This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 24 November 2014, At: 08:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

School Organisation: Formerly School OrganisationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm19

‘Soaring like turkeys’ ‐ the impossible dream?Peter Holly aa Tutor in Curriculum Studies, Cambridge Institute of EducationPublished online: 03 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Peter Holly (1986) ‘Soaring like turkeys’ ‐ the impossible dream?, School Organisation: Formerly SchoolOrganisation, 6:3, 346-364, DOI: 10.1080/0260136860060306

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260136860060306

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

SCHOOL ORGANIZATION, 1986, VOL. 6, NO. 3, 346-364

'Soaring like turkeys' - the impossibledream?

Peter HollyTutor in Curriculum Studies,Cambridge Institute of Education

Introduction

In this paper I give an overview of the literature on school improvement andthe management of change.

Bollen (1985) has warned us about story-tellers. Citing a paper by Miles(1983), Bollen claims that:

'unravelling the mystery of institutionalisation' does notbring about the final truth about a reality calledinstitutionalisation, but gives us a story where in all kinds ofelements of a rather puzzling reality are arranged in aspecified perspective called institutionalisation. Theperspective is not a quality of the reality but is a way of lookingat some aspects of the reality by the writer . . . The story aboutinstitutionalisation will always be a story within a frameworkof a theory or of some special interest. There is not a story toend all other stories . . . Institutionalisation doubtless will be adifferent story in different countries . . .

In North America the school improvement literature includes much fromwhat has been referred to as the 'effective schools movement'. Clark et al.(1984), Cohen (1983 and 1985), Purkey and Smith (1983 and 1985), Manasse(1985) and Deal (1985) are the cheer-leaders. Purkey and Smith (1985), inexplaining this spate of literature on school effectiveness, have observed thatpublic attention was being directed at the need for educational change (by,for example, such official reports as A Nation at Risk published by theNational Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983), just whenresearch findings were beginning to accumulate concerning possible factorsin school effectiveness. Given what Purkey and Smith refer to as this'window of opportunity', those in 'the movement' have leapt through it.Policy-makers, according to Cohen (1985), have digested the implications ofeffective schools research and are now engaged in 'backward-mapping'. 'Ifwe know what good practice is (through research-based descriptions)',argues Cohen, then we know 'what policies need to be developed in order toencourage and enable good practices to be employed more often, moreregularly and in more schools.'

Yet, as Fullan (1985), the Berlaks (1982) and Cuban (1984) have all pointedout, if only it was as simple as that. Purkey and Smith acknowledge that we

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'SOARING LIKE TURKEYS' 347

must not:

(a) underestimate the complexity of implementing change in schoolsand must ayoid creating simplistic policies. One recent example isTips for Principals. How to Make Research Work for You,published by the National Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals, Reston, Virginia, November 1985;

(b) concentrate on a one-dimensional view of school effectiveness;that is, says Cuban (1984), academic progress as reflected in scoresin standardized tests;

(c) be too prescriptive. The real danger is that, from the effectiveschools research, a template will be constructed (depicting theeffective school) and lowered over every school in sight. And if itdoesn't fit the mould . . .

(d) forget that much of the research has been conducted in primaryschools arid may not be applicable to secondary schools;

(e) expect short-term gains. Over-night success, argues Fullan (1985),echoing Pressman and Wildavsky (1979), is not to be expected.Perseverance is called for; the message is 'stick with it'. As Cohen(1985) contends, 'Successful school improvement requires thecontinuing and visible support and attention of policy-makers andthe willingness to forego attractive, short-term fixes in favour ofsome long-term and lasting solutions.'

(f) fail to see the contradictions in much of the research findings; forexample, Purkey and Smith ask whether 'mandated ownership' isunproblematical?

It is this last point that I Have chosen to amplify in this paper. I have adoptedthe approach used by the Berlaks (1982) in identifying some centraldilemmas arising from, but not always acknowledged, in the literature.This approach, say the Berlaks, is intended to capture the 'dynamic ofeveryday school life, the lived contradictions of schooling and curricularpractices', which enables us to analyse the 'personal, social and cultural'tensions within the schooling process. It is my belief that not only does thisapproach offer us a more in-depth view than much of the effective schoolsresearch, but that it also helps us to understand the deep-seated issues inschooling which have to be examined before real change can occur. TheBerlaks offer an interpretation which attempts to synthesize Meadian socialbehaviourism, Freudianism and 'critical theory'. They point out thatthrough the operation of the 'generalised other' (see Mead 1934), theperspectives of others - their norms, values, beliefs, attitudes, prejudices,etc. - become internalized. We become encultured. And we internalize thecontradictions as well as the continuities from the culture around us.'Humans', say the Berlaks, 'are simultaneously creators and creatures oftheir own histories'. According to these authors, we internalize not onlyideological considerations (those 'meanings, values, beliefs that legitimateand justify culture and society as it is') but also ideas which are hegemonic(arising, pervasively, from the 'lived culture') and counter-hegemonic (seeGramsci 1979). Thus, they argue, in education there are strong consensualdrives which carry with them reactions, resistances, irrationalities, even

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

3 4 8 PETER HOLLY

perversities. These contradictions constitute the dynamic that generateschange. The Berlaks conclude:

While the pressures in schools toward curriculumstandardisation, specialisation, and hierarchy continue togrow, there are also counter-pressures toward localisation,decentralisation and democratic control that will presentopportunities for developing progressive, democraticalternatives.

But, despite what Habermas (1976) says concerning the legitimation crisis, itwould be politically naive, as Pressman and Wildavsky (1979) found out, tobelieve that decentralization leads to debureaucratization. Each perspective(or ideology) has its myths, as Tangerud (1986) has recently argued; eachstory also has its story-line and mine is constructed (in Berlak fashion) asfollows:

School improvement: some central dilemmas1. Leadership - the role of producer, director,

choreographer, or experienced actor?1.1. Establishing value cohesion and goal setting.1.2. Establishing decision-making procedures and

implementation strategies.1.3. Which is more important, the process (of staff

collaboration) or the product (of school improvement)?1.4. Who provides the pressure (and motivation) and offers

support? The head as line-manager or team-builder?1.5. Who 'owns' the agenda of school improvement?2. School culture - help or hindrance?2.1. Shared values, norms and attitudes - the capacity to

change or remain unchanged? Capacitated orincapacitated?

2.2. Institution-building, institution-maintenance orinstitution-renewal?

2.3. The change process - proculturation, enculturation oracculturation?

2.4. Innovation or development?2.5. Institutionalisation? Which perspective?3. The Management of Change; a contradiction in terms?3.1. Change through conflict or harmony and consensus?3.2. School-based review - a vehicle for innovation without

change?3.3. 'Top down', instrumental rationality or 'bottom-up',

democratic collegiality?3.4. Management - bureaucratic 'amangerialism' or

facilitation of staff collaboration?3.5. Loose or tight coupling?

Having sketched out this scheme, I will now look at each central dilemmaarea in turn, not, however, in such balanced detail suggested by the schemeitself. Perhaps my perspective could best be described as an 'underview'.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'SOARING LIKE TURKEYS' 349

Dilemmas in school improvement

Leadership

Reynolds (1985) points out that there has been little research in Britain on thedesirable qualities of leadership, unlike in the USA, where the effective schoolprincipal is seen as 'goal setter, enabler and mixture of Attila the Hun andJesus Christ'. Certainly, much of the effective-schools literature (e.g. seeManasse 1985) attaches great importance to the role of the principal and, inso doing, treats, 'principalship' and 'leadership' as synonymous terms.Whether any individual, including the head or principal, can be so effectiveas to render the school effective is another matter. Sir Keith Joseph,however, is under no illusions; he considers that a good head-teacher is the'closest tiling to a "magic wand" for a primary school' (Times EducationalSupplement, 11 April 1986).

Manasse (1985), in summarizing the dimensions of 'principaleffectiveness) arising from research in the USA, lists the following:

Basic competence 'Optimal' competenceCommitment to 'mission' Monitoring

(purpose and direction)Concern for image Ability to recognise patternsParticipatory management Perceptual objectivitystyleTactical adaptability Analytical ability

(involving consensusmanagement)

Coaching skills Sense of controlFirmness in enforcing Persuasiveness

quality standardsCommitment to qualityFocused involvement in

change

Above all, claims Manasse, heads/principals should have:

(a) a strong sense of themselves as leaders;(b) the 'vision, initiative and resourcefulness to go with it';(c) not only an 'underlying picture of their schools as they want them

to be' (aiming to mould their schools 'in their image'), but also avision based on clearly articulated, personal values.

According to this view (prevalent in the USA literature), heads are encouragedto establish the goal agenda - the 'what' - and to engage their colleagues indeliberation concerning implementation strategies - the 'how'. When headsset the priorities, the central task is to encourage the commitment of others tothis agenda. This is 'mandated ownership'; the 'ownership' constitutes afunctional instrumentality of someone else's value agenda. Elsewhere (inReid, Hopkins and Holly 1986), I have identified three modes ofcollaboration:

(a) instrumental: the means to someone else's ends - as above,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

3 5 0 PETER HOLLY

(b) factional (within small, competing groups),(c) collegiality or collegial.

Southworth and Holly (1986) have further divided the latter category intothree aspects:

(i) normative collegiality, which involves the whole staff in policy-making and the formulation of the goals of the school;

(ii) procedural collegiality, which involves the joint planning ofimplementation strategies - as above;

(iii) democratic collegiality, which enables the 'what' and the 'how' tobe discussed and agreed by collaborative, participative decision-making.

Procedural collegiality is the result of the 'purposing' policy, which stressesthe importance of strong communication and interaction, the use of humanrelations skills, and the forging of consensus and commitment afterunilateral policy-making. Manasse mentions the work of Little (1981), whodefined collegiality - her favoured approach - as the 'notion that the work ofteachers is shared', but this mode of operation (in Manasse's view, if notLittle's) still necessitates the 'staff dancing to the head's tune' (Holly in Reid,Hopkins and Holly 1986). Leithwood and Montgomery (1982) have stressedthe importance of principals:

(a) establishing clear instructional goals;(b) working towards their goals by working closely with teachers and

giving the latter ample, continuing support;(c) encouraging co-operative, inter-personal relationships,

particularly during implementation.

Manasse makes the further point that different leadership styles (directive orfacilitative, authoritarian or democratic) can be equally effective. What hedoes not consider are the socio-political messages arising from the 'medium'of one particular leadership style. As the Berlaks (1982) have argued:

In contrast to the evolving common wisdom that the schoolprincipal must take charge in order to maintain standards, weargue that 'effective' schools in a democracy requirecollaborative, non-hierarchical relationships betweenbuilding-administrators, teachers, educational professionalsand parents.

It has been argued that authoritarian leadership, and line managementgenerally, breeds authority dependence; and, as Handy (1984) points out,'old habits, particularly of dependence, die hard'. Teacher expectations (andthose of students and parents) could keep heads 'in check' and 'in authority'.Yet Purkey and Smith (1985) say 'instructional leadership may be anunrealistic burden for secondary school principals'; they argue that, giventhe organizational complexity and political complications endemic insecondary schools, heads/principals should become more involved inparticipatory school reform. They continue: 'An emphasis on democraticdecision-making does not reduce the need for leadership... [what are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'SOARING LIKE TURKEYS' 351

required are] people who initiate and push for the implementation ofinnovations'.

Pressure (see Fullan 1985) is the key word here. The vital tasks are to pushand promote collaborative teams as the vehicles for reform; and to mobilizethe school's human resources in an effort for change. Fullan (1975)concluded:

There is some evidence that organisations . . . which haveparticipatory leadership, administrator support for aninnovation (both psychological and resource support), intra-staff co-operation, and support and exchange of ideas amongorganisation members are more likely to effectivelyimplement innovations which they attempt.

In similar fashion, other commentators recommend: the establishment of aschool policy which is clear, consistently enforced, and arrived atcollaboratively (Stallings and Mohlman 1981); 'the establishment ofconditions for peer coaching will necessitate the building of school normswhich encourage and legitimise ongoing collegial attention to curriculumand instruction' (Joyce and Showers 1980); and frequent interaction, peerobservation and teachers and administrators planning, designing,researching, evaluating and preparing materials together, thus sharing the'considerable burden of development required by long-term improvement'(Little 1981). Fullan (1985) also identifies four process variables essential forschool improvement, two of which are intense interaction andcommunication and collaborative planning and implementation.

Given these exhortations, Purkey (1984), Hopkins (1986) and Handy(1984) have all insisted that heads are too preoccupied with 'fire-fighting'duties (what Purkey refers to as the daily demands of 'managerialleadership'; in Handy's terms, transacting as opposed to transforming) to beable to perform innovative/change process leadership. Two solutions to thispredicament have been formulated:

1. Handy (1982 and 1984) has suggested that the two main roles -professional and administrative — should be divided, 'non-professionals' performing the administration tasks.

2. Courses in management training have been introduced forheadteachers. Presumably the rationale for such courses is that,through immersion in the relevant 'theory', practice in schools willchange accordingly. Yet Southworth (1986) has questioned thisconcept of taking heads away from the staff group to encouragethem to collaborate with that same staff group. In addition, theSchmucks (1974) have argued cogently that

the point of an intervention to change the decision-makingprocedures of a faculty is not a particular person, but ratherthe interaction patterns linking the faculty members togetheras they meet. It is one fallacy of 'leadership training' to focuson the internal dynamics or behaviours of only one role-takerand expect organisational change to occur, no matter howsignificant the role-taker may be within the organisation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

3 5 2 PETER HOLLY

Within school-improvement initiatives, then, there are certain leadershiproles to perform (not necessarily by the head/principal) and, while the lattercan have great influence on staff climate, morale and norms concerninginnovation, he/she is only one participant in a network of staff relationshipsand prevailing norms, which may be a good deal stronger in their power toinfluence the course - or non-course - of events. Heads/principals are oftenless conservative than the 'cultures' of their schools.

School culture

There are two views of the role played by a school's culture: ironically, one isessentially conservative, yet proactive, the other is more radical but merelyexplains inaction.

The first approach owes a great deal to the philosophy of Arnold Gehlen(see Berger and Kellner 1965), who argued for institution-building throughthe medium of 'culture'. Humans, he argued, possess an innate, biologicalinstability which can only be remedied through the stability gained by meansof social structures produced by themselves; they must construct their ownworld. 'This world, which is culture', he says, 'must aim at the firmstructures which are lacking biologically.'

The message then is clear: social (cultural) structures are of great (positive)value; they provide what can otherwise be considered precarious,problematical and unpredictable — social cohesion and order.

Gehlen's views have been resuscitated recently by commentators withinthe effective-schools movement. Deal and Kennedy (1982 and 1983) andDeal (1985) have formulated a simple equation: schools with strong, cohesive'cultures' are effective schools. Deal (1985) has contended that:

Effective schools are those that over time have built a systemof belief, supported by cultural forms that give meaning to theprocess of education. Just as with businesses, these schoolswill display shared values and beliefs, well-known and widelycelebrated heroes and heroines, well-attended andmemorable rituals and ceremonies, positive stories, and adedicated informal group whose members work diligently tomaintain and strengthen the culture.

Deal stresses the importance of cultural symbolism for effective schooling.Yet Deal himself acknowledges that the strength of an organization's culture(the shared norms, values and beliefs) might be too cohesive, too strong forthe successful adoption and implementation of innovations; he states thatthe: norms - or informal rules - of autonomy and equality dictate howteachers relate to one another and undermine efforts to introduceinnovations such as 'open-space architecture and team-teaching'.

This introduces a second more negative approach to a school's culture; itexplains why so many change initiatives in schools actually fail (see Sarason1971, and House 1981). House provides three perspectives on the changeprocess - the technological, the political and the cultural - and Rudduck(1977) has described dissemination as the encounter of three cultures: those

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'SOARING LIKE TURKEYS' 353

Deep structureof the school -values embeddedin the curriculum

Hidden curriculum;relationships involvingpupils and teachers

Personal v institutionalGroup v groupvested interests/factionsmicro-politicsdialectical tensions andcontrols

COUNTER-CULTURES

INSTITUTIONALIZATION

Filtering ofinnovations,mediation ofchange.

CULTURE OFTHE SCHOOL

Shared (?) values,norms, expectations,rules, standards.

Head's role asgate-keeper;arbiter of values,tastes, etc.('no go' areas)

Image, reputation/parental, communityexpectations. Thebrochure = symbolic

The 'felt' cultureClimateEthosInstitutionalcharacter/atmosphere

Figure 1. The 'culture club' phenomenon

of the innovators (the original developers), the dissemination workshop andthe school itself. This approach raises the question of compatibility betweenthe values embedded within innovations and the values embedded withininstitutional cultures. And, as Holly and Wideen (1986) have argued, the testfor compatibility constitutes a filtering process - institutionalization (or'cultural domestication', see Holly 1984). Holly and Wideen have identifiedthree 'forces' within this culturing process:

(a) proculturation; the top-down, imposition of an innovation;(b) enculturation; the institutional resistance to all innovation - the

filtering process doing its damage and 'mediating out' thedramatic elements in change initatives;

(c) acculturation; the learning metaphor (as Fullan 1985 has pointedout) is relevant here in describing mis view of developmentthrough accommodation: the school culture, within the changeprocess, influences and is influenced.

Deal and Kennedy (1983) see the first approach (outlined above) as thesolution to the problems of the second. While they are able to cite the powerof the school culture, as demonstrated by Sarason (1971), to undermine andneutralize innovation ('when the culture works against you, it's nearlyimpossible to get anything done'), having made this observation, they leap tothe conclusion that, if a negative culture acts to veto innovation, a positive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

354 PETER HOLLY

one will enhance it. The argue that:

. . . strong schools have strong cultures . . . the importance ofculture is an old-fashioned idea that great business leadershave known for years . . . Many school principals also spendconsiderable time building cohesive school cultures . . . Theproblem is to make something powerful and ill-defined workfor us and to show that building strong school cultures isintimately tied to improving educational performance.

Their problem here lies within Gehlen's philosophy. Having attained thesought-after strength of stability, change and innovation will be threateningand will appear destabilizing. Institution building and institution-renewalare difficult to reconcile within their particular act of faith, Deal andKennedy ignore two possibilities (identified by Holly in Reid, Hopkins andHolly 1986):

(a) that the particular characteristics (within time and place) of aschool's culture might operate for some innovations and againstothers, but not on behalf of innovation generally; there has to be acultural match within what amounts to a value selectivity of thefiltering process;

(b) that there is something about the process of institution-buildingthrough the agency of a school's culture that will always operate inthe interests of stability, predictability and control. Change carrieswith it a 'sense of loss' (Menlo 1985) of this same stability.

Moreover, as Holly and Wideen (1986) have argued:innovations are representative of sub-cultures, interestgroups and pluralist values, which 'pull the school in severaldirections'. Innovations which embody sub-cultural values,therefore, endanger the cohesiveness of the overall culture.Can the latter ever totally erase this unpredictability anduntidiness? Instead, is the power and cohesiveness of aschool's culture something of an illusion? Deal and Kennedy(1983) maintain that the 'internal squabbling' and 'mixedsignals' emanating from a school serve to both lower itsreputation and lose its (parental) support. A school, then,cannot afford to display the social reality that is valuepluralism (Hutchinson 1986); it is forced to create the myth ofvalue cohesion (see Tangerud 1986).

Indeed, Tangerud has recently questioned the efficacy of the harmony -consensus model which tends to underpin most school improvementendeavours. Given his conflict perspective, Tangerud maintains, forinstance, that shared values do not represent the reality in schools (as he seesit). Instead, he sees competing interests, hostility, micro-political intrigueand disharmony. Factionalism is the norm; and these antagonistic factionsinvest in innovations to augment and perpetuate these rivalries. Dalin (1973)mentioned that: 'major innovations will always be based on changes ineducational, social, political or economic objectives. These changes reflectchanges in values and thereby value conflicts in society.'

And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, these societal value conflicts are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'SOARING LIKE TURKEYS' 355

inevitably reflected within the views of the staff of any school (in Reid,Hopkins and Holly 1986). Yet, as I argued, 'more often than not, these deep-seated value conflicts are "put to bed", they are allowed to remain dormant'.This leads me to conclude that there are three, interrelated, aspects to aschool's culture:

(a) the deep structure of schooling; those deep-seated values whichconstitute the ideological, hegemonic/anti-hegemonic forcesidentified by the Berlaks (1982), Apple (1979) and Giroux (1981).These provide the underpinning for Hoyle's 'codes' and representthe hidden (or para-) curriculum - what Parlett and Hamiltonrefer to as the 'learning milieu'. Purkey and Smith (1985) refer tothese forces at the 'inimical regimen of the organisation', whichprovide a school with an identifiable style — the felt culture orethos;

(b) the teachers' occupational culture (see Woods 1979);(c) the socio-psychological implicit agreements struck by teachers

within organizations. The Schmucks (1974) contend that it is these'group agreements, generally implicitly established andmaintained, that help to guide the perceptions, thoughts, feelingsand behaviours of the group members' and produce the 'meaningstructures' for each particular school. Consequently, as Purkeyand Smith (1985) maintain: 'school cultures will vary in part inresponse to the composition of the staff and student body and tothe environment in which the school exists, leaving each schoolwith a unique climate or "personality"' (see Halpin and Croft1963; Wynne 1980; and Popkewitz, Tabachnick and Wehlage1982).

Menlo (1985) refers to 'value difference passivity' which is the commonlyheld agreement not to 'rock the boat' and to mask the (potential) valuedifferences regarding fundamental principles. But innovations threatenthese costy, collusive arrangements. Innovations carry the threat of whatMenlo calls the perceived 'sense of loss' (of, for example, stability andharmony). Thus, according to the Schmucks (1974):

New teachers who attempt to debate value differences withtheir colleagues find that such discussions can be time-consuming, energy-sapping, and often very frustrating . . .Moreover, heated intellectual discussions about values andteaching strategies are usually not considered appropriate inmost schools. Faculty norms often emphasise distance fromand control of students, and smooth, unruffled, and distantrelationships with fellow teachers. After all, teachers who areinvolved in challenging interaction with students for most ofthe day do not want their lunch hour or after-schooldiscussions filled with divisiveness and argumentation. Theteacher colleague group becomes a context in which to findcomfort and sympathy for the difficult job of classroomteaching.

Purkey and Smith (1986) refer to this phenomenon as 'institutionalised

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

356 PETER HOLLY

resistance to change'. And this resistance is all the stronger whenfactionalism is written into the scenario with veto and 'interest groups and/orindividuals' acting to 'preserve, or enhance, their sphere of control'. Whatmost commentators are beginning to realise, in fact, is that this culturingprocess is tantamount to what is often referred to as institutionalization.Holly and Wideen (1986) have argued that institutionalization is both aproduct and a process.

(a) It is a 'product' in the sense of the 'state of being' the innovationacquires over time. It becomes more or less embedded within theculture of the institution. Continuation (Fullan 1982),routinization (Hage and Aiken 1970) formalism (Waller 1932) andinstitutionalization (Berman 1981) are often used interchangeablyto describe this 'end-state' (which can be judged in terms of'success' by a set of indicators, such as embeddedness in classroompractice, across the school, and over time) during which theinnovation has become 'routine' and an established part of theschool's procedures (see Rosenblum and Louis 1981). Theinnovation has been accepted within the culture of the school andhas entered the message-system concerning 'the way we do itaround here'; it is now normal practice. This approach toinstitutionalization also enables observers to talk in terms ofpartialization' (see Louis 1985), when it becomes obvious that the'culture' has filtered out the radical features of the innovation,while leaving 'unharmed' the ineffective, less dramaticcomponents.

(b) The working of the filtering process is the other approach toinstitutionalization. This is the cultural process (see House 1981)within which changes are introduced, mediated and legitimated(or not). As the Schmucks point out: 'During this arduous changeprocess, the innovation itself often fails or is restricted to conformto the old . . . way of doing things'. They continued: 'recentresearch has tended to confirm our position that school culture isthe major factor related to success in innovation.'

Institutionalization, then, which is, culturally-speaking, both a process and aproduct, could be said to determine the nature and extent of implementation.In 1975, Fullan defined implementation as 'the putting into practice of theessential characteristics of an innovation . . . (thus) establishing newcharacteristics in a social system . . . Implementation is basically whatsociologists would call institutionalisation of new social elements.'Commentators since then (for example, Fullan 1982, and Miles 1983) havetended to separate implementation and institutionalization as separate stagesalong the change continuum. The process perspective on institutionalization(see Holly and Wideen 1986) is tending to place implementation within theworkings of the cultural context, i.e. institutionalization. The process is alsoseen as interactive, the innovation taking on the personality of the school,and the school taking on the personality of the innovation (mutualadaptation).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'SOARING LIKE TURKEYS' 357

As Pressman and Wildavsky (1979) conclude:

Context controls (or, at least, heavily conditions) theimplementation . . . Programs can be delayed, modified,scaled down, and otherwise adapted or distorted to fit theirenvironment . . . (before, after a long struggle) sinking intocommon consciousness.

Pressman and Wildavsky describe the road to immanence as being long andhard:

Why, then, should our new program fail in implementationwhen so many others that fill the landscape have evidentlysucceeded? It is easy to forget (perhaps because we neverknew) about their initial difficulties. The years of trial anderror that led to the present state of operation are lost fromview. The huge amount of resources that may have beenpoured into different alternatives before one caught on isconveniently part of past history for which we are notresponsible. Programs that started out to accomplish one setof objectives end up accomplishing another for which, longafter the fact, we give undue credit for implementation . . .Adaptation to the environment must have been achieved;otherwise, by definition, programs would not exist. No geniusis required to make programs operative if we don't care howlong they take, how much money they require, how often theobjectives are altered or the means for obtaining them arechanged. Indeed, the law of averages would suggest that,given sufficient new initiatives, some of them must grow andprosper in the world, though the flawed adult may bear scantresemblance to the promising child . . . A basic reasonprograms survive is that they adapt themselves to theirenvironment over a long period of time . . . Accommodationsmay be made, bargains entered into, resistances weakened.The price of ultimate agreement is delay or modification ofthe existing program.

Recognizing the power of the culture to resist changes (in their entirety),several commentators (see O'Toole 1981, Purkey and Smith 1985, theSchmucks 1974, Fullan 1985 and Louis 1985) have advised that schoolsshould develop a capacity for innovation ('change supportive norms',Henley 1986) - a development culture. Louis, for example, suggests that,because schools are institutions and are highly institutionalized, 'we ought tobe worrying less about institutionalizing innovations in schools, andworrying more about how to initiate a constant process of systematic changeand renewal'.

The Schmucks support the introduction of Organization Development(OD) as a deliberate attempt at cultural change. 'In emphasising systemchange rather than mere attitudinal change in individuals', they argue, 'ODaims at modifying the culture of the school' by introducing:

(a) leadership sharing and principal support for change efforts;(b) a normative system favouring creativity, adaptiveness and

collaboration;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

358 PETER HOLLY

(c) a high degree of trust among colleagues;(d) the initiation of innovative proposals by the teachers.

The GRIDS project (see McMahon et al. 1984) is a good example of a changestrategy in the UK which incorporates some of the elements and aims of QD. ASI have argued elsewhere (Holly 1984), the 'problem' of institutionalizationwas recognized at the outset and steps were taken to counteract its effects.Purkey and Smith (1985) comment that, as a result, 'to some extentcontinuation is already incorporated within the idea . . . of slow, organicdevelopment of collaborative planning, sense of community, common goalsand an orderly environment'. They conclude that collaboration and shareddecision-making culminate with the teachers 'changing the way they think,their pedagogical practices, and even their educational values. Almost bydefinition these changes are continued since they must have been woven intothe fabric of staff members' daily lives.'

In similar vein, O'Toole advises the introduction of a change culture (or'ideology') which emphasizes 'systemic, total organisational change thatinvolves wider participation in all phases of a project'.

Holly (1985) has argued that this collaborative model rests on two keyassumptions: that

(a) the approach is 'development as opposed to innovation'; from theinitial stages, the changes are deliberately rooted in the workingsof the school and take on an organic, cyclical, incremental aspect;

(b) staff 'ownership' of the changes is crucial. Cuban (1984) hasdismissed the 'rational-managerial' perspective which viewsteachers as the problem facing change initiatives. Louis (1985)agrees that the 'administrative definition of the 'problem'... isfocused on why people at lower levels in organizations do not dowhat those in the upper echelons would like them to'. From thismanagerialist angle, teachers appear irrational, unpredictable andperverse.

Recently, in a head's study, I saw a poster bearing the words 'It's difficult tosoar with eagles when you work with turkeys'. It is my belief that we are nowbeginning to explore some approaches to school improvement which willultimately enable those 'turkeys', the teachers, to soar on the wings of theirinvolvement in, and commitment to, the development of 'their' school.

The management of change

Van Velzen et al. (1985) have provided some 'conceptual mapping' for schoolimprovement. Their introduction echoes some of the themes of the lastsection. They say that in the 1980s

We will have to cope with curriculum development, changesin the teaching-learning process, school organisation, andpedagogical-didactic approaches. The work will be moreclassroom and school oriented; less structural and morecontent and process oriented. The teacher will get more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'SOARING LIKE TURKEYS' 3 5 9

priority in the change process . . . collaboration among allschool personnel becomes central. More attention will be paidto the process of strengthening the school's capacity to dealwith change. The implementation and institutionalization ofchange within the school will become more important.

They define school improvement as:

a systematic, sustained effort aimed at change in learningconditions and other related internal conditions in one ormore schools, with the ultimate aim of accomplishingeducation goals more effectively.

Van Velzen and his colleagues within the OECD/CERI'S International SchoolImprovement Project (ISIP) have identified several themes for their work, thefirst of which is School-Based Review (SBR). The GRIDS approach is anexample of SBR within the UK. Holly (in Reid, Hopkins and Holly 1986)admits that:

it could be argued that SBR, like school improvement strategiesgenerally, belongs to the 'harmony/consensus model); itinvolves collaborative planning and decision-making and isprocedurally systematic. It is a good example of collegialdisplacement; procedural collegiality is given prominence atthe expense of normative collegiality. Working together (inpartnership) is promoted before the exploration offundamental value difference. The 'how' is put before the'what'. The danger is that it becomes too systematic - at theexpense of the quality of the debate. Another danger is that itssystematic nature will 'bureaucratise' the changes andproduce minimalist, domesticated, neutralised innovation -innovation without change at the fundamental level. Evenwhen SBR is seen as the medium for exploring value conflict,precautionary measures are taken and are labelled the'amanagement of conflict' (a contradiction in terms?).

I can only echo Stenhouse (1975), who sees the managing of conflict withinthe school ('rather than pretend that it does not exist') as a majormanagement task. Successfully managing the exploration of value differencecould lead to the jettisoning of 'value difference passivity' in favour ofprofound changes at the deep, structural level.

Holly (1985) has introduced the notion of 'The Developing School' whichrests on such assumptions as

(a) a gradualist, incremental approach to change and development;(b) the collaborative spirit of 'democratic collegiality';(c) a willingness to be open and trusting and ready to explore value

difference;(d) the prioritisation of 'key areas of focus' in terms of an 'action plan'.

Cohen (1985) supports this approach:

The mix of pupils within schools, and the educational needsand problems they present, vary from school to school.Schools differ from one another in terms of their histories ofefforts to improve their social climates, the degree of support

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

360 PETER HOLLY

they enjoy from their communities and in the areas in whichthe need for improvement is most pressing.

In this context, Fullan (1985) gives the following advice:

(a) think in terms of 'innovation of the school, not just innovation inthe school';

(b) make the development work more manageable by 'starting withone or two major goals and/or with subsections of the school' andexpand gradually;

(c) 'start small and expand as one gets better at the change processthrough experience in a particular setting . . . When successfulimprovements are accomplished, they involve individuals workingin small groups and other collective ways, attaining technicalmastery, a sense of success, and new meanings'.

Pressman and Wildavsky (1979) and Fullan (1985) have used the metaphor of'learning' to describe how to implement. Pressman and Wildavsky suggest adynamic view of implementation which incorporates the participants'learning experiences:

Implementation is no longer solely about getting what youonce wanted but what you have since learned to prefer until,of course, you change your mind again. As implementationbecomes a moving target, the vocabulary of creation andcompletion becomes less appropriate than the language ofevolution.

These authors, in fact, posit the model of implementation as interactivelearning in preference to the 'prevailing paradigm' of 'instrumentalrationality', which 'leaves out detours, blind alleys, discarded hypotheses,the lumpy stuff of life'.

I have argued elsewhere (Holly 1986) that the creation of a developmentculture in schools is reliant on a change in the style of management and onthose in management recognizing the importance of their (changed) rolewithin the new scenario. The management style aims to:

(a) foster participatory and collegial collaboration;(b) be supportive, enabling and facilitatory;(c) orchestrate the school's human resources - the staff and their

collective expertise - in the interests of school development;(d) provide a challenging, critical edge;(e) provide 'leadership by example', the 'managers' being seen to

experience the vicissitudes of change within their professionallives.

Particular tasks of management might include the following:

(a) attending to the pre-conditions for development, climate-setting;(b) helping the establishment of the 'Learning School' (see Holly

1986) for which 'principles of procedure' (Stenhouse 1975) areagreed for the school was a whole. This approach is similar to thatpractised in the USA to create the 'morally educative school' (seePower and Reimer 1981);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'SOARING LIKE TURKEYS' 361

(c) managing the fusion of individual, team and school-wideinitiatives;

(d) linking with resource agencies of all kinds and supporting thedevelopment work on a continuing basis, e.g. school-based INSET;

(e) creating dialogue among the staff(f) maintaining the framework for development and prompting on-

going, self-evaluation of the development work (see Holly 1985);(g) remembering that there are no easy answers and, as Fullan (1985)

has remarked, that 'research into "effectiveness" doesn't help thefact that deliberately attempting change is a complex, dilemmaridden, technical, sociopolitical process';

(h) ensuring that the development work is monitored. Berman andMcLaughlin (1976) warn that because 'projects must go throughthe complex and uncertain process of implementation before theycan affect students, it makes sense to put first things first and tomeasure the effectiveness of implementation before examiningpotential student outcomes'.

But the central dilemmas remain:

(a) Is thrusting, 'macho', managerialist leadership/headshipinappropriate for the (increasingly democratic) developing school?If so, who provides the pressure (Fullan 1985) to initiate andsustain the development work?

(b) Is it possible to create a development culture which will not ossify,formalize and prove resistant to further change?

(c) Are participation and collegiality (involving self-responsibility,self-determination and self-control on the part of the collectivethat is the school staff) compatible with external, centralizeddemands for change? Are the changes (the ends) more importantthan the quality of the change process (the means)?

All these questions, of course, are not just educational - they have bearing onthe nature of the democracies in which we live and breathe and have ourbeing.

Above all, however, everyone involved in school improvement needs toheed the advice of Cuban (1984): 'Unlike the way things happen in fairytales', he says, 'school reform requires more than a kiss to convert a frog intoa stunning prince.'

I look forward to a 'best seller' from the effective schools literature,entitled not Where Eagles Dare but Where Turkeys Soar.

REFERENCES

APPLE, M. (1979) Ideology and Curriculum, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.BERGER, P. and KELLNER, H. (1965) Arnold Gehlen and the theory of institutions.

Social Research, Vol. 32, Part 1, pp. 110-115.BERLAK, A. and BERLAK, H. (1982) Toward a non-hierarchical conception of school

inquiry and leadership. Curriculum Inquiry.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

3 6 2 PETER HOLLY

BERMAN, P. (1981) Educational change: an implementation paradigm, in LEHMING,R. and KANE, M. (Eds), Improving Schools: Using What We Know (Sage,Beverly Hills).

BERMAN, P. and MCLAUGHLIN, M. W. (1977) Federal Progress Supporting EducationChange: Factors Affecting Implementation and Continuation, Vol. 7 (Rand,Santa Monica, CA).

BOLAM, R. (1986) School improvement: the National Scene. School Organization,Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 314-320.

BOLLEN, R. (1985) On Institutionalisation, in OECD/CERI ISIP seminar, Lucerne, June.CALABRESE, R. and SCHUMER, H. (1985) Tips for principals, in NASSP, HOW to Make

Research Work for You (National Association of Secondary School Principals).CLARK, D. et al. (1984) Effective schools and school improvement. Educational

Administration Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 41-68.COHEN, M. (1983) Instructional management and social conditions in effective

schools, in ODDEN, A. and WEBB, L. D. (Eds), School Finance and SchoolImprovement: Linkages for the 1980s, 4th annual yearbook of the AmericanEducational Finance Association (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA).

COHEN, M. (1985) Introduction. Elementary School Journal, Vol. 85, No. 3.CUBAN, L. (1984) Transforming the frog into a prince: effective schools research,

policy, and practice at the distric level. Harvard Education Review, Vol. 54, No.2.

DALIN, P. (1973) Case Studies for Educational Innovation IV; Strategies forInnovation in Education (OECD/CERI, Paris).

DEAL, T. E. (1985) The symbolism of effective schools. Elementary School Journal,Vol. 85, No. 5.

DEAL, T. E. and KENNEDY, A. A. (1983) Culture and school performance.Educational Leadership, Vol. 40, No. 5.

FULLAN, M. (1975) Implementation: Its nature and determinants, in seminar onTowards a New Secondary School - Problems of Implementation, DecentralisedProject No. 4 (IMTEC, Oslo).

FULLAN, M. (1981) The relationship between evaluation and implementation incurriculum, in LEWY, A. and NEVO, D. (Eds), Roles in Education (GordonBreach, London).

FULLAN, M. (1982) The Meaning of Educational Change (Teachers College Press,New York).

FULLAN, M. (1985) Change processes and strategies at the local level. ElementarySchool Journal, Vol. 85, No. 3.

GIROUX, H. A. (1981) Ideology, Culture and the Process of Schooling (Flamer Press,London).

GRAMSCI, A. (1979) Letters from Prison (Quartet Books, London).HABERMAS, J. (1976) Legitimation Crisis (Heinemann, London).HAGE, J. and AITKEN, M. (1970) Social Change in Complex Organisations (Random

House, New York).HALL, G. E. and LOUCKS, S. F. (1977) A developmental model for determining

whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational ResearchJournal, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 263-276.

HALPIN, A. W. and CROFT, D. B. (1963) The Organisational Climate of Schools(University of Chicago, Midwest Aministration Center, Chicago).

HANDY, C. (1977) The organisations of consent, in PIPER, D. and GLATTER, R. (Eds),The Changing University (NFER).

HANDY, C. (1982) Contraction in organisation, unpublished paper for seminarSchools Council, Programme One.

HANDY, C. (1984) Taken for granted? Understanding Schools as Organisations(Longman/Schools Council, York).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'SOARING LIKE TURKEYS' 3 6 3

HENLEY, M. (1986) The development and implementation of school improvementpolicies by education authorities, in OECD/CERI KIP Conference April, UK.

HOLLY, P. J. (1984) The insti nationalisation of action-research in schools. CambridgeJournal of Education, Vol 14, No. 2.

HOLLY, P. J. (1985) The developing school, CIE/TRIST Working Paper.HOLLY, P. J. (1986) The teachers' GUIDE, CIE/TRIST Working Paper.HOLLY, P. J. (1986) Developing a professional evaluation, in HOLLY, P. J. (Ed.),

Cambridge Journal of Education, special edition.HOLLY, P. J. and WIDEEN, M. (1986) 'The Culture Club', Chapter in

Institutionalisation, OECD/CERI, in press.HOPKINS, D. (1986) The change process and leadership in schools. School

Organization, Vol. 6, No. 1.HOUSE, E. R. (1981) Three perspectives on innovation, in LEHMING, R. and KANE, M.

(Eds), Improving Schools: Using What We Know (Sage, Beverley Hills).HUTCHINSON, B. (1986) The public image of an innovation, in HOLLY, P. J. (Ed),

Cambridge Journal of Education, special edition.JOYCE, B. and SHOWERS, B. (1980) Improving in-service training: the messages of

research. Educational Leadership, February.LEHMING, R. and KANE, M. (Eds) (1981) Improving Schools: Using What we Know

(Sage, Beverley Hills).LEITHWOOD, K. and MONTGOMERY, D . (1982) The role of the elementary school

principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52,pp. 309-339.

LITTLE, J. (1981) The power of organisational setting: school norms and staffdevelopment, in AERA conference, Los Angles.

Louis, K. S. (1985) Some thoughts on institutionalisation, in ISIP seminar, Lucerne,June.

MCMAHON, A., BOLAM, R., ABBOTT, R. and HOLLY, P. J. (1984) Guidelinesfor Reviewand Internal Development in Schools, (Longman/Schools Council, York).

MANASSE, A. L. (1985) Improving conditions for principal effectiveness: Policyimplications of research. Elementary School Journal, Vol. 85, No. 3.

MEAD, G. H. (1934) Mind, Self, and Society (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).MENLO, A. (1985) 'A reconceptualisation of resistance to change and its application

to the institutionalisation process, in ISIP seminar, Lucerne, June.MILES, M. B. (1983) Unravelling the mystery of institutionalisation. Educational

Leadership, November.O'TOOLE, J. (1981) Making America Work (Continuum, New York).PETERS, T . and WATERMAN, R. (1982) In Search of Excellence (Harper and Row,

New York).POPKEWITZ, T . S., TABACHNICK, B. R. and WEHLAGE, G. G. (1982) The Myth of

Educational Reform: A Study of School Responses to a Program of Change(University of Wisconsin Press, Madison).

POWER, C. and REIMER, J. (1981) Moral atmosphere: An educational bridge betweenmoreal judgement and action, in DAMON, W. (Ed.), New Directions for ChildDevelopment: Moral Development (Josey-Bass, San Francisco).

PRESSMAN, J. L. and WILDAVSKY, A. (1979) 2nd Ed. Implementation. How GreatExpectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland (University of CaliforniaPress, Berkely, CA).

PURKEY, S. C. (1984) School Improvement: analysis of an Urban School DistrictEffective Schools Project, (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, unpublished).

PURKEY, S. C. and SMITH, M. S. (1983) Effective schools: A review. ElementarySchool Journal, Vol. 83, pp. 427-452.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

3 6 4 PETER HOLLY

PURKEY, S. C. and SMITH, M. S. (1985) School reform: The district policyimplications of the effective schools literature. Elementary School Journal, Vo.85, No. 3.

REID, K. HOPKINS, D. and HOLLY, P. J. (1986) Towards the Effective School, (BasilBlackwell, Oxford).

REYNOLDS, D. (1985) The effective school. Times Educational Supplement, 20September.

ROSEMBLUM, S. and Louis, K. S. (1981) Stability and Change: Innovation in anEducational Context (Plenum, New York).

RUDDUCK, J. (1977) Dissemination as the encounter of cultures. Research Intelligence,Vol. 3, No. 1.

SARASON, S. B. (1971) The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change (Allyn andBacon, Boston).

SCHMUCK, R. A. and SCHMUCK, P. A. (1974) A Humanistic Psychology of Education(National Press Books, Mayfield).

SOUTHWORTH, G. W. (1986) Managerialism revisited. Education, 14 March.SOUTHWORTH, G. W. and HOLLY, P. J. (1986) Inside Judgements: Self-Evaluation in

Primary Schools, in press.STALLTNGS, J. and MOHLMAN, G. (1981) School Policy, Leadership Style, Teacher

Change, and Student Behaviour in 8 High Schools (National Institute ofEducation, Washington DC).

STENHOUSE, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development(Heinemann, London).

TANGERUD, H. (1986) The development and implementation of school improvementpolicies by education authorites, in OECD/CERI ISIP, UK conference, April.

VAN VELZEN, W. G., MILES, M. B., EKHOLM, M., HAMEYER, U. and ROBIN, D.Making School Improvement Work: A Conceptual Guide to Practice (ACCO,Leuvent, OECD/CERI'S ISIP Project).

WALLER, W. (1932) The Sociology of Teaching (John Wiley, New York).WOODS, P. (1979) The Divided School (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London).WYNNE, E. A. (1980) Looking at Schools: Good, Bad and Indifferent (Heat,

Lexington, MA).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

07 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014