+

Theories and MODELS of Educational Change 1

+OutlineOutline

Theory and practice

Western theories in non-Western cultures

Why these theories?

Theory X and Theory Y

Two approaches to change

Top-down and bottom-up theories

Integrated theories

2

+ Theory and Practice Theory and Practice (Fullan, 2010; Lovat & Smith, 2003; Richardson & Placier, 2001)(Fullan, 2010; Lovat & Smith, 2003; Richardson & Placier, 2001)

3

Educational Disciplines

Educational Change Theory

Practice/Experience

PsychologySocial

Psychology Sociology Anthropology

Political Science

Organization Theory

+Western Theories in Non-Western CulturesWestern Theories in Non-Western Cultures

Keita Takayama

Need for a postcolonial theoretical framework

Theories developed in Western nations cannot be assumed to apply: in non-Western nations universally

Role of international students in globalizing educational research

4

+Why these theories?Why these theories?

Field of educational change is vast and complex – have to be selective

Helpful

Seem to work

Include the role of teachers

5

+Theory X and Theory YTheory X and Theory Y

About human nature

Fullan (2010) p. 65 cites McGregor (1960)– Theory X: people are inherently lazy, dislike work, and have to

be supervised closely– Theory Y: people will put in extra effort if the work is meaningful

and they are supported by leaders and peers Make Theory Y your first point of entry (Fullan)

6

+Two Approaches to Change Two Approaches to Change Richardson & Placier, (2001) Richardson & Placier, (2001)

Empirical-rationalChange is determined

by administrators or policy-makers

Teachers are told about change and expected to implement it

Change is difficult and painful – teachers blamed

Normative-reeducative

Change originates with individuals involved in the process i.e. teachers

Change enhanced by deep reflection on beliefs and practices

Dialogue is critical – other teachers or critical friend

7

+Top Down and Bottom Up Theories Top Down and Bottom Up Theories (Fullan, 1994)(Fullan, 1994)

Top down – implicit theory Change can come about by proclaiming new policies, or by legislation, or

by new performance standards, or by creating shape-up-ship-out ambience, or all of the preceding. (Sarason, 1990, p. 123).

8

9

Government policy

School

Teachers

Classroom

Teacher implements (or not)

Adopted by school

Top-Down Theory: Mandated Change

+Mandated Change (Clement, 2013)

Sense of compulsion We’re only doing it because they said we had to. (p. 7)

Lack of time for meaning-making People are frightened that they’re going to get found out

because they don’t understand this stuff. And they don't understand it because they haven't had a chance to. (p. 7)

Transitory nature of the reform But you get to the age where you just get things thrown at

you, the latest thrown at you and then it disappears. You do all this work and it disappears and then you get the next thing. (p. 8)

10

11

Government policy

School

Teachers

Classroom

Changes made at the school level influence

Teachers make changes to learning

Changes are made to school structures

Bottom-Up Theory: Teacher-Initiated Change

+Top Down and Bottom Up Theories (Fullan, 1994) (Continued)

Strategies that combine top down and bottom up are more likely to succeed:– the center's strengths (“to provide perspective

direction, incentives, networking, and retrospective monitoring”)

– local capacity (“to learn, create, respond to, and feed into overall directions”) (p. 5)

“Systems don't change by themselves. Individuals change systems, acting individually and together regardless of how ineffective they perceive others around them.” (p. 5)

12

+ReflectionReflection

Can top down change be effective? Why or why not?

What are the problems with bottom up change?

What are the strengths of a combined approach? Do you think it is more likely to be effective?

13

+Integrated Theory Integrated Theory (Goodson, 2001)(Goodson, 2001)

14

1960s and 1970s Teachers initiated

and promoted educational change

1980s and 1990s Teachers responded to change instead of initiating change

New Millenium

Balance between the internal, the external

and the personal perspectives of

change

Integrating these 3 segments will provide new momentum for educational change.

15

School reform agenda

Mandated reforms

Teachers’ goals and purposes

Changes in classroom practice

Integrated Theory

+Three Perspectives Three Perspectives (House & McQuillan, 2005)(House & McQuillan, 2005)

Technological perspective: production, economics, efficiency

Political perspective: negotiation, political science, authority

Cultural perspective: community, anthropology, cultural integrity

Adequate understanding of school reform necessarily involves all 3 perspectives, (p. 186)

16

17

Goodson (2001) House & McQuillan (2005)

External TechnologicalPolitical

InternalCultural

Personal

Comparing Goodson and House & McQuillan

+Focus QuestionFocus Question

Why do you think it is important to relate theory to practice?

18

+ReferencesReferences

Albright, J., Clement, J., & Holmes, K. (2012). School change and the challenge of presentism. Leading & Managing, 18(1), 78-90.

Clement, J. Managing mandated educational change. School Leadership & Management.

Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In R. J. Anson (Ed.), Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fullan, M. (2010). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin.

Goodson, I. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(1), 45-63.

House, E. R., & McQuillan, P. J. (2005). Three perspectives on school reform. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The roots of educational change: International handbook of educational change. (pp. 186-201). Dordrecht; New York: Springer.

Lovat, T., & Smith, D. L. (2003). Curriculum: Action on reflection (4th ed.). Tuggerah, N.S.W.: Social Science Press.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Fourth ed., pp. 905-947). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

19

+Features of Sustainable Change

Focus on improving teaching and learning

Reform agenda appropriate to the school

Teachers direct the change process in a community of trust and collaboration

Data are used to guide changes in pedagogy

A long term perspective is taken (5-7 years)

School leaders guide the innovation

(Fullan, 2011; Goodson, 2001; Hargreaves, 2010; Louis, 2007; Meiers & Ingvarson, 2005; Smith, 2008)

20

+Schooling by Design (Wiggins and McTighe, 2007)

Backward design: Strategy – how to organize staff and resources Tactics – a game plan Actions (p. 201)

Strategic principles for accomplishing mission: Plan backward from “mission accomplished” Work to close the gap between vision and reality Plan to get and use feedback to make “timely and effective

adjustments, early and often” (pp. 202-3)

21

+Schooling by Design (Wiggins and McTighe, 2007, pp. 205-206)

Stage 1 – Identify desired results a long term goal a shared vision

Stage 2 – Determine acceptable evidence present (where we are now) future (evidence of results)

Stage 3 – Plan actions to achieve goals short term goals cycles of action research

22

23

Reframe goals

Schooling by Design

(Wiggins and McTighe, 2007)Modified from Figure 11.1 Sequence for Organizing the Work of Reform (p. 251)

3 stages of SbD

+Schooling by Design (Wiggins and McTighe, 2007)

The template on page 206 is also a useful summary of the Schooling by Design model.

Leadership The leader’s reason for being is to guide the educational institution to

achieve specific goals related to its mission (p. 172). Academic leaders must assume a critical role of helping craft a clear,

inspiring, and actionable mission to guide the educational institution. They must also engage board members, staff, and community in helping shape, and come to “own,” the mission (p. 173).

24

+IDEAS Model (Andrews, 2008)

Innovative Designs for Enhancing Achievements in Schools (IDEAS)

Purpose: To inspire IDEAS schools to engage in a journey of self-discovery which will ensure that they achieve sustainable excellence in teaching and learning (Andrews & Crowther, 2011, p. 4)

5 phases: initiating, discovering, envisioning, actioning and sustaining

25

+IDEAS Model (cont’d)(Andrews, 2008)

Initiating – planning the process

Discovering – surveying school stakeholders

Envisioning – creating a vision for the school

Actioning – developing an action plan

Sustaining – monitoring progress

Includes the development of a Schoolwide Pedagogy that is unique to the particular school

26

+IDEAS Model (cont’d)(Andrews, 2008)

Concept of Parallel Leadership: Teacher leaders and administrator leaders work together. Individual capabilities, aspirations and responsibilities are fulfilled. Facilitates development of:

a professional learning community school culture school wide approaches to teaching and learning (Andrews, 2008,

p. 49)

27

+IDEAS Model (cont’d)(Andrews, 2008)

Parallel Leadership is based on: Mutual trust and respect Shared sense of purpose Allowance for individual expression (Andrews, 2008, p. 49).

Example: I had to step back and let others take the lead. (Principal – Middle School)

28

29Strategy in Education Model (Eacott, 2008)

+Strategy in Education Model (cont’d) (Eacott, 2008, p. 360-362)

Envisioning – thinking about the future Critical reflection and reflective dialogue

Engaging parents and staff in strategic conversations Establishes purpose for actions Provides data

Articulating Oral – conversations to bring the vision to life Written objectives to enable structural alignment

30

+ Strategy in Education Model (cont’d)(Eacott, 2008, p. 360-362)

Implementing Translating strategy into action Staff understanding and commitment Improvement in current operations Timely

Monitoring Where are we now? Where to next? How will we get there? How will we know when we get there? Requires a transparent system of data collection

31

+Strategy in Education Model (cont’d)

Leadership role: why not see the role of the school principal as one of educational

strategist, where leadership behaviours and management processes are targeted towards the enhancements of the school’s educational programs and most importantly student development (Eacott, 2008, p. 363).

32

+Comparing the Models

Feature Schooling by Design IDEAS Strategy in Education

Focus on improving teaching and learning

Reform agenda appropriate to the school

Teachers direct the change process in a community of trust

Data are used to guide changes in pedagogy

A long term perspective is taken

School leaders guide the innovation

33

+Reflection

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each model?

What are the similarities between these 3 models?

What are the differences?

Do they all have the features of sustainable change listed earlier?

Do they have features that are not on the list?

34

+ References Andrews, D. (2008). Working together to enhance school outcomes: An Australian case study of parallel leadership. Leading and Managing, 14(2), 45-60.

Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2011). Innovative designs for enhancing achievement in schools (IDEAS) Retrieved 6 August, 2012, from http://ideas.usq.edu.au/Home/IDEASbackground/tabid/138/Default.aspx

Clement, J. (2013). Managing mandated educational change. School Leadership & Management.

Eacott, S. (2008). Strategy in educational leadership: In search of unity. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 353-375.

Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. East Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education.

Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management, 24(3), 287-309.

Hargreaves, A. (2010). Presentism, individualism, and conservatism: The legacy of Dan Lortie's Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(1), 143-154.

Goodson, I. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(1), 45-63.

Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers' motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119.

Louis, K. S. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 1-24.

Meiers, M., & Ingvarson, L. (2005). Investigating the links between teacher professional development and student learning outcomes. Barton, ACT: Australian Government, Quality Teacher Program.

Smith, L. (2008). Schools that change: Evidence-based improvement and effective change leadership: Corwin Press.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action, and achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

35