed at a state-

supported regional education service center. Because the collaborativehad state backing and major corporate support through grants,

membership was free. To sign up, principals had to agree in writing

that teachers would be allowed to attend each month and that the

school would pay for a substitute teacher. Teachers had to pledge to participate in a series of required sessions as part of a two-year

commitment. Make-up sessions were provided in the summer for the




times when teachers simply could not miss school. Each time teachers

attended a day of training, they were provided with much of the

necessary equipment to carry out the same lessons at school with their students. Sessions simulated the actual classroom practices endorsed

by collaborative leaders, meaning teachers were journaling,

conducting experiments, creating projects, and asking many questions – no “sit and get” lecturing and note-taking.

The superintendent’s wife was one of the first teachers fromthe district to join the group, and she immediately saw the power of the

science collaborative. Her enthusiasm led to strong administrative

support from the superintendent. Within a year, the small district was

sending a vanload of teachers each month. The perception of scienceeducation at the elementary school began to shift as teachers of lower

grades joined the collaborative. Teachers at all levels began to gain

critical background knowledge in science content and instructional

techniques, and labs and hands-on learning activities rendered thetextbooks useless. The district athletic director agreed to lose a middle

school coaching position so that the principal could hire an additionalfulltime science teacher.

The two hour round trip drive to the service center turned into prime professional development time, and an informal vertical science

team began planning and dreaming together. The superintendent

proudly said that the “van time” was the district’s best investment in

curriculum development. As part of their collaborative experience, theteam began networking with contacts in other districts, at universities,

and at government agencies such as NASA. Attending state and

national science conferences proved to be another turning point asteam members gained enough confidence to assist collaborative

leaders in leading training before branching off to lead training with

their coworkers and teachers from other districts. Eventually thesuperintendent and principals joined the teachers in presenting

workshops on how they had turned their program around. Parents

cheered and volunteered, and students fell in love with science.

Scenario 4 seems almost too good to be true, yet it represents an actual

transformation in a public school system. To understand why this systemic




change flourished, consider Fullan’s (2006) tenets for change. The

implementation of the science test was a catalyst for a change initiative. As

stated earlier, until a need became evident, everyone seemed satisfied with thestatus quo. The participants were motivated at every level, from the teachers

who were embarrassed by low scores to state business leaders who understood

that the future of their industry hinged on improvement in science instruction.The collaborative leaders, district administrators, and teachers maintained a

focus on capacity building and results, even going so far as put their

commitment into writing. Johnson and Crispeels (2010) concurred that thisfocus on learning and instruction serves to build trusting relationships where

change is needed. Because their new teaching strategies empowered teachers

to reach out to others inside and outside the collaborative network, they

experienced the satisfaction of impacting the larger context of scienceeducation in their state. The collaborative efforts also satisfied Fullan’s call

for tri-level engagement of the school and community, district, and state.

Finally, all stakeholders in this scenario were able to celebrate the small and

large successes mentioned by Kotter (1996). Fullan would probably attributethese successes to the persistence and flexibility which allowed them to see

the work through to the end.

Conclusion

Researchers concluded that prior to implementation of new ideas,

school leaders must gain the support of stakeholders, and one of the best ways

to accomplish that task is for leaders and stakeholders to collaborate in the process of clarifying desired outcomes and methods for reaching common

goals. The scenarios highlighted in this study illustrated the critical nature of

leaders’ decisions about how to communicate and facilitate change. In the firstand last narratives, transformation occurred gradually and purposefully. The

converse is true for the second and third narratives. Those two situations

exemplified misguided reform efforts which proceeded without firstunderstanding the nature of change desired by stakeholders and without taking

time to earn their trust. Altogether, the four narratives illuminated the

importance of relationships, focus and patience in leading change in public

school settings.




In the successful scenarios, change leaders took time to build

relationships through daily interaction (the involved, informed principal and

assistant principal) and regularly scheduled, focused capacity buildingsessions (the collaborative teacher training sessions). In both situations,

teachers had tangible proof of their leaders’ ongoing support, encouragement,

and engagement in the improvement process. The focus remained at all timeson instructional improvement, and teachers felt empowered rather than

blamed.

In the elementary example, the new campus leadership team shared

responsibility for student performance with the teachers. Their awareness and

keen understanding of challenges faced by teachers stemmed from the fact

that they were physically present and engaged in all aspects of the work necessary to bring about school improvement. This credibility was

strengthened by the perception that lasting change could not be rushed. The

principal and assistant principal took time to build trust with each other first

and consequently projected a unified approach as they built relationships withthe staff and community. In this scenario, positive outcomes hinged on a

handful of key elements. If the principal and assistant principal had appearedunited in faculty meetings but disparaged each other when apart, teachers

would have been forced to choose sides in a battle with no winners. If the new

principal had immediately attacked her faculty for achievement gaps in lastyear’s test scores, the faculty’s alienation would have impeded progress

indefinitely. If the leadership team had taken time to build relationships yet

remained distant from the daily tasks required to maintain steady student

progress toward goals, teachers rightfully might have viewed the team’svision as intriguing but unrealistic. Thus, the success in the first scenario can

be attributed in large part to patience in building trust while personally and

consistently engaging in the work of improving teaching and learning.

In the story of the district which experienced systemic improvement,

the call for change came simultaneously from teachers and administrators inresponse to inadequate student performance on a newly mandated science

exam. Test scores revealed that quite possibly no one in the district possessed

the necessary skills and knowledge to bring about improvement from within.

However, because the focus remained on teaching and learning, teachers feltsupported rather than castigated when they were sent away to training. The

regional teacher collaborative offered educators the opportunity for early wins




in the form of meaningful, immediately applicable lessons which they saw as

potentially solving the issue of low test scores, and it provided a support

network which encouraged innovation and risk-taking in order to abandonengrained teaching methods. These early wins built excitement among

teachers and students and led others to join the improvement effort. Science

took on a new importance in the district, and teachers learned how to engagestudents in targeted, stimulating lessons which yielded dramatic improvement

on state exams. Relationships strengthened within the district and trust

developed between district and regional teachers, administrators, and sciencespecialists.

The other two situations could have resulted in impressive

improvements, too, but leaders misjudged the importance of relationships,focus, and patience. Take, for example, the story of the district and high

school administrators who attempted to introduce a new teaching tool. The

outcomes of their change effort might have looked entirely different if they

had taken lead teachers with them to the initial training, brought the fulltraining to the campus, or asked a faculty team to investigate possible

applications for the teaching tool at their school. In their hurry to get the toolinto classrooms, leaders lost teachers’ buy-in and broke down relationships

between faculty and administration. Although the leadership team had

instructional improvement in mind, they lost focus on teaching and learning by notifying teachers that they would be formally reprimanded if they chose

not to implement the new teaching strategy.

The narrative detailing the botched district reorganization effort provides numerous examples of the how the absence of relationships, focus,

and patience can doom a change initiative. On the surface, district leaders

appeared to follow research-based practices because they gatheredinformation from stakeholders, used that information to guide decision-

making, and implemented change based on these decisions. Unfortunately, the

information they gathered came from a survey created by an outside firm, andemployees believed that the questions on the survey were irrelevant and

unrelated to the district’s most pressing problems. Central administrators

failed to establish relationships with staff members, failed to focus on teaching

and learning, and failed to move slowly and patiently enough to monitor thechange effort and ensure its effectiveness. Researchers noted that the larger

the change effort, the more drastic the outcomes, regardless of whether the




outcomes were positive or negative. The poorly conceived large scale district

reorganization effort left an entire school system in shambles, while the

systematic redesign of another district resulted in such dramatic improvementthat the district was able to reach out to help other teachers and district

leaders.

Implications for further study included the need for more in-depth

qualitative and mixed-methods studies focused entirely on contemporary

methods for leadership of change in American public schools. Whilequantitative studies can reveal trends in data associated with certain change

initiatives, human factors such as relationships, focus, and patience are

extremely difficult to relate through quantitative methods. When confronted

with true tales of success and failure, change agents are forced to reflect upontheir own actions and how their practice might be improved through adopting

or rejecting the tactics of other leaders. Researchers hope to see other studies

such as this in the continued quest to make our public schools a better place

for teaching and learning.




REFERENCES

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Denhardt, R., & Denhardt, J. (2006). The dance of leadership: The art of

leading in business, government, and society. Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe.

Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement. Seminar

series paper no. 157, Center for Strategic Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_06/06_change_theory.pdf

George, J., & Tipperman, M. (1983). Change workshop: A principal manages

his entrance. Educational Leadership, 40(8), 66. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost .Glickman, C. D. (1998). Revolutionizing America’s schools. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Johnson, P., & Chrispeels, J. (2010). Linking the central office and its schools

for reform. Educational Administration Quarterly 46, no. 5: 738-775. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 6, 2011).

Doi: 10.1177/0013161X10377346Johnson, S. (2002). Who moved my cheese? An amazing way deal with

change in your work and in your life. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.Kotter, J. (2008). A sense of urgency. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard

Business Press.

Kotter, J., & Whitehead, L. (2010). Buy-in. Boston: Harvard Business Review

Press.Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust: Creating communities of learning in an

era of testing and standardization. Boston: Beacon Press.

Pink, D, (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York: Riverhead Books.

Rowland, D., & Higgs, M. (2008). Sustaining change: Leadership that works.

San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.Schein, E. H. (1995). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the

classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Retrieved

from http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/Ols/courses/ols582/SWP-3821-

32871445.pdf Schlechty, P. (2005). Creating great schools: Six critical systems at the heart

of educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_06/06_change_theory.pdf

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/Ols/courses/ols582/SWP-3821-32871445.pdf


http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_06/06_change_theory.pdf






Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: Art and practice of the learning

organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (2007). Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Stiggins, Rick, & Chappuis, Jan. (2005). Using student-involved classroom

assessment to close achievement gaps. Theory Into Practice, 44(1), 11-18.

Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Lemons, R., Garnier, J., Helsing, D.,

Howell, A., & Rasmussen, H. Change leadership: A practical guide totransforming our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wallis, C. & Steptoe, S. (2006, December 18). How to bring our schools out

of the 20th century. Time, 168 (25), 50-56. Retrieved from EBSCOhost .

Wheatley, M. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in achaotic world.

Wheatley, M. (2007). Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Yin Cheong, C. (2010). A topology of three-wave models of strategicleadership in education. International Studies in Educational

Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 38(1), 35-54. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost .




About the Authors

Arthur Borgemenke, Ed.D is an Assistant Professor in the College of Education and Human Services at Texas A&M University-Commerce. Dr.

Borgemenke has had several articles published and presented at both

international and national conferences on various topics relating toeducational administration.

Amy L. Blanton, M.Ed., Catherine J. Kirkland, M.Ed., and Cynthia S. Woody,M.S. are graduate students in the Ed.D. in Educational Leadership program at

Texas A&M University-Commerce. They are all presently employed as

educational administrators in Texas public schools.

Permission is granted to reprint this article for distribution as long as it is used for

academic purposes. Credit must be given to NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, 17603

Bending Post Drive, Houston, Texas 77095 – Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, editor-in-chief

dr. arthur borgemenke - national forum of educational administration and supervision journal -...

Documents