Guiding Principles of the Modern Red SchoolHouse Design:
Research-Based Solutions for 21^st Century Schools (continued)
By Sally B. Kilgore, Ph.D.

Download the complete Guiding Principles of the Modern Red SchoolHouse Design publication

School Leadership and Organization

A number of school practices and community support systems are affected when schools seek to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency in academic standards. First and foremost, it requires that school leaders have some level of control or influence over school and classroom practices—which we refer to as site-based decision-making. Second, it requires that those affected by change have some voice in shaping the change—in other words, some participative management. Third, leadership must focus on instruction in a standards-driven school. And, finally, all the stakeholders must acquire strategies for managing change, for frustrations inevitably arise when substantial change occurs.

Site-based decision-making

Evidence from research in cognitive psychology regarding effective instruction (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999) as well as evidence from organizational literature (Darling-Hammond, 1990; Senge, 1990; Deming & Walton, 1988; Hall, 1982) suggests that many decisions are better made (both in terms of efficiency and quality) at a school site rather than as a district-wide policy. Every school is situated in a unique environment with varying types of resources (community service agencies, business partners, volunteer profiles). To mandate, then, that all schools will hire, say, a school psychologist may create redundancies in some schools—where one school is already being serviced by a community psychologist in their building or neighborhood. Thus, the original developers of the MRSH design sought to find ways that schools could exercise some meaningful influence on staffing, the organization of the school day, the design of instruction, and the acquisition of materials and equipment.

Obviously, the scope of autonomy given to schools varies across districts. Even in instances where district superintendents are committed to site-based decision-making, barriers remain. Tradition and habit often drive the actions of the central office staff; the new responsibilities given principals create risks they may want to avoid; teachers, understandably, may not think it is worth their time; and often state laws set tight boundaries on the range of autonomy schools can exercise.

MRSH advisors work within the scope of autonomy accorded schools and help principals identify whatever site-based authority exists. Even in highly bureaucratized school districts, some meaningful measure of control over the school practices can be achieved by astute management of a district’s policies (as in staffing) or by direct requests for a specific change in practice (such as bus schedules).

Participative management

Separate from site-based decision-making is the issue of participative management; that is, involving some or all of the staff in the decision-making process. The effects of using participative management in schools on the quality of decisions (Murphy & Beck, 1995; Friedkin & Slater, 1994; Weiss & Cambone, 1994; Chrispeels, 1992; Chapman & Boyd, 1986; Rosenholtz, 1985) and student achievement (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Robertson & Briggs, 1998) are somewhat mixed. Yet, when one looks across research in all types of organizations, making good decisions requires the wisdom and perspective of persons throughout the organization (Deming & Walton, 1988). Many problems can be avoided when many people are consulted about the options. It may save an administrator’s time to use the public address system to call a student to the office, but it also disrupts the learning of hundreds of other students.

Just as important, though, research on participative management is especially clear about one thing: Effective change—change that actually takes root in an organization—requires that those affected by the change be consulted. Research on school reform (Sebring & Bryk, 2000; McLaughlin, 1987; Rosenholtz, 1985) as well as organizational studies (Pfeffer, 1997; Drucker, 1986; March & Simon, 1958; Coch & French, 1948) show that participative management, even of limited scope, increases the likelihood that decisions will be implemented more completely and adapted to local circumstances.

Urban school district leaders, under pressure for quick change, are most likely to rely heavily on top-down (rather than participative) decision-making strategies. Yet, research on urban school reform is littered with instances where principals sought to buffer teachers from new expectations or where teachers found ways to close their doors and maintain their current practices. School staff reason, often quite sensibly, that the pressure for change will disappear when the inevitable change in leadership occurs. At best, staff often choose to mold a new mandate to create the least disturbance to existing practice (McLaughlin, 1987).

The inability of leaders to convert mandates or new policies into action, MRSH developers claim, is a critical barrier in most efforts to change practices in public schooling. For change to occur, those implementing the decision must own it. As Drucker (1986) explains, “It [implementing a decision] requires that any decision become ‘our decision’ to the people who have to convert it into action. This in turn means that they have to participate responsibly in making it” (p. 365). If people are able to evaluate alternatives in terms of how they will improve the quality and efficiency of their work, it is likely that the decision will be better than ones devised in isolation by a manager.

MRSH advisors encourage principals not only to establish a leadership team, but also six or so task forces focused on core issues composed of teachers and parents. Teachers often claim that their long-term commitment to the MRSH design began with their experience on a task force. Similarly, that structure allows schools to recruit politically significant people in their neighborhoods—people from social or medical services, small businessmen, and area school board members. These community representatives can become not only active committee members but also ardent advocates of the school in the often turbulent urban school environment (Resnick, NSBA, 2000). Not surprisingly, the role and effectiveness of these task forces have proven to be dependent on the support and direction of the principal and other significant administrators (Hallinger, Murphy, & Hausman, 1992). Task forces are central to effective implementation of the MRSH design.

For participative management, then, the MRSH design expects some minimum consultative role for a leadership team and task forces regardless of the principal’s current practice. Given that principals do vary in their leadership styles and dispositions and that school histories affect the readiness for and interest in participative management, the design allows for considerable variation across sites in the level of influence and control given to teachers.

A leadership team with task forces provides a principal access to many ways of looking at issues and generates the commitment needed to implement changes. Through routine interactions, principals should also help teachers create a culture of collegial review and build the capacity for continuous improvement.

Instructional leadership:

Elmore (2000) defines the responsibilities of an administrative leader as:

“…enhancing the skills and knowledge of people in the organization, creating a common culture of expectations about the use of those skills and knowledge, and holding people accountable for their contributions to the collective results.” (p. 15)

What remains unclear is the degree to which these administrative responsibilities can be delegated to others in the school. Can a principal, for instance, just make certain that the structure and resources needed to enhance skills and knowledge are present, or does he or she need to engage personally in enhancing that knowledge? Friedkin and Slater (1994) find, for instance, that the degree to which teachers seek advice from their principal affects school performance. Moreover, accountability systems, of most any sort, place “the buck stops here” sign on the principal’s desk.

On the other hand, Stinchombe’s (1965) classic analysis of organizations would suggest that there are multiple ways to meet certain essential organizational functions. And clearly, good leaders do hire staff that compensate for their weaknesses, so why couldn’t principals do that for instructional leadership? Most principals often lack the training and preparation to assume every responsibility associated with instructional leadership. More often, they deliver the resources and create the culture needed for teachers to provide powerful instruction (Senge, et al., 2000).

While some specific tasks of instructional leadership, such as instructional coaching, may be delegated to others, a principal must organize his or her time and attention in ways that clearly communicate the priority he or she gives to student learning.

The National Association of Elementary School Principals (2001) proposes six standards for what principals should know and be able to do as instructional leaders. The focus of these standards is on student learning and academic success. They include:

• Leading schools in a way that puts student and adult learning at the center of all efforts;
  
• Promoting the academic success of all students by setting high expectations and high standards and organizing the school environment around school achievement;
  
• Creating and demanding rigorous content and instruction that ensures student progress toward agreed-upon academic standards;
  
• Creating a climate of continuous learning for adults that is tied to student learning;
  Using multiple sources of data as a diagnostic tool to assess, identify, and apply instructional improvement; and
  
• Actively engaging the community to create shared responsibility for student and school success. (p. 6-7)

Nearly all of these standards require leaders to act in ways that communicate the priority they give to student and adult learning. That communication would be evident in how administrators use time at faculty meetings, the degree to which they are engaged in training sessions for their teachers, how often they visit classrooms to discover what students are learning, whether they hold staff accountable for their contributions, and their efforts to recognize success stories, big and small, in student learning. Thus, regardless of what others do, principals must personally convey the importance they attach to the quality of instruction and learning in their schools.

Managing the change process

A school staff must see a compelling need for change. Urgency should be real, not contrived. Even with a sense of urgency, though, change is difficult.

Educators, more than most professionals, experience frequent shifts of what experts say is best for children. After several of these cycles, it’s hard not to feel like a patient at the dentist’s office. First, we’re told to brush our teeth up and down; several years later, it’s sideways. Then, the hygienist insists circles are best. After many years of switching, it is easy to ignore the apparent shift in best practice. Educators, like those patients, may be tempted to shrug their shoulders and think, “Will they ever make up their minds?”

For all professionals, resistance to change often seems sensible. Every significant change in practice usually means that one’s performance gets worse before it gets better. Even with the best instructions, one confronts instances where one or more of the following must be said: "But I didn’t know; I just assumed; it never occurred to me." Such confessions are frustrating to anyone who takes pride in doing things right.

When we change what we do or how we do things, we encounter the problem economists call “sunk costs.” For instance, for every additional year we use a particular tool—such as an overhead projector—we become better at using it. Replacing that projector with computer software like PowerPoint®, may prove, in the end, to be better, but one has to invest time in developing the new slides, become comfortable with a new set of buttons, and learn new ways of walking and talking with this technology. The time one has invested in becoming fluent with the overhead projector represents the “sunk costs” one cannot recover.

On the other hand, no professional wants to deprive his or her clients, in our case students, of what’s best just because it’s too much trouble—thus, the significance of evidence-based practices. Those who would propose change have the responsibility of providing scientifically-based evidence about the effects of the alternative practices. Almost as important, educators should be provided evidence that the effort will deepen their understanding of teaching and learning or at least give them skills they can transfer to a variety of educational challenges. If those conditions are met, then educators have a responsibility to help manage change in ways that support others when their frustration is great.

Evaluating evidence on student learning: Recent federal legislation emphasizes the need for educators and policymakers to rely upon scientifically-based evidence in making decisions. Does this mean that every change in practice must be supported by randomized trials on thousands of students—such as is done with medical treatments—before they are used?

Anyone who works in schools knows that schools are messy places to conduct classical experiments—where students and/or teachers are randomly assigned to experimental or control groups. If the experimental and control groups are within the same school, then most individuals can tell to which group they belong. That is, it is hard to have placebos like medical science, where neither patients nor doctors know who is in the experimental or control group. A teacher assigned to a control group for classroom practices will find it hard to resist adopting a “treatment” practice he or she sees working for students in other classrooms. Yet, the ability of the researcher to evaluate the effects of the treatment depends upon the teacher not doing so. And, of course, parents rightfully may not want their child to participate in something deemed an “experiment.” Classical experimental designs can seldom make the perfect link to the realities of the classroom.

Thus, it is important to view scientifically-based research as having various levels of credibility and excellence. As a guide for evaluating the level of credibility of scientifically-based research, we adapted the criteria specified by recent federal legislation into these essential considerations—

Anecdotal versus systematic data? A parent’s story about how a child’s performance improved or a teacher’s story about how a student’s behavior changed when he or she did something differently is usually quite compelling. Changes in school or district practices, however, should not be based simply on testimonials, regardless of their compelling nature. Educators need evidence that has been collected systematically—that is, observations on all children in a school or classroom (or a random sample of those students) should be used to establish evidence of effectiveness.

One-time success versus repeated successes? Every educator knows at least one principal or teacher who can make most any new strategy a success. Perhaps they supplement any “treatment” with other practices that make the real difference. Maybe a principal’s enthusiasm inspires classroom teachers to just work harder. Those factors could actually create improvements, rather than the treatment itself. Thus, it’s important that changes in school and classroom practices be based upon data showing that student achievement has been improved in a variety of settings and circumstances. Even experimental designs require that a researcher have numerous trials.

Can you verify or must you trust? Educators should have more confidence in conclusions when they can verify the evidence used by researchers. There are two ways, in general, to verify results—both of which are important. Can you independently check the outcomes of the research? Does the researcher give you enough information to allow you to replicate the procedures he or she used to see if you obtain the same results?

Today, for instance, most state education departments have Web sites where one can obtain data on individual schools’ performance on state assessments. Thus, anyone could independently verify the results obtained by a researcher using that data, provided that the schools or districts were identified. Or, if a researcher uses a public database to draw conclusions from a national sample of schools, the researcher should provide sufficient information that would allow someone else to verify the findings using the same database. In experimental designs, a researcher must provide enough detail on the procedures, conditions, and tests that would allow another researcher to repeat the process to see if he or she obtains the same results.

All robust scientific progress relies heavily on other researchers’ ability to replicate and verify the work of others.

Grade level improvement versus student improvement? It is not uncommon for districts and states to assess school improvement in terms of changes observed over time at a given grade level. That’s not such a bad thing, if you have a large number of students. But for schools with, say, 100 students at each grade level, just looking at the grade level performance can be very misleading. The problem, of course, is that one is comparing two different groups of students: third-graders in 2000 with those in 2001. Any experienced teacher knows that there are random—and not so random—reasons why one cohort of students is different from another. It is a difference that has nothing to do with the quality of his or her teaching. The smaller the group of students in the analysis, the more likely such quirks will be visible. It is better, then, to have data on the same students over time, where individual gains can be evaluated. Evaluating student improvement is always better than focusing on grade level performance over time.

Given many of the rules regarding confidentiality, though, it is often difficult for researchers to gain access to student level data. If so, they should make cross-grade comparisons to come closer to student improvement measures, use data over three or more years, or look at school-wide changes.

Comparison groups, random assignments, or random selection? One of the important rules of scientifically-based research is that one should be able to eliminate other explanations for the changes one may observe. Classical experimental designs address this by trying to make the subjects (or schools) in the treatment and the control groups very similar. Ideally, the only difference should be that one group receives the “treatment” and the other does not. This is accomplished by assigning subjects randomly to the two groups—making prior differences in the groups simply random.

Survey researchers randomly select respondents in order to represent the differences among the population they study. They eliminate other explanations by determining if a pattern they see is the same for all types of people.

If we think about such “treatments” as comprehensive school reform, however, the situation gets especially complicated. It doesn’t seem reasonable or fair to have schools go through a long and deliberative process to decide which comprehensive school reform design to choose, and then expect them to wait to see if they are randomly selected to actually implement the program. Consequently, one has to ask, “What are other methods that help one to eliminate the other explanations?” Comparing performance at schools implementing programs against similar schools that are not implementing is one way. Comparing the implementing school against district performance is another. In each case though, it is harder to say that the comparison schools are similar than if one had been able to just randomly select schools.

Do other researchers value the research? Researchers regularly review each other’s work—both in the process of just doing the analysis and also as part of evaluating whether the research results should be published in journals or presented at national conferences. One indication, then, that the results are robust is whether the results have been presented at a research conference, or better yet, whether they have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Journals do, however, differ in their purpose and often differ in their standards for evidence. Thus, even laypersons need to have some sense of what counts as solid evidence.

Evidence that the learning needed will improve my professional skills: Is it useless to learn new strategies or adopt new texts when another instructional strategy soon will replace what was once new? Studies in learning word processing software show that prior learning does transfer. That is, after you’ve learned one word processing system, it’s easier to master the second one—editing icons and procedures will differ, but having learned the range of options you have in editing will make the second learning experience easier.

Professionally, though, a change in practice should deepen one’s understanding of what constitutes good teaching. An educator’s capacity to evaluate new alternatives or pose solutions to old problems should increase. Given what we know about applying what we’ve learned to a new situation, it is obvious that any change in practice should involve a thorough understanding of why the change is better than what we’ve been doing. Just as with student learning, if teachers learn a new procedure with no rationale, there is only a small chance that they will be able to apply what they’ve learned to new or novel situations in the life of schooling.

Creating an environment supportive of change: Just as advocates of change have certain responsibilities, so, too, do those accepting the challenges of change. Researchers have found a predictable cycle of commitment and enthusiasm that people experience in changing strategies or tools. Initially, most people are enthusiastic, but as they confront the grim reality of frustration when something doesn’t work, they are disillusioned or embarrassed. In fact, change usually falters if everyone in an organization undergoing change hits the bottom at the same time.

Organizations that are successful with change create an open environment where not only frustrations can surface (rather than just simmering inside us), but also where folks can support each other through the rough spots. Just knowing that others have the same problems can create patience, and shared laughter about those frustrations can rid individuals of the ordinary anxieties that arise. Leaders must create a safe environment with time for reflection.

Managing change, then, requires, first and foremost, compelling evidence that the proposed change will make a difference in those outcomes we value as professionals, i.e., student learning. Second, the proposed change must improve our capacity to work as professionals. Finally, managing change requires that we accept responsibility for helping colleagues out of the inevitable doldrums that emerge when we try to do things differently.

MRSH training support and mentoring for school leaders

During the first year of implementation, MRSH advisors support a school’s leadership by providing strategies for managing organizational change, conducting a diagnostic of school performance, mentoring, and training of task forces.

School staff learn to anticipate the peaks and valleys of enthusiasm and frustration they will encounter as they adopt new practices and technologies. Teachers identify strategies they will use to help themselves and others through those periods of frustration.

Given that teachers are expected to work more intimately and routinely with their colleagues, the school staff also learn about the strengths and needs of different personality types. With the use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator^® (MBTI), teachers acquire ways of understanding their own behavior and that of others—giving them a shared vocabulary for understanding differences and fostering effective strategies for dealing with them. Principals use the MBTI data to form task forces—enhancing the likelihood that a balance of various talents exists within each group.

Prior to beginning any work at a school, MRSH advisors conduct a diagnostic visit to profile student achievement and existing practices at the school. Teacher and administrator interviews, classroom visits, and a building walk-through provide data for the MRSH team to develop a plan of work for the first year that not only advances implementation of the design but also addresses immediate needs.

Each principal is assigned a mentor for the implementation phase who is also responsible for the training and support of the school’s leadership team. The content of the principal mentoring varies, depending upon the experience, skill, and disposition of the administrator. For novices, it may focus initially on the fundamentals of setting expectations for teachers and students. More experienced principals may begin with efforts to refine skills in monitoring standards-driven classrooms and managing the larger environment. In all cases, though, mentors work with principals to establish and orient the leadership team and task forces—seeking to ensure that the membership is inclusive of various social and structural networks among teachers and that it balances the skills and talents within each task force.

As with principal mentoring, leadership team training is customized to match the level of experience of team members. Topics may include conflict resolution, development of task force agendas, communication plans, decision-making procedures, problem-solving strategies, and developing coalitions to support change. A critical component of this training is to establish consensus on the respective roles and responsibilities of the team and principal and to ensure a shared understanding of the sphere of influence accorded to the leadership team. State and district policies, as well as the dispositions of principals, influence variations in the shape and form of leadership teams.

Some or all members of the leadership team serve as chairpersons of task forces. While the MRSH design proposes six task forces (standards and assessment, curriculum, technology, community and parent partnerships, organization and finance, and professional development), schools are allowed to vary the number (combining or adding) as long as all essential functions are covered. During the first two years of implementation, task forces receive extensive assistance in developing a plan of action that supports student learning. Training, again, is customized and can be both procedural and substantive.

Embedded in the work of the task forces are core elements of the design. General goals are shared across task forces in a given school at each stage of implementation—supporting teachers as they design instruction, for instance, the organization and finance task force should evaluate ways to increase common planning time for teachers, while the technology task force should identify ways for all teacher teams to have the hardware, software, and computer skills for designing instructional units.

Specific activities at each site, however, are only partially shared with other sites. For instance, curriculum and parent partnership task forces almost always work together to establish routine practices that allow parents to support student learning and community members to support teachers’ work in designing instruction. Beyond that, participating sites develop different approaches to community and parent partnerships that reflect the needs of students and the resources of communities they serve. MRSH provides assistance in identifying those diverse factors, developing a comprehensive plan of involvement that reflects the interests and skills of parents, and adapting strategies to address the students’ academic needs. Community volunteers may be recruited to support the instructional program, help establish a consortium for early childhood education or social service support, or mentor students.

Previous  1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8  Next

Download the complete Guiding Principles of the Modern Red SchoolHouse Design publication

Link to References