Why School Culture Both Attracts and Resists Whole School Reform Models

This paper uses the metaphor of grafting to describe the relationship of comprehensive school reform designs to the work culture of schools. One school reform model that has widespread implementation is the Success for All (SFA) reading program. The new practice provided in the SFA reading program offered a compatible graft onto the existing culture found in low achieving schools. The grafting on of a new program can only occur as long as its requirements do not stray from the existing traditions of the system. Schools adopt reform programs that offer procedural or curricular changes that fit within their existing systems. However, in schools, as in gardening, the graft cannot repair a damaged root. Rather, the growth of a successful graft is strengthened by a hearty rootstock, and the best rootstock is a healthy and supportive culture

Analysis of School Work Culture in Schools That Implement Comprehensive School Reform Models Analysis of School Work Culture in Schools That Implement Comprehensive School Reform Models

Abstract -This paper used the metaphor of "grafting" to describe the relationship of comprehensive school reform designs to the work culture of the schools. This study focused on the characteristics of school work culture that embrace external school reform models. One school reform model that has widespread implementation is the Success for All (SFA) reading program. The new practice provided in the SFA reading program offered a compatible "graft" onto the existing culture found in low achieving schools. Schools adopt reform programs that offer procedural or curricular changes that fit within their existing systems. However, when the school culture becomes the catalyst for change and expertise for innovation is centered in the school, then schools can design interventions that work better than external school reform models. Journal of Research for Educational Leaders 2003, Vol2, Num3 http://www.uiowa.edu/~jrel pp. 33-53 Analysis of School Work Culture in Schools That Implement Comprehensive School Reform Models Schools have been struggling for decades to prepare students for the world of work, as well as to meet the ever-changing demands of the political agendas at the local, state and national levels that govern schooling decisions School work culture is defined as the psychological and social forces that influence the direction and the quality of work of the adults within the school. Bruner and Greenlee High achieving schools were found to be more collaborative than low achieving schools and had environments that supported the design and redesign of programs to meet the needs of students. We use the metaphor of "grafting" to describe the relationship of comprehensive school In gardening, grafting involves attaching the cutting of a desired plant to the rootstock of another vigorous plant. It introduces a new or different "shoot" onto a healthy plant that has grown naturally in another environment. The purposes for grafting plants are: to boost productivity, to increase resistance to pests, to facilitate reproduction, to repair damage, or to grow a plant in an unfamiliar environment by combining it with a host that is well-adapted to that environment. The practices of gardeners in grafting help clarify and structure this discussion of school work culture and schoolwide reform models. Schools, like other organizations, develop a culture of behavioral norms that respond to the environment, to the people who work in the organization, and to those they serve Culture is the "rootstock" of the organization and supports or rejects any new growth. In gardening, when the shoot of one plant is successfully grafted to the rootstock of another, the combined plant has the strength of the old roots and the vitality of the new shoots. Any "graft" onto the "rootstock" of schools, therefore, has to be compatible with and is dependent upon the vigor of the culture. SFA requires strict adherence to a structured reading curriculum with supervision and coordination by a reading facilitator. The school's reading facilitator works to oversee the operation of the SFA model and helps teachers with implementation. Each session is highly scripted, so that at any given minute, an observer should be able to hear virtually the same thing in every class from both teachers and students Existing Rootstock In a study that examined the features of school work culture and student achievement, Bruner (in Snyder, Journal of Research for Educational Leaders 2003, Vol2, Num3 http://www.uiowa.edu/~jrel pp. 33-53 needs of students. These responses result in greater levels of student success. The study addressed the work culture patterns found in both high and low achieving schools. The achievement levels in these schools were identified by the state based on their standardized test scores in reading, writing, and math. Using the School Work Culture Profile (SWCP) Method Participants Six elementary schools were studied to help identify overall work culture trends and patterns. These schools reflected high and low student achievement based on Florida Vital Signs criterion. The academic indicators are the school scores for two years on nationally normed standardized tests for Reading Comprehension, Math Concepts and Applications, and the Florida Writes test. Three of the schools studied were high achieving schools and met the criteria (33% of the students at the 50 th percentile or above) for at least five of the six academic indicators. Three schools studied met the criteria for only one or two of the six academic indicators and were considered to be low achieving schools. The designation of low and high achieving was made by the researchers and was not a label used by the state of Florida. Demographic information characterized high achieving schools as having higher student and staff attendance, and lower levels of poverty and minority students. However, one school in the high achieving group had a relatively high proportion of students eligible for free and reduced lunch (60%) and a high percentage of minority students (41%). This school had been receiving Title I services. Title I provides additional money from the federal government to enhance personnel and material resources for schools with high poverty rates. All low achieving schools were Title I schools with higher than the district average eligible for free or reduced lunch. Instrument The School Work Culture Profile (SWCP) was used with teachers and administrators from the six elementary schools. Participation was voluntary and of those surveyed, 144 or 69% participated. The SWCP contains 60 five point Likert-type items ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. The items pertain to school work practices and are organized into four subscales: 1) Organizational Planning; 2) Professional Development; 3) Program Development, and 4) School Assessments. Each subscale has 15 items such that scores range from 15 to 75, with scores indicating levels of staff involvement in the school's work patterns. These scores can be summed to obtain a total score that ranges from 60 to 300, measuring the construct of work culture within an organization or system. According to Snyder (1988), school's work culture refers to the collective practices of planning, organizing, delivering, monitoring, and assessing as related to teaching and learning. The combined score provides information regarding the work patterns found in high and low achieving schools. The SWCP has been subject to several validation and reliability studies. These studies provide high reliability estimates and evidence for construct validity of the SWCP The SWCP provides information on the strength of the school's interaction system in the planning, development, delivery and assessment of programs and services. The SWCP was developed based upon a systems model of collaborative school management, and assesses the level of staff involvement Data Analysis School Work Culture Profile Using the SWCP, an instrument that measures work cultures in distinct ways, we have found that schools grouped based on student achievement have significantly different work cultures. High achieving schools had a higher overall mean score (244.15) than the low achieving schools (231.72) on the SWCP It has been suggested that an index of the practical significance can be derived from an effect size estimate The dimensions probed in the Program Development subscale are instructional management and resource development. The teachers in high achieving schools focused on improving student performance and searching for solutions. Improving instruction in the low achieving schools relied on a "teacher proof" instructional program. The Staff Development subscale investigates staff development, clinical supervision and work group development. Teaching teams in high achieving schools worked to meet the needs of students and explored alternative methods of instruction. Teacher training focused on student achievement rather than teacher interests. In the low achieving schools, teachers tended to work in isolation and were trained in standardized methods of instruction. The Assessment subscale examines quality control and assessment. The high achieving schools monitored student performance in a variety of ways throughout the school year and revised their action plans in response to feedback. Low achieving schools monitored teacher performance and deviations from the school's plan. Their actions were revised based on events. Field Data Analysis In addition to the SWCP, data sets consisted of multiple sources of evidence. Information was gathered through interviews of school personnel, direct observations, analysis of school system documents, and analysis of existing school survey data. When analyzed across data sets, clear distinctions appeared in the work culture of the high and low achieving schools. The school improvement plans in low achieving schools focused on providing material resources, reducing adult-pupil ratio by adding staff, and training faculty in various teaching strategies. The action plan depended on external resources and the implementation of programs designed by outside experts. Evaluation of the success of the plan was not tied to student performance, but rather to improved teacher performance. These institutionalized improvement plans led to an emphasis on mechanisms such as prescriptions, tightly specified resource allocations, and teacher performance measures as indicators of success. The assumption was that reduced class size, abundant materials, and training teachers to implement programs would improve student performance. Leaders in low achieving schools functioned as managers of processes, not as change agents exploring new ways to ensure student success. Mandates from the state maintained the bureaucratic orientation toward schooling and called for consistency and standardization of content as the means to excellence and achievement. These principals saw their roles a