The Ecology of the School

Elements of the ecology, i.e., the physical, material, inorganic aspects of schools, impact school improvement efforts. The availability of resources for change is one of these elements that has a powerful impact. Physical arrangements for organizing persons, scheduling patterns in the school, the size of the school, and the degree of safety in the school also can facilitate or impede interactions that are meaningful for school improvement. Other factors, such as the demographic patterns of the school and working conditions exert influence on change as well. Finally, the policies and rules that govern the school are an influential inorganic element. Those seeking lasting school improvement must face the fact that effective change takes time and resources.

Resources

Those seeking lasting school improvement must face the fact that effective change takes time and resources. Limited funds may mean that certain types of improvements are never considered. The availability of school resources influences implementation strategies. According to Corbett, Dawson, and Firestone (1984), when time for planning and implementation activities or money to purchase materials is scarce, change activities will not make much progress. Funding is also important because underfunding a project may result in the inability to address problems until the next fiscal year (Pink, 1990). If resources are not available for the school improvement effort, leaders must realize that in order to acquire resources, other groups or persons may have to be persuaded, converted to supporters, or even bypassed (Miles & Louis, 1990). Allowing the time needed for new programs to demonstrate results is often overlooked as a bridge to school improvement.

Many change efforts fail simply because not enough was invested in them in terms of time (Deal, 1985; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Sarason, 1982). It has been noted often that districts are vulnerable to faddism in their desire for quick-fix solutions to mounting problems (Carlson, 1987; Everson, Scollay, Gavert, & Garcia, 1986; Johnston, Bickel, & Wallace, 1990; Melvin, 1991; Pink, 1990; Simpson, 1990). Allowing the time needed for new programs to demonstrate results is often overlooked as a bridge to school improvement. Slavin (1989) points out:

If education is ever to stop the swinging of the pendulum and make significant progress in increasing student achievement, it must first change the ground rules under which innovations are selected, implemented, evaluated, and institutionalized…One of the most important reasons for the continuing existence of the educational pendulum is that educators rarely wait for or demand hard evidence before adopting new practices on a wide scale (p. 752).

Because it takes time to weld people into a team, this task requires great patience. "A particular mind-set for managing change: one that emphasizes process over specific content, recognizes organizational change as a unit-by-unit learning process rather than a series of programs, and acknowledges the payoffs that result from persistence over a long period of time as opposed to quick fixes" is what is needed (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990, p. 166). Three factors that impact the amount of time necessary for change are urgency or a crisis situation, the attractiveness of the proposed change to individuals, and the strength of the culture that exists (Deal & Kennedy, 1982).

Physical arrangements

In addition to the limits placed on school improvement by the availability of time and money, the physical structures of schools may also facilitate or impede change. In their study of urban school change, Louis and Miles (1990) cite constraints of the physical plant as a major source of implementation problems. Physical arrangements can contribute to the isolation of teachers both physically and emotionally. As Lortie (1975, cited in Fullan, 1991) found in his study of 6000 teachers, the cellular organization of schools keeps teachers physically apart from other professionals in the school. This isolation then impacts teacher attitudes and limits the relationships between teachers, students, administrators, and the community -- relationships that are essential factors in the change process.

Because they are restricted to the classroom and tend to have a limited network of ongoing professionally-based interaction within their schools or with their professional peers, most teachers have limited contact with new ideas (Fullan, 1991). On the other hand, a study conducted by Smith and Keith (1971) shows how, even in a physical environment that is conducive to interaction, an "aggregate of people who are interdependent yet isolated" may exist (p. 247). The staff of the school that they studied had a philosophy of freedom and of high communication levels, yet "people [did not] talk about significant events" (Smith & Keith, 1971, p. 247). This seems to indicate that the physical environment may contribute to isolation, but does not entirely explain it.

Structures in the school that contribute to teacher isolation and the feeling that the individual cannot make a difference are indeed barriers to school improvement efforts. Modifications in the physical arrangement of schools in order to facilitate professional interaction between teachers will reduce this isolation.

Physical arrangements also can contribute to student feelings of isolation and alienation. These feelings of isolation and alienation by students contribute to dropping out of school. Lawton, Leithwood, Batcher, Donaldson, and Stewart (1988) observe that "research on school related factors…has focused largely on student behaviors in school on the implicit assumption that it is the student who must change to fit the school…[E]fforts to reduce the number of dropouts ought to assume that it is the school rather than or in addition to the student which needs to change" (p. 27).

Secondary students, in particular, must cope with a structure with which no worker in the real world would be saddled (Shanker, 1989). Shanker (1989) describes some of these conditions:

They're put into a room to work with 30 or more of their peers, with whom they cannot communicate. The teacher gives them their tasks, and, when the bell rings 40 or so minutes later, they have to gather up their belongings and head to another "work station" for a whole new set of tasks with a new "supervisor" who has a different personality and, very likely, a different method of operation. This routine is repeated six or seven times a day…All youngsters are expected to have sufficient motivation and self-discipline to get down to serious work on day one in anticipation of a "reward" far down the road -- something most adults need all their fortitude to accomplish. (p. 3)

Fullan (1991) points out that students' active involvement in the school improvement effort is an essential ingredient in successful implementation. Student attitudes are affected when the structure of the school contributes to their isolation and alienation.

Scheduling patterns

Cuban (1989) notes that the graded school is one of the most inflexible structures of schooling. After reviewing the history of schooling in the United States, he describes the graded school as a source of academic failure among at-risk students and calls for the redesign of this school structure. Due to the acute pressure to educate all children efficiently and inexpensively, Cuban (1989) argues, the structure of schools is not even on the agenda for change. This is an example of how historical precedence in the school may limit school improvement efforts.

Spady (1988) believes that the organization of schools around the calendar, the clock and the schedule, exerts a pervasive influence on the thinking of those who work and study in them. This focus on time, along with the legal mandate to keep students in the custody of the school for fixed periods of time, may result in teachers adopting the unproductive syndromes of "putting in time" and "covering material" (Spady, 1988). Examination of the organizational patterns of schools by those leading school improvement efforts is an important component of the change process.

School size

Several researchers have found that the size of the school is a physical characteristic that may either support or block school improvement, especially those efforts designed to improve schooling for at-risk students. Fowler and Walberg (1991) found that increased school size has negative effects upon student participation, satisfaction, and attendance and adversely affects the school climate and a student's ability to identify with the school and its activities. In a 1987 study, Pittman and Haughwout estimate that the dropout rate at a school increases one percent for every 400-student increase in the high school population. Bryk and Thum (1989) found that the effects of school size on absenteeism and dropout were substantial, "but mostly indirect, acting to either facilitate (in small schools) or inhibit (in larger schools) the development and maintenance of a social environment conducive to student and faculty engagement with the school" (p. 26).

Monk's (1986) study of curriculum offerings concluded that benefits to the curriculum gained by size of enrollment peaked at 400 students. His conclusion is that high school enrollments be maintained at around 400 students. Below that number, "additional students translated into the school's ability to offer larger classes, improved students' access to courses and more specialized teacher assignments. Above 400, increases in enrollment made little difference in terms of these indicators" (Monk, 1986, p. 24).

Several researchers have found that small size tends to promote a sense of community in the school (Barker & Gump, 1964; Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Pittman & Haughwout, 1987). In a 1973 study of the Montgomery County, Maryland, schools, "smaller schools had more innovative teachers, staffs that had a voice in running the schools, a family atmosphere, close community relationships, and a principal who could make the best use of the staff" (Hobbs, 1989, p. 6).

In a study of 14 schools that have been successful in their efforts aimed at at-risk students, Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, and Fernandez (1989) found that certain structural characteristics were common in 12 of the schools. A small school size, defined in the study as less than 500 students, was one of these characteristics. Small size "promotes collegiality, makes democratic governance easier and fosters the consensus-building that sustains commitment to school goals.…In general, the larger the school the more difficult it is to sustain sensitive one-on-one relations between educators and students, students and students, and educators themselves" (Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez, 1989, p. 144). In large schools a breakdown occurs in communication, feedback about performance, and staff involvement in decision making (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1990). All of these qualities are important to facilitating lasting school improvement, as noted later in this paper.

Gottfredson (1985) examined the effects of school size on school disorder. In her study of large schools compared to small alternative schools for at-risk students, she found that large schools tend to be characterized by a lack of communication between teachers and administration and confusion regarding school policies. This can lead to school disorder because "teachers lose confidence in the administration and feel ineffective" (p. 41). Schein (1985) suggests that large size can lead to disruptive behavior. "Few circumstances cause as much breakdown of normal behavior patterns as excessive crowding, rendering any private space a physical impossibility" (p. 59).

Demographic shifts

Demographic changes can pressure schools to adopt and implement new policies (Fullan, 1991). Fullan explains that environmental changes external to the school impinge on it, increasing readiness to implement innovations. Demographic changes such as population shifts and redistricting decisions influence change efforts.

Another demographic variable, employment growth, has been found to be significantly and positively related to the proportion of college graduates in the population and to the high school dropout rate in a study of rural schools (Hobbs, 1991). The greater the employment growth in rural areas the higher the school dropout rate. According to Hobbs (1991), this finding is logical due to great increases in demand for employees in consumer services, e.g. retail, food, and travel services, in rapid growth areas. Students may find these types of jobs readily available for them if they drop out of school. This type of demographic change influences school improvement efforts for at-risk students.

Working conditions

According to Fullan (1991), the working conditions of teachers in the vast majority of schools are not conducive to sustained teacher innovation. To improve teacher performance, the work environment must enhance teachers' sense of professionalism and decrease their career dissatisfaction. Conley, Bacharach, and Bauer (1989) found that in elementary schools where teachers perceive class size as manageable, the level of dissatisfaction is lower than in schools where teachers perceive class size as less manageable. A lower level of career dissatisfaction also was reported in elementary schools where teachers perceive an absence of student learning problems. Further, when elementary teachers reported an absence of student behavior problems, they also reported a lower level of career dissatisfaction. Consistent with findings from elementary schools, in secondary schools, the perceived presence of student learning problems and student behavior problems emerged as predictors of teacher career dissatisfaction.

Sarason (1982) reports that the untested assumption that few others think the same way keeps school staff from expressing ideas for improving the school. Arrangements that increase isolation and frustrate change efforts include: the fact that "existing [structures] for discussion and planning within the school (faculty meetings; teacher- principal contacts, teacher-supervisor contacts, etc.) are based on the principle of avoidance of controversy; at all levels (teacher, principal, administrator) there is the feeling of individual impotence; [and, finally], there is acceptance of the untested assumption that the public will oppose any meaningful or drastic change in existing regularities" (Sarason, 1982, p. 102).

Local, state, and federal policies

When the ideas held about how schools should operate are written down, regulations, rules, and policies are produced. Because schools are public agencies, they must adhere to local, state, and federal regulations that make it difficult for schools to set their own educational goals. According to Clune's (1991) historical review of educational policy, these policies have not been effective or coordinated (i.e., pointed in the same direction) in improving achievement. Clune (1991) points out that the United States has produced more educational policy than any other country, but it has been the least effective. This vast array of regulations runs counter to the findings of Chubb and Moe (1990), who found that schools with a greater percentage of academically achieving students have "substantial school autonomy from direct external control" (p. 183). Likewise, Wehlage et al. (1989) found in their study of schools successful with at-risk students that "without exception, educators cited autonomy as significant in their ability to construct programs that respond to students" (p. 144).

"Desired connections between policies and practices are difficult to find. Policies are seldom carried out to the letter" (Deal, 1985, p. 603). This may be true due to the loosely coupled nature of schools, a concept discussed in the culture section of this paper. Fine (1991) describes how some policies, such as allocation formulas and required procedures for student discharge, actually exacerbated the dropout problem in particular schools.

Past attempts to reform schools have generally sought to use policy mandates to drive changes from top to bottom in schools. "This strategy either has not worked or, at best, has gone as far as it can in creating authentic and sustained change in our schools. Some of the most essential elements necessary to restructure a school - commitment, engagement, or sense of invention cannot be mandated" (Lieberman & Miller, 1990, p. 759). According to Cuban (1988), a lack of understanding regarding "first-order" changes, which are defined as attempts to make what already exists more efficient and effective without altering basic organizational features, and "second- order" reforms, which seek to change fundamental organizational structures, has resulted in ineffective solutions.

It seems more is known about factors that contribute to educational outcomes than is reflected by educational reform policies. Hobbs (1988) notes that the work of Kerr (1984) devoted itself to the problem of why schools are not doing better considering what is known. Kerr's analysis focused on bureaucracy, professionalization, and "research systems" as barriers to the alignment of knowledge and policy.

Levine (1991) argues that "substantial change in instruction frequently requires departures from district or state policies and regulations" (p. 391). In a review of the literature on school and community influences, Shields (1990) notes that states can limit local efforts with restrictive regulations or promote local efforts through such strategies as increased funds, technical assistance and cooperative efforts between school districts and state departments. District and state policies that foster building autonomy, build alliances with the community, and encourage the sharing of information, skills and understanding can improve and maintain effective classroom instruction (Shields, 1990).

The existence of state test scores may lead state officials to assume more responsibility for the schools, to feel obliged to act to solve problems and, if necessary, to make curricular policy directly, according to Corcoran (1985). The use of state tests appears to be associated with increased administrative control over both the process and the content of instruction (Corcoran, 1985; Shields, 1990).

Basic education policy should be shaped at state and district levels, but the day-to-day decision-making should shift to the local school, according to a report of the Carnegie Foundation (1988). This report concludes that what is needed is school-based authority with accountability at the school level.

Implications

The inorganic aspects of the school are important due to their impact on the development of attitudes and beliefs, the facilitation of relationships, and the establishment of a widely shared culture. Elements of the ecology can facilitate or impede efforts to improve schools' capacity to implement changes that support at-risk students.

The lack of resources is a major barrier to sustained change efforts. These resources include not only money, but also time. Patience with implementation efforts and student outcomes translates to a willingness to allow the time necessary for change.

When the organizational pattern of the school creates a focus on custody and control rather than instruction and improvement, it too impedes change. Crowded, disorderly schools feed this mission of control and create an environment that decreases teacher career satisfaction and limits innovation. Modifications to the school organization to reduce levels of isolation and alienation move the school closer to a context supportive of lasting school change.

Rules, regulations, and policies at the national, state and district level may constrain or enhance successful implementation efforts. Knowledge about the types of policies that will increase student achievement and address the second-order level of change is needed. These policies, however, need to allow autonomy for day-to-day decisions at the local site.