Realizing School Improvement Through Understanding the Change Process

Federal legislation, state regulations, district mandates - in addition to local school and community interests - all have demanded change, improvement, and new results from schools. These voices have vigorously exhorted school administrators and teachers to respond to the challenges of producing a more technologically prepared citizenry and to the needs of various student populations designated as at-risk. While schools have responded with effective schools projects, school improvement programs, and any number of efforts to change curriculum and instructional practices, little real or widespread change seems to have occurred. Schools, classroom settings, teaching, and instructional strategies are remarkably the same as they were years ago (Brandt, 1991). Cuban (1988, p. 89) observes that "innovation after innovation has been introduced into school after school . . . disappearing without a fingerprint." Why has so little change been realized? Why have so few new results been obtained?

Nearly everyone is familiar with the number of highly promising new programs or innovations that have paraded through schools. Their recurring introductions were matched all too frequently by teachers' antipathy and resignation. "Don't put too much energy into this one," they would say, "this, too, will go away." This is not to fault teachers, who typically received little support, guidance, or assistance in implementing the new programs. Rather, the change process was not given sufficient attention.

The regular demise of this multiplicity of programs led to the judgment that the innovations themselves were not effective, because they produced no appreciable student outcomes. In most cases, in fact, the programs were never incorporated into the day to day operations of classrooms and could be found in bookshelves gathering dust. As Fullan (1982, p. 22) suggests, "Reforms . . . may fail to make a difference . . . because the plans and resources necessary to accomplish implementation are not adequate to the task." A simple way to state this lack of events is: no implementation, no change, no improved results.

The good news is that we understand a great deal about the process of change and how to incorporate new programs into classroom life. Acting on that understanding can provide a significant means for moving schools toward desired improvement. One of the imperatives for acting immediately to address school change and improvement is the status of many children in our society, and their widespread lack of success in schools. These at-risk students now constitute thirty percent of the school population. They include students who will drop out before high school graduation, or who will graduate ill-prepared for meaningful work or post-secondary education (Knapp & Schield, 1990). "We are programming our children and our nation to fail," states Charles Gershenson, director of statistical analysis for the Center for the Study of Social Policy (Goldman, March 31, 1991). Policymakers in both the education and economic sectors call for action now. Fortunately a number of innovative programs and strategies, tested for their potential to increase the educational success of at-risk students, are available (Orr, 1987). However, no innovation, however effective, can succeed unless schools accommodate and address the process of change.

Two important questions, each focused on a dimension of the change process, can inform implementation activities so that school improvement can be realized: What exactly is the innovation to be introduced? What happens to the individuals who will implement the innovation into their work settings and practices? A discussion of these two questions is the major focus of this paper.

The Innovation

In the 1970s a Rand Corporation study of federal programs supporting educational change revealed interesting findings regarding the implementation of these programs by school staff. One finding, labeled "mutual adaptation," pointed to the researchers' insights about the substantively different characteristics that the programs took on as they were implemented by teachers (Greenwood, Mann, & McLaughlin, 1975). In the same period, this phenomenon was reported also by Hall and Loucks (cited in Hall & Hord, 1987), who concluded that any one innovation usually appeared to have multiple configurations or operational patterns resulting from variations in teacher selection and use of the components of the innovations.

Such differences in the innovation's implementation in classrooms, or Innovation Configurations (Hall & Hord, 1987), were attributed to several factors, including: how the new program was introduced to teachers (and other intended users) in terms of clarity of description of the program, how complex the program was to incorporate into classroom practice, whether expectations for use of the program were established, and whether assistance was provided to potential users in their implementation efforts. Through discussions with many teachers and other educational staff involved in change, researchers have learned that practitioners typically lack clarity about what the innovation is at its introduction and subsequently what it should look like during implementation. Such a lack of definition leaves intended users with little understanding of the demands or requirements of the innovation and with impoverished mental images of what it should look like if it has been implemented in a high quality way. This problem has been found not only with innovations such as curriculum programs, instructional processes, strategies, and other new practices, but also with large-scale changes (such as restructuring) that seek to alter the fundamental ways schools operate (Van den Berg, 1981).

The effects of such lack of definition, or vision, have been demonstrated very clearly with, for instance, hands-on inquiry science programs. Inquiry science is predicated on students themselves interacting with materials, learning the skills of scientists through their own science investigation experiences, and constructing their own knowledge. There have been excellent examples of implementation of this model by teachers; however, what is called "inquiry science" can be found in classrooms where the teacher is the sole person manipulating the materials and the experiences, while students look on passively - not the intended operational form of the program at all. It is easy to understand in this case that what students learn from the actual implementation is far different from what was hoped to be gained from the intended implementation. Under such circumstances, hoped-for outcomes cannot be realized (James & Hord, 1988).

Both a tool and techniques for its use have been developed that enable the identification, articulation, and description of the components of an innovation. The framework of Innovation Configurations is this tool (Hall & Hord, 1987); it also includes a process whereby certain variations in implementing the components in classrooms are deemed "ideal," "acceptable," or "unacceptable," thus identifying areas of latitude in implementation for teachers and others. The message here is not that all teachers should necessarily be expected to implement all programs in an identical fashion; fidelity is not the theme. The theme is that intended users should be privileged to understand what the new program is all about, what it is expected to produce, and the various ways in which its implementation may produce the desired results. Until such issues as these are addressed, there can be little expectation that the desired change, and school improvement, will be reached through implementors' efforts.

The Implementors

Rogers (1971) reviewed studies of agricultural extension agents and farmers, and of doctors integrating penicillin and other medications into their practice, and found that participants in the studies differed in their readiness to accept change. Some adopted the change quickly; others took a much longer time. Rogers identified five categories of people relative to their rate of adoption of innovations: innovators, those persons eager to try new ideas, were open to change and willing to take risks, and were frequently perceived as a bit naive or crazy; leaders, open to change, were more thoughtful about getting involved, and were sought for their advice and opinions; the early majority, the people who were cautious and deliberate about deciding to adopt an innovation, tended to be followers, not leaders; the late majority, those skeptical of adopting new ideas, were characterized as "set in their ways"; and resisters, suspicious and generally opposed to new ideas, were usually low in influence and often isolated from the mainstream.

Shortly after Rogers reported his typology, Hall and colleagues, working in teacher education, identified categories of teachers who were in the process of becoming a teacher, or who were adopting and implementing new teaching strategies, or curricula, etc. (cited in Hall & Hord, 1987; and Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987). The categories were based on teachers' reactions or concerns as they experienced the adoption and implementation processes. In this articulation, seven kinds of concern that individuals have about an innovation were identified. Each of the stages was distinguished from the other, but they were not mutually exclusive. That is, individuals could have concerns at all stages at any particular time, but the intensity of specific stages varied with any individual as implementation progressed.

The seven stages have been defined by the expressions of concern that individuals make at the various stages. When the individual is not related to or influenced by the innovation in any way, concerns are typically characterized as "not being concerned about it," and this is stage 0. When a new program or innovation appears to have the potential to become part of an individual's life, then stage 1, or informational concerns, become uppermost. These concerns relate to an interest in acquiring information about the innovation. For instance, when a secondary school administrator telephones the office of the secondary school principals' association and makes inquiries about school-based management and how it works, this exemplifies informational concerns about the innovation of school-based management.

As informational concerns develop, stage 2 personal concerns become highly predictable. The individual wonders how the new program will affect him/her and whether he/she may have the ability to work appropriately with the innovation. The introduction of shared decision-making, for example, generally stimulates personal concerns for both school-based administrators and teachers as they contemplate how their current roles and relationships may change as a result of the new decision-making process. Administrators may wonder about the status of their positional authority in the new procedures, and teachers may question their capacity to be involved in school-wide matters.

As individuals begin implementation, stage 3 management concerns become intense. It is easy to understand that teachers have high management concerns while they are learning to cope with the demands of new programs and practices. This is especially true during implementation of an innovation such as cooperative learning, where restructured arrangements of students and teachers are expected. Managing a roomful of student committees, each structuring their own learning experiences within their membership, produces teachers' concerns about controlling time, noise-level, activity, and student behaviors. At this point, time to understand the requirements and logistics of putting new practices into place become factors in high need of attention. "Mastering" management and its attendant concerns will require substantial time.

Hall and associates discovered that, once the intensity of concerns at stages 1, 2, and 3 are reduced, then there is the possibility that individuals will increase their stage 4 consequence concerns. Consequence concerns focus on the effects of the innovation on students, and interest by the individual in making the innovation and its use more effective for students (or whomever the "client" is). For instance, teachers who have been developing students' critical thinking skills as an isolated discipline, may, after they feel comfortable with the strategies involved, determine that critical thinking would be more effective for their students if it were integrated with academic subject areas. Considering this kind of action would reflect consequence concerns.

Many individuals will never reach either intense stage 5 collaboration concerns, which relate to collaborating with others to increase the outcomes of the innovations, or stage 6 refocusing concerns, which focus on major ways to enhance or change the program to further increase effectiveness. Frequently such collaboration and refocusing are forestalled by new demands and innovations "coming down the pike" to schools.

The Stages of Concern About an Innovation concept and its assessment procedures have been productively utilized in a large number of studies of implementation and change at all levels of education - kindergarten through college - and for a vast array of innovations. Such use builds confidence that these stages, or categories, as descriptions of people progressing through the change process, are reasonably accurate. The research suggests that people differ in their approach and response to and movement through change, and that they may require differential support and assistance for success. The Stages of Concern approach and procedures can be used to help gauge and understand individuals and their needs as they experience implementation and its related concerns.

So What?

It seems reasonable to suggest that "business as usual" will produce results as usual. Thus, if different results are desired, then "business" in the school and classroom will, of necessity, have to be different. Changes in the school staff's knowledge, understanding, skills, and behaviors will be required. This article argues that an innovation's demands for new skills and behaviors, and the individual's needs while implementing the new practices, will require interventions that give attention and support as the change process unfolds. Certainly, the organizational context in which implementation takes place is another critical factor for consideration, and it is the subject of another article in this series on leadership for change.

Although the issues of implementation raised here apply generically to any change effort, the Leadership for Change Project in the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory that is developing this series of articles, is focusing attention on the needs of at-risk students and the role that leadership at all educational levels can exercise in these students' behalf. To reach at-risk students with potentially powerful programs and strategies that increase student success, those programs must be implemented well in daily school and classroom practice. Supporting implementation is a function of leadership.

To conclude, when educational leaders understand and acknowledge that the change process itself is a factor to be accommodated in their school improvement efforts, when they consider the requirements of the changes or innovations that are introduced and the needs of all individuals who will be implementing the innovations, and when they develop plans that take these factors into account, then they will be providing leadership that guides, manages, and supports change. Only then will the likelihood of school improvement be realized.

References

Brandt, R. (1991). Coping with change. Educational Leadership, 48(7), 3.

Cuban, L. (1988). Constancy and change in schools (1980s to the present). In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers' College Press.

Goldman, H. (1991, March). Black children get left to fall behind at the starting line. Austin American Statesman, p. H1.

Greenwood, P.W., Mann, D., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change, vol. III: The process of change. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hord, S.M., Rutherford, W.L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G.E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

James, R. K., & Hord, S. M. (1988). Implementing elementary school science programs. School Science and Mathematics, 88(4), 315-334.

Knapp, M. S., & Shields, P. M. (1990). Reconceiving academic instruction for the children of poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(10), 753-758.

Orr, M. T. (1987). Keeping students in school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rogers, E. (1971). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.

Van Den Berg, R. (1981). Large scale strategies for supporting complex innovations in participating schools. 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands: Katholiek Pedogogisch Centrum.

What's this?