DOCUMENT RESUME ED 349 664 EA 024 267 TITLE Changing Schools: Insights. INSTITUTION Office of Policy and Planning (ED), Washington, DC. REPORT NO ED/OPP92-12 PUB DATE [92] NOTE 116p. PUB TYPE Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) Collected Information Analyses (070) (120) Works General (020) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Change Strategies; College School Cooperation; *Educational Change; Educational Innovation; Elementary Secondary Education; Government Publications; Higher Education; High Risk Students; *Public Schools; Resistance to Change; School Community Relationship; *School Effectiveness; *School Restructuring IDENTIFIERS *America 2000; *National Education Goals 1990; Partnerships in Education ABSTRACT Over 1,000 communities in 45 states, territories, and the District of Columbia, are mobilized under the AMERICA 2000 banner to reach the 6 National Education Goals. This collection of papers, written by those who have wrestled with the process of school reform, offers useful insights to communities as they begin their process of transforming education. Following an introduction by Lamar Alexander, Secretary of Education, are the following papers: (1) "The Process of School Transformation" (Jane L. David); (2) "Overcoming Barriers to Educational Change" (Michael G. Fullan); (3) "AMERICA 2000 and U.S. Education Reform" (Richard F. Elmore; (4) "The Need for Systemic School-Based School Reform" (Sophie Sa); (5) "Learning from Accelerated Schools" (Henry M. Levin); (6) "Key Lessons from the School Change Process in Prince George's County (Maryland)" (Michael K. Grady and John A. Murphy); (7) "Real Change Is Real:Hard: Lessons Learned in Rochester" (Adam Urbanski); (8) "The California Partnership Academies: Design and Implementation" (Marilyn Raby); (9) "The Boston University/City of Chelsea Public Education Partnership" (Peter Greer); (10) "Restructuring Categorical Programs for Low Performing and Handicapped Students" (Stephen Fink); (11) "The Ten Schools Program: A Comprehensive Intervention for Children of Color" (Melba F. Coleman); (12) "Learning Lessons: The Process of School Change" (Beverly Caffee Glenn); and (13) "Achieving Fundamental Change in Education Within an American Indian Community: Zuni Public School District, New Mexico" (Hayes Lewis). (MLF) *****************************,' 'c******************************** Aepruuut;L1ons supplied by dintb are tne best tnat can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** I Ilk la e U $ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) *This document has been reproduced as eceived Irom the person or organization originating it. O Motor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality Points of Yew or opinions stated in this docu- ment do not necessarily represent °Mow OERI position or policy * I ID a S II 2 COPY AVAILABLE CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 The Process of School Transformation 2 Jane L. David Overcoming Barriers to Educational Change Michael G. Fullan 11 AMERICA 2000 and U.S. Education Reform Richard F. Elmore 21 The Need for Systemic School-Based School Reform 27 Sophie Sa Learning From Accelerated Schools 34 Henry M. Levin Key Lessons From The School Change Process in Prince George's County (MD) 45 Michael K. Grady and John A. Murphy Real Change is Real Hard: Lessons Learned in Rochester Adam Urbanski 53 The California Partnership Academies: Design and Implementation 59 Marilyn Raby The Boston University/City of Chelsea Public Education Partnership Peter Greer 67 Restructuring Categorical Programs for Low Performing and Handicapped Students Stephen Fink 74 The Ten Schools Program: A Comprehensive Intervention for Children of Color Melba F. Coleman 81 Learning Lessons: The Process of School Change Beverly Caffee Glenn 93 i CONTENTS (Continued) Page Achieving Fundamental Change in Education Within an American Indian Community: Zuni Public School District, New Mexico 104 Hayes Lewis ii LIST OF AUTHORS Melba F. Coleman, Associate Professor California State University at Dominguez Hills Jane L David, Director Bay Area Research Group Richard F. Elmore, Professor Graduate School of Education, Harvard University Stephen Fink, Executive Director Student Services Division, Edmonds (WA) Public Schools Michael G. Ful lan, Dean of Education University of Toronto Beverly Caffee Glenn, Former Dean Howard University Michael K. Grady, Senior Research Analyst Annie E. Casey Foundation Peter Greer, Superintendent ad Interim Chelsea (MA) Public Schools Henry M. Levin, Director Center for Educational Research, Stanford University Hayes Lewis, Superintendent Zuni (NM) Public Schools John A. Murphy, Superintendent Charlotte (NC) Public Schools Marilyn Raby, Director Curriculum Services, Sequoia Union High School District (C4 Sophie Sa, Executive Director The Panasonic Foundation Adam Urbanski, President Rochester Teachers Association INTRODUCTION In April 1991, President Bush launched a strategy to help America, community-by- community, reach six ambitious National Education Goals by the turn of the century. AMERICA 2000, that national strategy, has helped to establish a radical new agenda for rethinking our educational system from top to bottom. Since ii's a nine-year strategy and not a seven-second soundbite, AMERICA 2000 won't have instant results. Most of it is about helping Americans do things for themselves, in their own families, schools, and hometowns. But it has developed it's own energy and agenda. And now over 1,000 communities in 45 states, territories, and the District of Columbia are mobilized under the AMERICA 2000 banner to reach the six National Education Goals. This collection of papers, written by those who have wrestled with the process of school reform, offers useful insights to communities as they begin their process of transforming education. This process is difficult and complex. There is no magic formula or silver bullet. The bottom line is that it involves patience and tenacity and a lot of hard work. Yet, as these papers make clear, once the plans are developed and the wheels put into motion, transforming education can be an exciting and rewarding proposition. Lamar Alexander Secretary of Education 1 THE PROCESS OF SCHOOL TRANSFORMATION' Jane L David, Director Bay Area Research Group Jane David draws upon 25 years of research on education reform efforts to describe the ingredients critical for reform to succeed. These ingredients include (1) faculty support for change, (2) a realistic timeframe, (3) a source of innovative ideas, (4) ongoing access for faculty to new knowledge and training (5) time during the workday for new responsibilities, (6) appropriate assessment (ie., performance- based or portfolio assessment), (7) authority and flexibility at the school level, and (8) support systems that serve children's basic health and psychological needs. David emphasizes that teacher-student interactions are just one piece of the structural change puzzle and that successful reform requires many parallel changes in the environment surrounding schools, including policies set by local administrators and school boards, state and federal regulations, and college admission requirements. In this paper I draw on my own studies of restructuring schools and districts as well as on the last 25 years of research on education reform effortsamplified by research in organizational change (public and private), cognitive science, and policy analysis. These bodies of research provide a strong foundation for understanding the process of improving schools. After briefly discussing the context for education reform today, I describe a set of critical ingredients for schools attempting to transform their organization and instructional program. I then point out the importance of devoting equal attention to changing those aspects of the larger system that present barriers to school-level restructuring and prevent even the best models from spreading to very many schools. THE CONTEXT FOR RESTRUCTURING From the curriculum projects of the sixties and the planned variation experiments of the seventies, we learned the limitations of top-down prescriptions and the importance of local context and culture in determining how reforms areand are notimplemented. The late seventies and eighties brought wave after wave of 2- to 3-year "projects" to schools as well as more state requirements involving curriculum and course offerings, testing, and length of the school day or year. From these experiences we learned that reforms with visible impact on school 'This paper was written for the U.S. Department of Education. The views expressed, however, are mine. 2 practices tend to be those that are relatively easy to do and fit well with current operations; for example, direct instruction and new reading series are more likely to be implemented than efforts to increase teacher collaboration and introduce hands-on learning opportunities. A corollary finding is that most mandates are implemented without affecting teaching and learning. In fact, even school-initiated improvement efforts have rarely been successful in creating changes in curriculum and instruction. In the context of the national goals, the governors' commitments to restructure education, and AMERICA 2000, the goal of transforming schools is much more ambitious than previous reform efforts. It is to educate all students to high levels of performance. This goal requires fundamental change in what is taught and how it is taught. Moreover, it is change in the direction of something much more difficult to do. It is far easier to lecture, hand out worksheets, and administer multiple-choice tests than it is to plan and organize multiple activities that actively engage students, to create projects that require both individual and team efforts, and to assess progress in a variety of performance-based ways. This ambitious goal for reform places the process of school change in a very different context. It is no longer a matter of determining the degree to which teachers have faithfully implemented a particular project or approach. For students to learn to communicate effectively, identify and solve problems, and work cooperatively, schools must operate differently. Curriculum and instruction must change; staff roles must change; how teachers and students spend their time must change; how students are grouped must change. The challenge now is to create the conditions that make it possible for school faculties and communities to transform their organizations from artifacts of the past to organizations of the future that are capable of continuous learning and improvement. This is a new agenda. INGREDIENTS FOR SCHOOL CHANGE What happens when school faculties are invited to make such fundamental changes in their organizations? There are several ingredients associated with significant change (by which I mean visible changes in what teachers and students do). School faculties and their communities are more likely to design and implement fundamental changes in their schools when the following conditions exist: Faculty support for change. Teachers as well as principals, and ideally parents also, recognize the need to change and trust that the invitation to change is a sincere one; that is, not simply another project or shift in direction that will quickly pass. Whether the invitation is a state grants competition or a local leader's request for volunteers, its sincerity is communicated by a realistic timeframe as well as the resources (assistance and training) and authority needed to transform teaching and learning. It is difficult enough to launch a major change process when participants support it; if teachers are not active partners, this process is impossible. A realistic timeframe. Restructuring a school is a long-term undertaking. It begins with one or more leadersusually a principal or small group of teacherswho have a vision of effective learning environments. It is a 2- or 3-year process to translate that vision into a limited plan of action (creating a new cross-disciplinary course or 3 forming teams of teachers), convince the rest of the faculty and the community, identify the appropriate training and other resources, and make the necessary logistical arrangements (e.g., changing lunch or bus schedules). The greater the departure from current practice, the longer it takes for teachers and administrators to go through the stages from being aware of a new practice to knowing it well enough to appropriate and use it in new ways. But the process is more than a collection of individuals changingit is also about transforming the culture of an organization from one that is bureaucratic and isolates teachers to one that fosters and values collaboration, problem-solving, and continuous improvement. For example: Teachers in three California suburban schools participating in a state-funded technology integration program have gone from no knowledge of technology to a variety of productive and demonstrable uses over a 4-year period with intensive assistance and outside resources. It will take at least that long for their instructional strategies to change in ways that foster thinking and use the technology to its full potential. The 23 alternative programs in New York's District 4, providing options for all junior high students, were developed by teachers over a 16-year period. Beyond schools, superintendents describe decentralization as a 10-year process; Xerox Corporation's restructuring was a 10-year undertaking. A source for innovative ideas. Educators and the public have limited imaginations about what schools could look like. Most of us went through 16 or more years of teacher lectures in schools that looked like egg crates or factories. Teacher and administrator preparation programs do little to change that image. To launch a process of change, educators need new ideas and images of effective practices and school organization. In some districts, this vision is provided by the superintendent. In some cases, state leaders provide new images. Some teachers have participated in innovative programs or curriculum and assessment design projects or are part of networks with other schools, universities, and consultants that support the exchange of ideas. Educators also pick up new ideas from visiting innovative schools. For example: Maine's Restructuring Schools program provided a full year's planning time for writing proposals, during which the state held conferences and information 4 sessions. Many of the successful grantees had been part of the University of Maine/Goodlad partnership. The Coalition of Essential Schools, AFT Center for Restructuring, NEA Mastery in Learning Schools, and others facilitate an exchange of ideas among restructuring schools. Ongoing access to new knowledge and training. For teachers to teach in ways different from the ways in which they were taught and trained, they need knowledge of new content and alternative instructional strategies as well as awareness of the kinds of tools (including technology) and materials that are available. Teachers and administrators, as well as parents, also need to acquire skills for the new roles asked of them in leading, planning, decisionmaking, consensus building, collaboration, and evaluating progress. These are not skills learned from the traditional one-shot workshop approach or menus of district offerings. Teachers need onsite access to expertise and assistancefrom their peers and from resident or visiting experts. Not every educator needs all these skills; in fact, combined with the need for time (see below), roles and staffing configurations need to be reconceived so these opportunities can be built into the working day. For example: The Gheens Professional Development Center of the Jefferson County Public Schools helped with the transition to ungraded schools in a variety of ways, including responding to requests for assistance, acting as facilitators for faculty discussions of plans, and providing background research on ideas under consideration. As teacher teams created curricular approaches, chose the appropriate instructional strategies and materials, and struggled with new report cards and appropriate assessment instruments, district staff met their requests for providing onsite experts, workshops and retreats outside of the school, and release time for planning and learning. A new elementary school in Washington was designed by a core team of teachers and parents. They created a professional developmental model after determining the competencies teachers needed, and they rely on peer evaluations and peer assistance to determine and address needed skills. For example, a teacher with expertise in cooperative learning taught the approach to the rest of the faculty. The principal spends her time doing 5 J