Issues ... about Change
Volume 5 Number 4

1995

Change literature describes effective school improvement as a process that requires three to five years to implement, with appropriate facilitation (Hall & Hord, 1987). Additionally, theorists like Vroom and Yetton recommend the use of bottom-up rather than top-down strategies (cited in Hoy & Miskel, 1987). As change researchers, we believe this approach reduces the intensity of resistance throughout the implementation process and may result in quicker, deeper, and more widespread investment in and institutionalization of change.

When change is implemented in any other fashion, such as top-down or mandated, we are frequently quick to judge this approach as less effective. Believing that the need or imperative for change has not been identified by staff (who will ultimately be responsible for implementing the innovation), we fear strong and long-lasting resistance may ensue, accompanied by cursory implementation.

It's interesting that because this particular approach does not conform to "our" paradigm about how change should be effected, we view it as ineffective, rather than as different or as appropriate for a particular context. "Our" paradigm, as defined here, refers to the standards of effective change implementation that were created, studied, and prescribed by researchers (who in most cases represent mainstream culture) and by those few individuals from other cultures (this author) who have been indoctrinated with these same values.

But as our nation's population becomes increasingly diverse and as its communities become more racially and ethnically integrated, can we expect "our" paradigm of change to fit these communities? Different ethnic and racial groups may have different views about change. If their views are antithetical to ours, do we condemn them for their actions and judge their handling of change as ineffective? Or, as educational researchers studying increasingly diverse and distinct schools and communities, should we consider that there are alternatives to the use of a mainstream model for implementing change. Before passing judgment, we should study these schools with an open mind. We should consider the cultures found in these schools and in these greater communities, and we should examine the effects of these cultures on staff behavior, on school management and on student outcomes. We may find in these non-mainstream communities, leaders who are managing and implementing change in ways that are quite different from the standard paradigm, and yet are just as effective, particularly for their culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The story that follows is one example of such a situation. It is the story of a visionary superintendent in a rural Hispanic community, who implemented systemic change targeting at-risk students.

This paper presents a description of the site where this study was conducted, the inception of the innovation, the implementation process, and the outcomes. An analysis and discussion of the findings are also provided.

General Description of Las Vegas

The founding of Las Vegas dates back to 1835, when 29 Spaniards petitioned the Mexican government for a land grant. These settlers built the town on the west bank of the Gallinas River, where they immediately developed a farming community using the water from the river to irrigate their crops. The railroad's arrival in 1879 quickly spawned two communities: the older Mexican farming community across the Gallinas River and the competing commercial district that grew from the railroad depot. West and East Las Vegas developed separately until 1970, when a merger joined the once-rival communities into one municipality.

Charming in its appeal, the city offers a mixture of the old and the new. Much European influence can be seen in many of the historic buildings that line the town square. In fact, 900 of Las Vegas's buildings are listed in the National Register of Historic Buildings.

Formerly a Spanish settlement, the town's population has grown to approximately 16,000, with 85% of its residents Hispanic, 12% white non-hispanic and 3% other. When asked about their heritage, native Las Vegans are quick to respond that they are of Spanish and not of Mexican descent, and that generations of their families have resided in this community for over 150 years. Although many Las Vegans can claim Spanish heritage, the community has a strong Mexican influence because the land was originally owned by the Mexican government and because many Mexicans have migrated to the area from Mexico.

Since Las Vegas has only one factory ­ a medium density fiber-board plant ­ farming and ranching provide the major economic base for the town. Two post-secondary institutions, the State Mental Hospital, and two school districts provide most of the remaining employment opportunities.

Data indicate that the community is a closed one ­ that is, Las Vegans are very "close-knit". Distrustful of people who move to the community, they describe them as "outsiders", even when they have resided in the city for many years. As one teacher stated, "I'm even considered an outsider even though I got here in 1969." A common perception among residents is that community support is often extended to native Las Vegans but not to "outsiders". As one parent reported:

"There is a lot of discrimination against people who come from the outside in. And so within our school board system, they really have to use local people for principals."

Along with its distrust for outsiders, the community is extremely political. As one Las Vegan described it:

"We as a community have for many years been very political and there has been a considerable amount of political patronage that has transpired. People were hired and fired based on political approval."

Politics are definitely viewed by Las Vegans as a factor that impedes change within the school district. Comments such as "it is very political here," "politics is the biggest," "political upheaval," "political problems," and "political interference in attempts to remove poor, old-style teachers" are frequently articulated.

Moreover, the existence of many large extended families has created a community where many residents are related, either directly or by marriage, and this complicates the political climate. These factors are often characteristic of small towns.

As in other small towns, change in this community is viewed suspiciously, especially if it is initiated by "outsiders", and the political overtones often exacerbate the situation. As one Las Vegan emphasized:

"It takes a lot for people to dare to risk . . . people tell me, 'I can't say much, because I have a mortgage . . . and my wife has a job, and I can't afford to lose that.'"

Overlay the traditional Hispanic values that are found in this community and change is frequently perceived as almost nonexistent by many residents. As one white non-hispanic parent explained:

"Things in Las Vegas don't change very quickly. . . The Hispanic culture is not very quick to change. I know a lot of men who still go home every morning to have breakfast with their mother because that is what they do here. Girls are raised to be subservient. They are not raised to be educated and succeed . . . Even Mrs. Holguin [Memorial's principal] is very, very controversial because she is female. With some of the teachers here its been hard for my daughters because I have raised them not to be subservient, to be non sex discriminatory. That if it's OK for boys - then it's OK for the girls. That's been hard for them. The Hispanic way moves very, very slow."

The Las Vegas City Schools

Although East and West Las Vegas were merged into one municipality twenty years ago, the school districts that were originally established to serve these two communities remain as separate entities. Las Vegas City School District has a population of about 2,850 students, and approximately 85% of this student population is Hispanic. The district has seven schools: five elementary schools, one middle school and one high school. In kindergarten through twelfth grade there is a strong emphasis on at-risk programs such as mediation, drug-free programs, distance learning and technology.

Like many other school districts, the Las Vegas City School District has its share of gangs, graffiti, and drug activity but on a much smaller scale than what is found in larger cities. Moreover, Las Vegas School District staff are working collaboratively with local law enforcement agents to proactively deal with these problems.

The other school district, West Las Vegas School District, has a student population of 2,300 students. Students are able to move from one school district to another. In the last few years there has been a lot of discussion about merging the districts into one to provide better educational services and to save money. Thus, it appears that consolidation may occur in the not so distant future.

Since Las Vegans are concerned that many third- and fourth-generation residents do not speak their native language, they have made a concerted effort to teach Spanish language and culture in the public schools. The district has institutionalized strong bilingual programs at both the elementary and secondary levels.

Memorial Middle School

Memorial Middle School was built in 1969 to reflect the "open classroom" design that was popular in that era. Unfortunately, since the teachers were not trained in this instructional approach, the concept failed and walls were later constructed, to divide large, open spaces into smaller classrooms. The school operated as a traditional junior high school until the 1990-91 school year, when administration restructured it to implement a middle school educational approach called the Family Plan.

The school has approximately 600 students and serves grades six through eight. The ethnic breakdown of the student population is about 85% Hispanic, 15% white non-hispanic, and 5% other. Of these 600 students the majority are considered "at-risk," with 80% eligible for "free or reduced lunch," and 70% identified as coming from single-parent or step-parent households. The student to teacher ratio ranges from 14 to 22 per one teacher.

School staff members are predominantly minority, with approximately 81% Hispanic, 17% white non-hispanic, and 2% other. The school faculty is relatively stable with many of the faculty having been at the school for over ten years.

The school buildings were in poor condition until the last few years, when a bond election was passed allowing school officials to renovate the campus. Renovation will be completed January, 1996.

The Inception of the Family Plan

The vision of the Family Plan was conceived by Mr. Carlos Atencio, a visionary superintendent who was regarded as one of New Mexico's most active proponents of systemic educational reform. Mr. Atencio was hired as the superintendent for Las Vegas City Schools during the 1988-89 school year. His prior administrative experiences include assistant superintendent in Cuba, New Mexico, and principal in Tierra Maria, New Mexico.

Mr. Atencio reported that three factors shaped his vision of the Family Plan: (1) his discovery that students' culture affects academic and social performance; (2) his conviction that students should be educated holistically; and (3) his realization that either students drop out or make a mental decision to leave school at grades seven and eight.

The first factor became clear to Mr. Atencio while he was working with Navajo children in Cuba, New Mexico. During his work there, he discovered that the Navajo culture had a major impact on students' academic and social performance in the classroom. As he stated, children "bring to the normal typical school a very different cultural background and a very different family type thing" and educators should realize that cultural "phenomena are very predictive or influence tremendously the academic achievement of the kids." In his experiences at Cuba, Mr. Atencio observed that these cultural phenomena impacted relationships between ethnic groups. He saw that Navajo, Hispanic and white non-hispanic children did not mingle. Moreover, since many of the minority children were bussed to school, they felt little ownership of the school. In an effort to combat this separatism, Mr. Atencio and his staff attempted "to make the school environment as supportive culturally, ethnically, and in every other way, to a group of kids that was for the most part were being kept apart because they wouldn't mingle in a community." Mr. Atencio stated:

"We wanted to try to get within the school structure a deliberate arrangement that would begin to convey to kids that in this world we are in it together. We either survive together or go down together . . . You don't necessarily come up at the expense of others but you come up and bring somebody else with you as you succeed."

After researching middle school educational philosophy and practices, Mr. Atencio decided that a middle-school reorganizational structure called the Family Plan was the exact structure for which he was searching. Furthermore, the families, a concept on which the Family Plan was based, reflected the values of caring, cooperation and a sense of community or oneness that he felt students desperately needed.

Secondly, during his time, Mr. Atencio also realized that middle school students should be served holistically. He observed that their affective needs, although tremendous during adolescence, often went unaddressed. He explained:

"The middle school environment [should] mirror as much as possible a supportive family environment for kids. It didn't make any sense to me that we usually gave kids the impression that as teachers we really had nothing to do with their personal problems and that type of thing."

As a strong advocate of children, he believed teachers must do more than meet their students' academic needs; rather they must try to serve the needs of the whole child, affective as well as cognitive. As Mr. Atencio emphasized:

"You really cannot treat education as if to say 'we are here only for the business of education and don't bother me about anything else. I will teach you math but I don't want to talk about anything else.' That typical attitude I never really liked because you know now that we know more about the fact that you have to treat the child holistically. So that what they bring to school is tremendously important because if you don't deal with that issue you might be able to do a lot of other things, like beautiful buildings, equipment and everything else but if the kids are not ready to learn you just don't have anything."

Finally, Mr. Atencio encountered the third factor: During grades seven and eight, students were "dropping out, either physically or making mental decisions that they were not going to stay in school." He believed that if he was going to change this pattern, he and others would have to be proactive and intervene early, providing students with both the academic and social supports that would curtail this desire to leave school permanently.

These three factors ­ the impact of culture on students' academic and social performance; the need for students' education to be holistic; and the need to reduce the rate of school dropout ­ prompted Mr. Atencio to develop his vision of the Family Plan, a plan that would eventually be implemented at Memorial Middle School. As Mr. Atencio expressed it:

"My vision of a middle school that should be doing its job at this point as I look at that is (1) that it looks at a child holistically, and (2) a school that does not blame the child for failure or the fact that it didn't work. Say that child was not doing very well in mathematics, is the child to blame, or is it the system that is not doing the work, [not doing] what needs to be done. At the very foundation of everything that a middle school has is the notion that no child is a failure and that they all have simply a different way of learning, that it might take longer, take less time but that no child has inherently this issue that they are failures simply [because of] who they are . . . A typical school emphasizes individual achievement and in a good middle school it takes on a responsibility for all of its members. In that sense everybody is responsible for everybody else . . . As a consequence of caring for each other the academic progress and the other typical indicators of school progress will naturally accrue."

While at his previous district, Mr. Atencio attempted to implement the Family Plan, but was unsuccessful. The small size of the school made it difficult to successfully implement the innovation. Soon after, he left this district and accepted the position as superintendent at Las Vegas City Schools.

Research Supporting the Family Plan Concept

The research basis for Mr. Atencio's vision of the Family Plan derived from the 1989 report Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century, by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (Task Force on the Education of Young Adolescents). According to this report, adolescents confront a number of challenges, including the following: biological and psychological changes; peer pressure relative to alcohol, drugs, and sexual behavior; and environmental changes such as the transition from elementary to secondary school. Middle-school educators should, therefore, assist adolescents in building self-esteem, a sense of belonging, trusting relationships with adults, a sense of usefulness, and enhanced intellectual development.

According to the report, environmental change has a major impact on adolescents. Many students must attend junior high schools that are several miles away from their elementary schools and from their homes. They are no longer taught in one classroom where curriculum is linked; and they no longer study with the same peers during the school day. Instead, middle school students move from class to class hourly, experiencing a disconnected curriculum and seeing new classmates. Often these middle schools are much larger and more impersonal than the elementary schools they attended.

To ameliorate the effects of these biological, physiological, social, and environmental changes, the Carnegie Report (1989) recommends using three strategies. The first strategy restructures the traditional junior high into a middle school that organizes students into smaller learning communities called families. These families, or small learning communities, should provide environments where stable, close, mutually respectful relationships with adults and peers are created and where students' intellectual development and personal growth flourish. The fundamental philosophy behind this approach is that students and teachers are grouped as teams to ensure that each and every student connects with a significant adult and develops a sense of respect and caring for his peers, as he would in his own family.

The remaining two strategies include the following: eliminate tracking by achievement level through the use of heterogeneous grouping; and use cooperative learning as the primary instructional method. Cooperative learning will provide students with leadership opportunities, models of appropriate learning behavior, and opportunities to teach and learn from their peers.

Shortly after assuming the Las Vegas City Schools superintendency, Mr. Atencio decided to implement his vision of the Family Plan at Memorial Middle School. Like the previous middle school, Memorial was structured as a traditional junior high school and was in need of reform to improve the educational services for an unusually high number of at-risk students. Eighty-five percent of the student population was Hispanic, 80% was on free or reduced lunch, and 70% came from single-parent households.

Mr. Atencio quickly realized that restructuring Memorial was going to be a formidable task for several reasons. First, as Mr. Atencio reported, the school was "notorious for its constant turnover in terms of leadership." Second, in light of their previous unsuccessful experience with the implementation of the "open classroom" approach, staff were extremely reluctant to attempt to implement new innovations. Finally, the staff included an unusually high number of teachers who were considered generally "uncooperative" and ineffective in their teaching practices. According to Mr. Atencio, a number of these staff members exerted substantial influence on other staff and methodically exercised this power. In many cases, instructional programs were implemented based on what these persons wanted to teach rather than what might be best for students.

As a result of these three factors and committed to the belief that schools are for students, Mr. Atencio took a "top down" approach in implementing the innovation. He mandated that the school be restructured to incorporate a new middle school philosophy. Mr. Atencio reported that the decision to restructure Memorial was motivated not only to improve instructional services to students but to return decision making to all Memorial faculty rather than leaving it in the hands of a select few.

Although a number of Memorial's staff lacked a strong commitment to students, Mr. Atencio believed that with the "right kind of leadership" committed individuals at the school would be willing to stand up for kids and would make appropriate changes. He knew his vision would have to be pervasive and his direction would have to be strong. As he explained:

"The leadership is one that they can trust, like when the going gets rough they won't be left high and dry. That is very important. That is something that anybody who takes on the leadership role has to realize again if you are really serious about things you have got to be willing to put things on the line, and then not gripe about it afterwards. The idea of leadership, a leadership that is able to somewhat break the mold of the way people think and be able to say 'wait a minute, you should look at things in such a way that nothing is sacred, that everything can be changed.'"

Being from a small town and Hispanic himself, Mr. Atencio realized that change would be difficult for many of the staff in Memorial, especially for those who were considered "uncooperative". He knew that the cause for this resistance could be attributed in part to an ingrained community culture. As Mr. Atencio explained, "They are born into a community, they stay in a community, they go to school in that community and then they come back [to work in the district] and do the same old thing."

Under the direction of a strong leader, Mr. Atencio knew the more committed individuals would rise to the challenge and try the Family Plan. Consequently, in the two short years that followed, Mr. Atencio along with his assistant superintendent led the restructuring of Memorial from a traditional junior high school to a middle school that was implementing the Family Plan. Students at Memorial were heterogeneously grouped into families of one hundred students, with four teachers from the core subjects of language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science. A family of students rotated among these four classes, and their teachers had a common preparation period in order to coordinate lessons, develop interdisciplinary units and/or address student behavior and concerns. Cooperative learning was used as the primary instructional approach of the school.

The chronology of events that follows delineates the strategies that Mr. Atencio used to implement the Family Plan during his three-year term as superintendent. After leaving Las Vegas City Schools, the implementation proceeded under the direction of Mrs. Holguin, the principal who Mr. Atencio felt would ensure that his vision for Memorial would become a reality.

The 1989-90 School Year

• Mr. Atencio identified Cip Chavez and Jackie Alarid, Memorial's school counselors, as primary change facilitators who would articulate and lead the implementation of his vision at Memorial during the initial year. Mr. Atencio informed Mr. Chavez and Ms. Alarid that Memorial staff would be implementing the Family Plan during the 1989-90 school year. As Ms. Alarid stated, "He came in September and wanted it in place in January and we said there was no way we could do it." Consequently, they compromised on implementing the Family Plan during the next school year.
• To share his vision of restructuring Memorial, Mr. Atencio sent Mr. Chavez and Ms. Alarid to visit several schools in New Mexico that were implementing the middle school approach. As Mr. Chavez reported, "they returned all excited but ran into a brick wall." Other Memorial staff and parents did not share their enthusiasm for making this huge change. They believed students were doing well academically since test scores were well above the mean for the state. But Mr. Atencio understood that good student performance was not enough; affective issues had to be addressed as well. Consequently, he sent a second group, consisting of parents and teachers, to visit sites throughout the state. This second strategy was effective in winning the necessary support for the need to change; and soon after, staff began the process of implementing the Family Plan at Memorial.
• To combat general resistance to the Family Plan at its introduction, Mr. Atencio convened a number of meetings with Memorial staff in which he discussed middle school issues addressed in the report, Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century, prepared by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development's Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents (1989). As previously indicated, the staff believed that the school was already effectively educating its students, since test scores were well above the mean for the state. Additionally, they expressed reluctance to change because they saw the Family Plan as a repeat of a previously implemented innovation, and some believed that this innovation was "just another change that will go away." At these meetings, staff were allowed to express their concerns about the Family Plan and its implementation and they also provided encouragement to one another. Furthermore, staff realized that, "Something needed to change. Kids were getting lost in the shuffle". This process of listening and dialoguing eventually led the staff to agreeing to "give the Family Plan a try."
• Similarly, Mr. Atencio held a number of meetings with parents about two fundamental components of the Family Plan ­ heterogeneous grouping and cooperative learning. Initially, parents objected to the disbanding of honors science and mathematics classes and the reintegration of these students back into regular, heterogeneously grouped classes. They believed their students' academic performance would suffer. And, second they opposed using cooperative learning as the school's primary instructional method, since they believed that students would be doing the majority of teaching instead of teachers.
• Mr. Atencio persisted in his vision and persuaded the community that replacing honors classes with heterogeneous grouping would eliminate the tracking system and would benefit all students, both affectively and cognitively. He assured parents that students would receive more attention and more meaningful instruction through the use of interdisciplinary units. Eventually, a compromise was struck and pre-algebra and algebra classes continued, and cooperative learning was implemented as the school's primary instructional mode.
• Mr. Atencio and the staff used the remainder of the year for planning the strategy to be taken in facilitating the restructuring. Central administration contacted state leaders in the restructuring movement, and obtained from the State Department of Education the guidelines and waivers necessary to facilitate the changes.
• Mr. Atencio requested the implementation of the physical changes necessary to facilitate the Family Plan. Although some teachers were reluctant to move, teachers were reassigned to different classrooms, so that they would be located in the same area as their family. Portable classrooms were also appropriated to segregate the sixth grade from the seventh and eighth grade classes.
• Mr. Atencio, with assistance from the assistant superintendent, arranged for a state university to offer the first of four courses on middle school education at Memorial; to be held during the summer of 1990. The remaining three courses, addressing the implementation of change and establishing curricula, were planned for the fall of 1990. These courses assisted in establishing a philosophy that Memorial staff would take in their restructuring efforts. Moreover, staff earned as many as 13 hours of graduate credit for taking these classes, and also received a stipend.

The 1990-1991 School Year

• Rather than piloting one grade level only, the staff, convinced of the need for change, converted the entire school to the Family Plan under Mr. Atencio's direction. At its initial implementation, students were heterogeneously grouped into families consisting of approximately 100 students, with four teachers who would teach the core subjects of Language, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Core classes were no larger than 14 to 22 students per class. Cooperative learning and interdisciplinary units were the instructional approaches of the program. There were a total of six families ­ two sixth-, two seventh-, and two eighth-grade families .
• Throughout the next two years, Mr. Atencio and the assistant superintendent continued to articulate the vision of the Family Plan during their frequent visits to Memorial. As one teacher stated, "I think the previous administration was so set on getting it established that you did hear constantly what needed to be done." Mr. Chavez reported that upper administration employed "constant bombardment" to get staff high on the Family Plan, but the general sentiment was that Mr. Atencio "thrusted" the Family Plan "down our throats."
• In response to parent and teacher concerns, the assistant superintendent, with assistance from staff members, reorganized the teams to better balance teachers' skills and abilities within groups at the conclusion of the 1990-91 school year. Some teachers were so unhappy with the reassigning of families that they transferred to the high school. But Mr. Atencio capitalized on this situation by hiring new teachers whose attitudes and experiences were conducive to the Family Plan's philosophy. As one staff member explained, these new teachers were then targeted as a group who would easily "buy into" the Family Plan, since they had arrived at the school without preconceived notions and were untainted by Memorial's past experiences. Mr. Atencio believed that if he could build this group to significant proportion, then they would strongly influence the others to follow. In succeeding years, this group increased in size as new teachers were hired to replace those who quit or retired.
• Mr. Atencio, through his networking, was able to get the State Department of Education's Re: Learning Project and the Rockefeller Foundation Project to begin a long term affiliation with the school. The Re: Learning Project provided Memorial with additional resources while the Rockefeller Leadership Academy trained school staff in planning and implementing fundamental educational change and in developing a system of continual learning.

The 1991-1992 School Year

• Mr. Atencio hired Mrs. Holguin, a new principal, to lead the implementation of the Family Plan since the former principal had retired at the end of the previous school year. Mrs. Holguin was selected for several reasons. First, she had worked in the district for a number of years and thus was not viewed as an "outsider". Second, as a former counselor, she believed in the Family Plan philosophy and its merit for middle school students. Third, her administrative training provided her with the necessary skills to facilitate the implementation of Mr. Atencio's vision.
• Mr. Atencio and the assistant superintendent supported Mrs. Holguin in all of her implementation efforts. They allocated financial resources, made time for staff work sessions, connected the school with organizations that provided expertise, and arranged for ongoing staff development. Moreover, they were publicly visible in their support for her efforts. As one teacher reported, "Administration would attend meetings, conduct in-services, [and would show] firsthand involvement in staffing patterns. In a way I like that, in that it shows confidence in what we are doing."
• Mr. Atencio and Mrs. Holguin established a common preparation period for teachers to develop interdisciplinary units and/or to handle student concerns. At this time there were few interdisciplinary units taught - initial units were developed by teachers who had been paid to work the previous summer.
• Mr. Atencio, with assistance from Mrs. Holguin, reconfigured the position of the assistant principal. During this time an intern from the state university served as interim assistant principal while administration evaluated this position to identify how it could best serve the implementation of the Family Plan.
• Mrs. Holguin, with Mr. Atencio's approval, added a 35-minute daily advisory period to the beginning of the school day, to allow teachers to work with students from their families on topics such as self-esteem, or to meet with students individually.
• Families grew to include other teachers in addition to those teaching the four core subject areas. A family could now include from one to three teachers of elective subject areas or Special Education teachers.
• Due to political factors and pressure from the school board, Mr. Atencio resigned as superintendent in November, 1992 and the position was filled in December, 1992.

Over the next several years, Mrs. Holguin carried on Mr. Atencio's work. She hired new teachers who supported the philosophy of the Family Plan, provided training in the use of interdisciplinary units and cooperative learning, arranged for teacher mentoring, improved communication among staff and between staff and parents, obtained additional resources for the school through grants, increased parent and community involvement, and assisted in the school's renovation.

Under Mrs. Holguin's direction and with staff support, the following changes occurred in the structure of the Family Plan over the next few years.

The 1992-93 School Year

• Sixth and seventh grade students in a family were promoted as a cohort to seventh and eighth grades, rather than being divided into new families.
• The advisory period was replaced with a bilingual instruction period in response to state bilingual funding considerations.
• Interdisciplinary units were systematically implemented, since success with these units had been experienced by several of the families during the previous year.
• Special education and elective subject-area teachers were more comprehensively included into the families.

The 1993-1994 School Year

• Special education students moved out of their self-contained classroom to join their peers in rotating assignments within a family.
• Renovation of Memorial was fully underway, with the organizational structure of the families reflected in the school's basic architectural design.

The 1994-1995 School Year

• The organizational structure of the Family Plan was institutionalized in the school's architecture, with a separate wing designated for each of the sixth-, seventh- and eighth-grade families in the renovated buildings.
• Cooperative learning was incorporated into all of the classes and although the interdisciplinary units require an inordinate amount of time to develop, several of the families are employing them.

Although Mr. Atencio has been gone for several years, it appears that his vision of the Family Plan has become institutionalized, not only in the school's organizational structure and instructional practices, but even its architectural design. Mr. Atencio's belief that Memorial could and would change, if led by a decisive, visionary risk-taker like him, has become evident. As he predicted prior to his departure:

"I really think that Memorial Middle School will not go back to the way it was. Because there are some good people there. They have bought the dream and I trust them. I think what they tell me is true. That at least gives a person a little bit of hope. What is happening to us is often times we become our own worst enemy, from within there is decay."

Within several years of restructuring and implementing the instructional method, teachers, parents, and students began to see a number of outcomes that they strongly believe were attributable to the Family Plan, cooperative learning, and the interdisciplinary units. The following is a list of these outcomes as reported by these three groups.

• Teachers' knowledge about middle school education, cooperative learning, and teaching through interdisciplinary units increased.
• Class size decreased from 25 students to approximately 20 students per teacher, thus providing students with more individualized attention.
• Closer monitoring of students' academic and behavioral performance resulted, and students were, as a result, no longer able to "slip through the cracks."
• Students were provided with more leadership opportunities, with models of appropriate learning behavior, and with opportunities to teach and learn from their peers.
• Students were exposed to an integrated curriculum that tied together knowledge and skills from the four core subjects.
• Student academic performance rose as indicated by the increase in the number of students who made the honor roll and the decrease in the number of failures.
• Student behavior improved as evidenced by a 50 percent decrease in discipline referrals and a reduction in the number of active gang members from 42 in 1992 to 8 in 1995.
• Within the families, close bonds developed among students as well as between students and teachers.
• Collaboration among teachers increased.
• Teachers learned more about their colleagues' instructional skills and knowledge as a result of working in interdisciplinary teams.
• Communication among teachers and between teachers and parents improved dramatically.
• Parent involvement increased.
• Resources (resulting from the acquisition of grants) increased.
• Community involvement increased, with more community members joining the PTA and mentoring students.

Finally, student feedback indicated that the Family Plan was viewed as extremely beneficial, especially for adolescents. Many students voiced their feeling that the Family Plan was exactly what they needed at that time in their lives, and that they felt better prepared to deal with the trials and tribulations of high school life as a result of their experience. As one student captured it:

"Life in middle school is always changing. I mean mentally and physically. And I think that the Family Plan does help you because your friends are there and your teachers talk to you about your problems. In high school they don't do that. Now we're by ourselves and we have to learn to be by ourselves. I think now I wouldn't want it anymore because I've learned to be more independent. I've changed so I don't think it would make that much of a difference anymore, but it made a difference when I had it!"

In contrast, a small faction of students believed that the Family Plan was more of a hindrance than a support in their transition to high school. They reported that at the middle school level they learned to become interdependent through mutual care, shared support, and collaborative work. But this hindered them as they entered high school since independence not interdependence was the school norm. As two students expressed:

"In a way it didn't help. It taught us to lean on someone else and not be independent . . . Always depend on someone else and not ourselves. Now we're having to adjust to something different . . . I think it made it harder coming to high school."

Although these last two students viewed the Family Plan as an obstacle to their smooth transition to high school life, their comments reveal that Mr. Atencio and his change facilitators accomplished what they set out to achieve ­ his vision. Memorial, with its Family Plan structure, cooperative learning, and interdisciplinary units became a place where students felt they were a part of something ­ a place where they gained a feeling of belonging, and where the importance of interdependence was conveyed. As Mr. Atencio stated, "We are in it together. We either survive together or go down together."

Although teachers and parents at Memorial reported that the general sentiment was that Mr. Atencio "thrusted" the Family Plan" down our throats", five years later these same individuals have become some of the staunchest supporters of the Family Plan. In retrospect, they are the first to admit that Mr. Atencio was a visionary who knew that given Memorial's situation, there was no other alternative to implementing the Family Plan but in a top-down fashion. A number of the staff have reported that if he had not mandated the Family Plan, it would never have occurred. In fact, one teacher reflected, "the Family Plan was forced on us . . . but it had to be that way or we wouldn't have adopted the Family Plan if it hadn't been forced on us."

To confront and manage culture in Memorial's changing environment, Mr. Atencio performed several significant actions - and the need for these actions is supported by the literature on culture and change.

First, in recognizing that Hispanic culture has a major impact on students' academic and social performance at school, Mr. Atencio chose to implement a culturally congruent innovation that would enhance student success ­ both cognitively and affectively. Through the use of the Family Plan and cooperative learning, Mr. Atencio created a supportive environment that promoted a feeling of belonging, and connection, an environment in which kids understood that they were a part of something ­ "a family". He replaced the school's mainstream culture of individualism and competition with values of collectivism, cooperation, and strong relational ties ­ those values that are often found in traditional Hispanic communities.

Gudyknunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) contrast the concepts of individualism and collectivism as follows:

"In individualistic cultures 'people are supposed to look after themselves and their immediate family only, while in collectivistic cultures, 'people belong to in-groups or collectivities which are supposed to look after them in exchange for loyalty'. The 'I' identity has precedence in individualistic cultures over the 'we' identity, which takes precedence in collectivistic cultures. The emphasis in individualistic societies is on individuals' initiative and achievement, while emphasis is placed on belonging to groups in collectivistic societies." (pp. 40-41).

According to Gudyknunst and Ting-Toomey (1988):

"Collectivistic cultures emphasize goals, needs, and views of the in-group over those of the individual; the social norms of the in-group, rather than individual pleasure; shared in-group beliefs rather than unique individual beliefs; and a value on cooperation with in-group members, rather than maximizing individual outcomes." (p. 41)

Second, given that Las Vegas is a small rural "close-knit" community with deep roots and many people who are related directly or by marriage, and given that there is considerable distrust of "outsiders", Mr. Atencio immediately realized that as an "outsider" himself, he would encounter strong and long lasting resistance to any changes he might implement, no matter how great a reputation these innovations might have. According to Nachtigal (1982):

"This rather clear dichotomy between locals and outsiders ­ a distinction not found in the anonymity of an urban or suburban system ­ creates interesting problems for rural school reform efforts."(p. 9)

Third, as a risk-taker, Mr. Atencio felt his stay would be short-lived in this community. Upon his arrival at Las Vegas City Schools, as staff initially indicated, they were reluctant to take risks because they were afraid of possible ramifications. Mr. Atencio knew that regardless of how good his intentions were, it would not take long before his actions, would anger someone who was in power or a relative of someone who was in power. As Nachtigal (1982) points out, staff who work in school districts in small rural towns are:

"More vulnerable to community pressures than those in larger systems. They are known and constantly observed by the school patrons. If things are not going according to custom, they will surely hear about it, if not at school then in conversation at the local grocery store." (pp. 9-10)

In addition, since there were a number of "uncooperative" teachers at Memorial, Mr. Atencio knew that more directive measures of enforcing change were required. This meant "pushing out" uncommitted teachers from the school and even from the district ­ an action that might not be viewed as favorable by the locals.

Fourth, Las Vegas's traditional Hispanic values were sometimes viewed as impeding change in the district. For example, a number of staff reported that Memorial's principal, Mrs. Holguin, was controversial because she was female. They reported that her role as principal was in direct conflict to traditional Hispanic values found in Las Vegas where women are encouraged to work in more stereotypical roles such as housewife or secretary. As one parent stated, "Girls are raised to be subservient. They are not raised to be educated and succeed." Moreover, several white non-hispanic parents noted that in Las Vegas the "Hispanic culture is not quick to change . . .;" many people felt that this aspect of Hispanic culture slowed the pace of reform in the school district.

According to Gudyknunst and Ting-Toomey (1988), this view of how change occurs in the traditional Hispanic community of Las Vegas is in part due to a difference in temporal orientation between the white non-hispanic and Hispanic cultures. Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck (cited in Gudyknunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988) explain that the "temporal feature of human life concerns past, present, and future orientations" (p. 52). In other words, cultures (such as the Chinese culture) which value traditions highly are classified as having past orientations (Gudyknunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). Cultures with present orientations (such as the Hispanic culture), give less attention (when compared to the Chinese culture) to traditions and to what might happen in the future (Gudyknunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). For Hispanics, this orientation may be in part based on the fatalistic belief that humans are the victims of natural forces (Ramirez & Castaneda, 1974). Gudyknunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) report that a future orientation predominates in cultures where change is valued highly (as in American culture). Due to this difference in temporal orientation, change in a traditional Hispanic community like Las Vegas might evoke stronger and longer-lasting resistance than it evokes in mainstream communities.

Given these factors, Mr. Atencio's course of action was clear ­ act quickly and forcefully to mandate his vision. Facilitate the implementation personally and decisively, using key strategies such as appointing Mr. Chavez and Ms. Alarid to lead the on-site facilitation; sending teachers and parents to visit model programs; arranging for in-depth staff development for teachers; convening staff and parent discussions; and hiring a Las Vegan to be Memorial's new principal. And, when persuasion became ineffective and interventions had minimal impact, Mr. Atencio used the functional authority of his position to ensure that directives were followed, since time was marked for Mr. Atencio. As one staff member summarized Memorial's particular situation:

"I think that was the only way we were going to do it. If there's change to be made, I think we should not be given a choice. I think we can have input and suggestions and then look at these suggestions and look at the input and say 'OK this is what we have done, this is what we're going to do,' and do it because if you give us a choice we don't want change. . .We're afraid of change for whatever reason. Its new. We're comfortable in what we're doing. I think that's true of everyone. So, I think in retrospect there was no other way for them to do it than the way they did it!"

In the case of Las Vegas, a small rural community with traditional Hispanic values and a culture that is characterized by resistance to change, mandating change worked! While I am not suggesting that this approach be used with all small rural Hispanic communities, I am recommending that we, as researchers in change, encourage school leaders to consider student and community culture when implementing change in schools. With the presence of more racially and ethnically diverse and distinct communities in America, a mainstream model of implementing change may not be the most culturally congruent or the most effective choice for all reform efforts.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st Century. New York Carnegie Corporation.

Gudyknunst, W. B. & Ting-Toomey, F. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications.

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

Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (1987). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice. New York: Random House.

Nachtigal, P. M. (Ed.). (1982). Rural education: In search of a better way. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ramirez & Castaneda (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and education. New York: Academic Press.

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

Schlechty, P. C.(1993). On the frontier of school reform with trailblazers, pioneers, and settlers. Journal of Staff Development, 14(4), 46-51.

View this item in the SEDL Catalog

What's this?