That there are so few examples of sustained, systemic change in our nation's schools should not come as a great surprise. We have had little real incentive to rethink the purposes of education since the Industrial Revolution, when schools had to be redesigned to prepare a largely immigrant labor force for new forms of work and citizenship.
Now, in another era of rapid economic and social transformation, the business world finds that it must adapt to new technologies, changing markets, and global competition. This new revolution in the workplace, in turn, suggests fundamental reforms for education. In fact, many school critics are proclaiming that business has all the answers for schools. The same was said at the turn of the century when new industrial practices—notably Frederick Taylor's principles of “scientific management”—pointed the way for the development of now obsolete “factory” schools.
Education for new forms of work is a necessary but insufficient reason for undertaking systemic change. Educators must also consider the competencies required for active citizenship as well as changes in both students' capacities and incentives for learning. Profound and ongoing changes in the workplace, in the requirements for global citizenship, in the nature of knowledge, and above all, in the needs and concerns of our students—all of these must be taken into account. Such “systemic” reflection—rather than reflexive reaction to outsiders' demands—should be the starting point for developing an educators' methodology for improving schools.
But before considering how to encourage thoughtful community discussions about purposes that will lead to systemic changes, let's look at some of the limitations of business models for restructuring schools.
Corporate Models and Education
Recently, superintendents and community leaders have turned to the ideas of Deming, Senge, and others in their search for a methodology for systemic change. Looking for answers outside one's organization was also the first step that some corporations took more than a decade ago. Then—as now in schools—a variety of new theories were quickly imported: Quality Circles from Japan, the team alternative to the assembly line from Volvo in Sweden. Some ideas and models truly pointed to new “best practices,” but others proved ineffective or had to be modified substantially to work in American companies.
While we can learn much from business models for change, we must not forget that the most successful “locally grown” efforts have been substantially refined through years of R&D. For example, it has taken Ford 12 years to develop and implement design and manufacturing changes that only recently have resulted in such significant payoffs as the Taurus beating out Honda's Accord for the number-one slot in American car sales.
Efforts to apply corporate models to educational change risk failure, in my experience, when the differences between businesses and schools are not clearly understood. The task of creating consensus on the need for and the goals of change—as well as new incentives for risk taking—are much more complicated in schools. Because corporations can see the problems and relatively quickly measure the effects of change efforts through a variety of quantitative measures—improved quality, profit, and market share—there is rarely disagreement about goals. Likewise, better numbers become obvious incentives.
In communities, however, there is little agreement about the goals of school reform or how improvements might best be measured. My interviews with parents, business leaders, educators, and students in a variety of communities reveal strikingly different views. For a lot of parents, the problem is getting test scores up and their kids into good colleges and solid careers. For some business leaders, it's making sure kids have basic skills; others want to produce a world-class work force. For many educators, the problem is simply getting kids to have more respect for learning and authority and to do some homework.
Rarely are students asked what they think the problems are in their schools. While some of the TQM and other change literature may refer to students as “customers,” most educators still act as though vocal parents, standardized test makers, and college admissions committees are the customers that matter the most. Students are much more frequently thought of as the recalcitrant “raw material” from which quality products must be fashioned.
Unlike steel, however, students must be motivated to improve. Ask many middle and high school-age students what's wrong with their schools—as a group from the Institute for Education in Transformation at The Claremont Graduate School recently did—and they will tell you. Schools “hurt their spirit,” classes are boring and irrelevant to their lives, and people seem cold and uncaring.
How can we motivate teachers and students to change—and parents or community members to support long-term change—if we can't agree on what the problems are? Even the most thoughtful reform efforts—such as those represented by a few schools in the Coalition of Essential Schools—frequently run into trouble in their communities after a year or two because they began with surface answers—like “student-as-worker” and “teacher-as-coach”—rather than thoughtful discussions about why change is necessary.
Business models as applied to schools lack a methodology for creating consensus about the goals for meaningful reform. While their focus is “systemic, ” the outcomes are expert- or theory-driven solutions to problems that are not broadly understood. And all too often, these new ideas and practices are imposed from above, with little—if any—discussion among the people most affected: teachers, parents, students, and community members. Without broad agreement about the kinds of changes needed and why, these “systemic” efforts are no more likely to succeed than so many other educational innovations we've seen come and go.
The Right Questions
The real challenge in developing a methodology for school reform is not as abstract or mystical as the corporate change literature makes it seem. The problem is—first and foremost—an educational one: how to create conditions that will promote informed, thoughtful discussion about purposes among teachers, students, parents, and community members. For example, what's right—and what's wrong—with our schools? What should the goals of school improvement efforts be?
- What are our schools' strengths and weaknesses?
- What is our vision and what are our core values for a better school?
- What are our priorities and strategies for change?
- What structures do we need to reach our goals?
- What new skills and resources will we need?
What Are Our Strengths and Weaknesses?
Individual schools—or even entire districts—need to take an honest look at what is and isn't working in their schools. Too often that assessment begins and ends with a look at numbers—test scores and dropout rates, and perhaps a parent survey. Rarely, if ever, are teachers and students polled.
Even if students and teachers are consulted, the “numbers approach” to a school needs assessment tells us nothing about how individuals think about problems or their ideas for solving them. Numbers cannot capture people's thinking about why there's a high dropout rate, for example, or what ideas they might have for improvements.
Numbers are also misleading. Too many wealthy suburban schools today aren't considering any kind of systemic changes because their test scores and college admission rates are OK. But these indicators tell us nothing about the quality of students' work or their lives. As long as kids continue to get into good colleges, school officials in many “good” districts don't consider high student anxiety and boredom in school and increasing substance abuse “after hours” to be evidence of a need for change.
Just as a growing number of businesses and political parties have done, so must schools begin to use qualitative research to understand what and how people think. Focus groups have been used successfully for years by organizations like The Public Agenda Foundation (founded by polling analyst Daniel Yankelovich and former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance) to understand people's thinking about complex social problems and policy questions. The results of focus groups are a far better indicator of individuals' deepest concerns and priorities for change. Even more important, focus groups led by skilled moderators can introduce new ways of viewing a problem and determine whether or not different groups can then see change in a new light. This latter application is critical for the school change process.
As communities begin to discuss how schools need to change, they must first consider the ways in which our society has changed over the past quarter century. Focus groups can explore how various people see the problems in schools and also present data that will clarify the need for change. It is far easier to develop consensus for educational change among different groups when they are presented with a common framework for viewing the issues.
What are some elements of such a framework? First, we must understand how rapid technological, economic, and social changes have radically altered the skills needed for productive work, active citizenship, application of knowledge, and development of good habits for personal growth and health. Then, we must consider how students have changed. Raised in a consumer- and work-obsessed society with less connection to caring adults, many young people seem emotionally needy, hungry for instant gratification, and addicted to passive forms of entertainment. Compared to previous generations, they are less hopeful about the future and less motivated by traditional incentives for learning—respect for authority and belief that hard work will get you where you want to go. It is only by first coming to agreement on ways in which the world and students' needs have changed that we can conceive a common framework for rethinking the purposes of education.
Serious efforts for systemic change in schools should begin with a series of focus group sessions with present and prospective parents, business and community leaders, educators, and present and former students. Topics should center around our schools' strengths, weaknesses, and priorities for change in light of society's evolving educational needs and priorities. The results should then be presented and discussed in “Town Meetings for Learning,” where mixed groups try to understand and work through areas of disagreement. The goal is to create a public mandate for change that is sustainable.
I recently conducted a series of two-hour focused discussions in a community where there were some surprising findings—as well as significant rewards—for the courageous team of high school teachers and administrators who sponsored them. One finding was that community members and parents did not blame teachers for the problems in schools; rather, they saw teachers as caring people and felt that our society as a whole should assume responsibility for improving education.
Second, after reflecting on the challenges of preparing students for the 21st century, community members were more prepared to support profound curriculum changes than teachers had assumed—including a greater focus on competencies, rather than coverage; more interdisciplinary and team teaching; and the development of alternative forms of assessment.
Focus group work with students revealed that they, too, want to take more responsibility for their learning. They also want a school climate that actively nurtures greater respect for students and adults alike, as well as closer informal “advisor” relationships between teachers and students.
Finally, the focus group process contributed to an increased sense of trust and respect for educators in the community. Everyone appreciated the invitation to become more involved—and the opportunity to have a voice.
All these findings formed a foundation for answering the second essential question of systemic change.
What Is Our Vision for a Better School?
An honest discussion of real problems in schools is the “stick” of educational change. But without a “carrot,” teachers will lack the morale and the incentives for risk taking. Communities need to agree on an inspiring vision to drive the change process.
Through holding Town Meetings for Learning and then creating working task forces around specific skill and subject areas, communities can begin the hard work of coming to agreement on goals for change. Developing a vision means finding new answers to age old questions: What does it mean to be an educated person today? What should students know and be able to do in order to graduate from high school? How do we best prepare our students for the future?
Lofty-sounding mission statements routinely adorn schools' conference rooms and superintendents' offices. But if a mission statement is to be a true road map for change, it must be both broadly understood and translated into explicit criteria for assessing results. When small committees of educators and parents develop statements about teaching “critical thinking” or “citizenship skills,” for example, nothing really changes. It is quite a different process for an entire community to define skills in terms of specific outcomes—such as the ability of students to analyze opposing editorials on an important issue and then write one of their own, for example. Creating a vision of a better school must include definitions of real outcomes and discussion of how they can best be assessed.
Core values are an essential aspect of a vision for a better school. Improving the quality of life and relationships in individual schools may be as important as redefining the goals in the change process. Students won't learn and teachers won't collaborate if they don't feel respected. In other words, change involves the heart as well as the head. While a vision statement clarifies the desired outcomes of change, core values define how we treat one another—and what kind of people we aspire to be—in the process. Together, they become the collective mission of the school community and the basis for designing and evaluating the change process.
In one school where a successful systemic change effort had been in place for several years, I facilitated a series of focus groups with faculty, students, and then parents. We began with questions like: What behaviors are of greatest concern to you here at school? What behaviors would you like to see more of? Within three months, the school community agreed on the following values as their guiding principles: honesty, respect for self and others, responsibility, and citizenship. With a common framework for talking about school climate and values, students, teachers, and administrators alike began to view their own and one another's behaviors according to very different standards. For the first time, students voiced a concern long felt and silently suffered by individual teachers—that students showed little respect for one another or for adults. They also asked teachers to gossip less about students and to plan more community-building activities. A greater sense of respect and community soon evolved, which, in turn, prompted students and teachers to take greater intellectual risks.
What Are Our Priorities?
The next step in the process of systemic change is to develop clear priorities and a timeline for change. School board members and community leaders must make clear their long-term commitment to a carefully thought-out strategy. Experience in corporations suggests that systemic change takes five or more years.
Like many CEOs, superintendents are under tremendous pressure to produce short-term results. Lacking a long-term contract and subject to the shifting sands of local politics, many well-meaning superintendents committed to systemic change feel they must undertake everything all at once in every school—an outcome-based diploma, interdisciplinary teams, a theme curriculum, heterogeneous grouping, advisory groups. As a result, even the best, most supportive teachers feel frustrated in their efforts, while the skeptics become even more resistant. All-at-once change efforts too often leave parents and students confused and demoralized, as well. Deep-seated resistance to change can, thus, quickly coalesce. Too little time and consideration are given to the new skills everyone—teachers, students, and parents—needs to become effective participants in the process.
Different communities will evolve different priorities for change, depending on their most urgent needs. For many, moving toward an outcome-based curriculum, where students exhibit mastery through portfolios and exhibitions, centers everyone's attention on a concrete change. The results are often dramatic in terms of improved student motivation and performance. With proper training and support for teachers, teacher-student advisor groups and shared governance structures can quickly contribute to enhanced student-teacher relationships and a greater sense of community. On the other hand, the development of interdisciplinary curriculum units—a much more time- and labor-intensive process—will likely require substantial summer work and fundamental changes in a school's schedule—and so might better be deferred.
Whatever the initial priorities for systemic change, there should be no more than three to five objectives, and they should be broadly understood and supported through focused staff development. Further, priorities must be periodically assessed and modified, as necessary, by a representative school improvement committee. Every year, entire school communities—as well as individuals and teams within each school—should evaluate progress toward priorities set the previous year and agree upon the focus of the next year's efforts.
An essential part of any strategy for systemic change by corporations is research and development of new “best practices” both within and beyond the organization. For example, rather than try to change the entire company all at once, Compaq Computer created a small division to develop better manufacturing techniques—a “skunkworks” shop. Once this autonomous unit had perfected the new methods, staff members then taught them to others throughout the company. This same process, is the essence of the strategy Debbie Meier is using to replicate her successful Central Park East model in six other New York high schools.
To develop and refine best practices for systemic change, we need a network of “skunkworks” schools of choice for educational R&D in school districts throughout the country. Let each district agree on a few clear priorities for these schools (or programs within schools), staff them with teachers interested in trying new ideas, open them to representative cross sections of families who choose to be in the program, agree on ways in which their work can be periodically assessed—and get out of the way! One of the most important ways in which state governments and the U.S. Department of Education might support systemic school change would be to provide the “venture capital” and technical assistance needed for the creation of such lab schools.
What Structures Do We Need?
Superintendents and school boards often implement systemic change by imposing administrative, organizational, or structural reforms. Creating schools of choice, combining schools, eliminating department heads, restructuring the roles of central office staff, or implementing site-based management are some of the more common examples. Such efforts are, at best, premature. More often, teachers view them as capricious or illogical when the changes are not explicitly linked to new goals and strategies.
And they don't work. In her review of research on school-based management efforts, Jane David found few examples of site-based managed schools where school councils dealt with any issues “more difficult than creating a new discipline policy or decorating the entranceway.” And in a recent RAND Corporation study, High Schools With Character (1990), researchers concluded that in efforts to improve inner-city schools choice and the deregulation that accompanies site-based managed schools create the external conditions for effective schools. But the internal conditions—developing a coherent mission statement and the individual character that appeals to students and teachers—matter equally. The study went on to document the need for “focus schools.”
These studies confirm my own experience: only after goals, priorities, and sequential steps for change have been defined, can the conversation about new structures make sense. The need to decentralize management, elect committees for shared decision making, develop new methods of assessment, and create new ways for parents to get involved—all become more apparent and logical when they are explicitly designed to serve the change process. Agree on goals and values and define the tasks first. Then ask people how they want to work together, and what they need to get the job done.
Which Skills? What Resources?
Community dialogue and agreement on the problem, a clear vision, core values, a few carefully chosen priorities rooted in a sequence of steps for change, and new or revamped decision-making structures—all will help define more clearly the need for the new skills and resources required to sustain the change process at every level.
With a clearer sense of system and school priorities, administrators and teams of teachers can more readily define what kinds of training and technical assistance they need. Parents may form their own support groups to better assist their children in school. And business leaders will find that they have new roles to play—helping the community to support change and serving on school improvement committees where people want to learn the skills of teamwork, agenda-setting, delegating, and so on. With greater involvement and clarity about the goals and methods of change, it also becomes easier to make the case to communities and businesses that new resources are needed to sustain systemic change.
- lead the focus group sessions;
- help educate the community about economic and social changes;
- facilitate the development of goals, priorities, and strategies;
- teach new skills; and
- critique the ongoing work of committees, as well as individual teachers and administrators.
Corporations that routinely use long-term consultants to facilitate change have found that the expense is more than offset by improvements in both the speed and effectiveness of their change process.
Time: The Essential Resource
Even with help, change comes slowly. In my experience, the scarcest resource in the change process—even more than money—is time. Time for teachers to discuss students' needs, observe one another's classes, assess their work, design new curriculums, visit other schools, and attend workshops. Time for teachers and students to get to know one another. Time for parents and community members to become involved in children's learning. Time for leaders at all levels to reflect and plan collaboratively. Time—perhaps five years—to rethink the purposes of education, reinvent teaching and learning, and create new school cultures.
Can educators make the case in their communities for taking the time needed to do it right? Perhaps—but only by creating inclusive, thoughtful, compelling conversations about purposes and other critical questions. And then by acting with urgency, discipline, and courage.
