Before school-based decision making can change teaching and learning for the better, we must make some changes in the reform itself

Guskey, Thomas R.

Peterson, Kent D.

English

University of Kentucky

University of KentuckyUKnowledgeEducational, School, and Counseling PsychologyFaculty Publications Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology12-1995The Road to Classroom ChangeThomas R. GuskeyUniversity of Kentucky, GUSKEY@UKY.EDUKent D. PetersonUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonRight click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you.Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_facpubPart of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Educational Leadership CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology at UKnowledge. It has been accepted forinclusion in Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For moreinformation, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu.Repository CitationGuskey, Thomas R. and Peterson, Kent D., "The Road to Classroom Change" (1995). Educational, School, and Counseling PsychologyFaculty Publications. 20.https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_facpub/20The Road to Classroom ChangeNotes/Citation InformationPublished in Educational Leadership, v. 53, issue 4, p. 10-14.Copyright © 1995 Thomas R. Guskey and Kent D. PetersonThe copyright holders have granted the permission for posting the article here.This article is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_facpub/20lH{ ROAD TO THOMAS R. GUSKEY AND KENT D . PETERSON Before school-based decision making can change teaching and learning for the better, we must make some changes in the reform itself. The road to classroom change through chool-based decision making obviously has more potholes than its proponents originally thought. A lthough this attempt to decentral ize authority and involve teachers, parents. and students in decision making is intended to further student learning, evidence linking it to improve-ments in student outcomes i s scant (Jenkins et al. 1994, Malcn et al. 1990, Summers and Johnson 1995). I EDUCA'OONAL L EADf.RSI-IIP The guiding premise of school-based decision making is that administrators. teachers, and parents are the ones who best understand the contexts and cultures of tbe school, and so we must build their capacity to be jointly responsible for student learning (Darling-Hammond and McLaughtin 1995). Accordingly. the e people are repre-sented on the chool-based decision-making councils-teams that typically are given the authority to make deci ions regarding curriculum and instruction. and the budget. The problem i . few councils take up learning-related topics (David 1994 ). What's the Problem? We believe that a variety of specific problems are keeping school-based decision making from improving teaching and learning, and that we can take some specific steps to refine the process and overcome these difficul-ties. We will begin by detailing the problems, then offer some guidelines to solve them. The Power Problem. The assump-tion behind school-based decision making is that reducing the bureau-cratic controls on schools will prompt principals, teachers, and parents to exert greater initiative and to tailor instruction to the needs of students. Aside from some peripheral change, however, current evidence indicates that in many cases, the true locus of power and authority remains where it has always been-with school boards, central office staffs, and state authori-ties (Bimber L994). Kentucky, for example, explicitly grants school councils the right to make policy on the "planning amd resolution of issues regarding instruc-tional practices." At the same time, Kentucky requires all elementary schools to implement a non-graded Primary School Program, with an accompanying list of "critical attributes" that focus specifically on instructional practices. Thus, while Kentucky purports to treat educators as professionals and empower them to make decisions about bow best to meet student learning goals. the top-down, mandated Primary School. Program controls and directs how elementary educators are to meet those goals. Even elementary schools with site-based decision-making councils have little choice regarding the way they group students for instruction or which pedagogic practices they employ. Ironically, Kentucky, as well as the Chicago Public Schools. are two of the few jurisdictions that mandate a move to site-based decision making. In most school districts at present, the shift in governance is strictly voluntary. The Implementation Problem. The new forms of authority, communica-tion, and decision making that accom-school councils to take up core issues related to curriculum, instruction, or student outcomes. The Ambiguous Missio11 Problem. Much research demonstrates that a clear mission is a key factor in school effectiveness (Deal and Peterson Governance structures must be altered to give administrators, teachers, and parents real power and authority if they are truly to work together to make major changes in established educational practices. pany site-based decision making make implementation exceptionally diffi-cult. There are new structures to design, new stakeholders to involve, new procedures to institute, and new skills to develop. Years after imple-mentation, some schooJs still struggle with how best to gather input from teachers, parents, and students. In other schools, the process for gener-ating ideas, making decisions, and gaining permission to carry out those decisions is left fluid and ill-defined (Peterson and Warren 1 994). Implementation is made all the more difficult when overall goals remain unclear. School-based decision making is a process that defines how decisions should be made. Jt does not, however, prescribe what issues should be addressed. Without the direction of clear goals for student learning, there is nothing in the process that compels l 994). When that mission is teaching and learning, the staff, students, and principal tend to focus more on these areas. Otherwise, the attention of members of the council is easily diverted to management, scheduling, and other anclllary concerns. The Time Problem. Those who have studied school-based decision making consistently note the dilemma of there being too little time for regular council meetings (Mohrman and Wohlstetter 1994). Meaningful discussions and carefully reasoned decisions about complex issues require considerable time. Given the nature of classroom teaching assign-ments, however, staff members have little flexibiUty in their daily schedules for new activities, especially activities as demanding and involved as these meetings. Council meetings often must be wedged in before or after DECEMBER 1995/JANUARY 1996 school, or between classes. It is little wonder that most groups avoid dealing with the crucial issues of curriculum content and teaching strategies. The Expertise Problem. Adminis-trators, teachers, and parents collec-tively have a wealth of experience. Yet they also work under very demanding conditions that make it impossible for them to develop expertise in the most current ideas and research on student learning. Further, in most schools , the time and resources allocated to profes-sional development are sorely inade-quate. At best, then, shared decision making becomes shared naivete, and at worst, shared ignorance. This lack of expertise is one reason councils often avoid curriculum and instruction, concentrating instead on issues with which they feel more knowledgeable, such as discipline and extracurricular activities (David I 994). One danger of this is that personal agendas may take precedence over the best interests of students. For example, several site-based counci ls at Kentucky high schools lowered the academic requirements for students to participate in interscholastic sports (Mayhan l 993). The Cultural Constraints Problem. All organizations have behavioral norms and assumptions about work that shape how employees and others think, feel, and act (Deal and Peterson 1994) . These aspects of the school culture are cognitive maps that prescribe the "normal" features of work. School -based decision making, however, requires that traditional school roles be redefined so that teachers and parents can work collabo-ratively on school wide decisions. Jn most schools, teachers and parents traditionally have not been involved in critical decisions about budget, personnel, and other policy issues. And even with the best resources, some teachers and other I EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP stakeholders believe it is not their job to make these decis ions; they simply want to teach or be a parent (Weiss et al. 1992). Further, some teachers feel the classroom is their exclusive domain, and many parents feel uncomfortable pushing for change, even when they believe it's needed. The Avoidance Problem. Some school -based councils tend to avoid, ignore. or neglect issues re lated to teaching and learning (Summers and Johnson 1995). Ln addition to constTaints of time and expe1 ise, teachers at some schools may fear taking risks or lack higher-level support for doing so (Odden and Wohlstetter 1995). Other school have a history of staff conflict about instruction. The Motivation Problem. Early advocates of school-based decision making assumed teachers and parents would jump at the opportunity 10 partic ipate. After all , teachers are highly motivated when decisions affect the ir classrooms (Lortie 1975), and most parents are deeply concerned about their children. But in Kentucky, where more than 85 percent of schools have site-based decision making coun-cils, the number of parents running for council positions and voting in council elections remains dismally small. In fact, only 4 percent of eligible parents have voted, according to a 1992 survey conducted by the Kentucky School Boards Association. l n some schools, council formation had to be delayed because parents were unwilling to take part (David 1994). This turnout is not surprising considering that the effort and respon-s ibilities are substantial , the rewards few, and the outcomes often distant and fraught with controversy. Most people work hard at activities that pay off in some way. with either intrinsic or extrinsic rewards and incentives. And parents perceive that this involve-ment will eat up substantial time. while their influence on school poli-c ies will be modest at best. Similarly, teachers tend to weigh the rewards of new ac tivities, roles, or expectations against the loss of the professional satisfaction they derive from devoting their rime and energy 10 the c lassroom (Lortie l975).They often are reluctant to participate in school-based decision making because it means adding new responsibil ities to an already burdensome schedule. Further, they know that the goals typi-cally have little influence on day-to-day classroom practices. In short , the costs far exceed the benefits. Guidelines for Improvement rn the face of all these problems, what can we do to bridge the gap between school-based decision making and c ia. sroom practices? We believe the following steps an; cruc.ial. I . Be~ in with a clear mission that focuses on student teaching and learning. Councils should joinl ly develop a statement that articulates a school's vision of success and the outcomes be ing sought. This should not simply be a document fi led in some office cabinet. It should be regu-larly reviewed and reevaluated as the foundation upon which all decisions are based. Some schools hold offsi1e retreats to review programs and evaluate efforts in light of their vision of success. Others post the mission state-ment in the ent ryway and have all staff members sign it. Still other schools' staff members meet before students arrive to write advertisements for the school and their classrooms to reaf-fimJ what the mission means to them. By consistently referring to a strong mission for teaching and learning, council member make avoidance of these issues more difficult. At one school, for example, a member of the council began every ses ion wi th the question , " How will this help tudent~ learnT 2. Set c!Ntr and e.1plicir goals f or rile decision-making proceu. Having process goab will focus attention on core issues rather than peripheral concern<;. It will also minimize ambi-guity about authority and emp0wer-menl. T he goal~ should be important and attainable and should give individ-uals a sen!-.C of efficacy in the process. }. Ensure rhar scllonl-ha.w•rl deci-sion making is seen as a pro(·essfor hringing a luna a hroad set of rr'fnrms. nor as a goal in irse(l Some schools incorrectly bel ieve their restructuring is complete once a school-hac;ed deci-sion-making counci l is established. 4 . Alter governance strucrurc•s ro gil'e administrators. reachers. und parem s real power and authority. They wi ll need this power and authori ty if they arc truly ro worl-. together to make maJor change~ in c~;whli <.hecl educational prac tice~. 5 . Rr re.\ponsiw• ro parents' l·onrerns. a/1(1 im•oh ·r them in rhe school I'OIIIIIIIIIIity. If parents are to be partner-; in refonn effort <; . they should he activc participant). in all school acrivit ie~. not merely in occa~ional hake -,a le-.. and ceremonies. Schools al-..o must 111<1i-.c sure they inform parent ~; and value their involvement. For thi-.. rca~nn . ~chool~ should -.chcclu le council meetings and tra ining sessions at times thm arc convenient to parents. 6. Redesign .w·hetlule., w gin• reachet .\ tiiJie w purticiiHife in deci-sion making . Some school. grant the teachers on <>chool -ba'>ed decbion-making counc il ~ additional release time to worl on specific tasks. Others arnngc schedules o that teachers share a common planning period or have time together ouhidc of their regular teachmg schedule. 7. f11resr 111 hi,!!,h -quoluy pr1!f'es-si(lnal derelopnwtll. Ollcl make sign((i-ranr c h(/t/gc' 111 the way 1he::.e acri,·i-lu•s ore plontu•d. orgam:rd. o11d rarried 0111. Successful \Chools invest heavily in profes<;ional development to expand both therr nrganr;ational and ind iv idual staff capability. The<;e activ-itie~ \ hould en~urc that tho. c reo;pon-sihlc for carrying out -.chool -hased decision making arc skilled in group proce.,~c~. con ..,e nsu ~ building. and in the change proces' generally (Fullan 1993). They ~hnuld include all staff member<, and be open 10 parents. 8. () luain rhe ncce.\ .\W'\' expnrise on ,,·hi1·h to ho ~e clec-i5ion\. To en~ure that they mai-.c dec isions ba~ccl on val id evidence rather than on persua-sive opinion~. council members w i ll need ready access to knowledgeable and reliable ).Ources and the best evidence available. ( Rut beware of indi vicluab who repeat resc<u·ch find-rng-. hut fail to offer '>pccrfic citations.) In the>.c effort).. educar ional resource This lack of expertise is one reason councils . often avoid curriculum and instruction, concentrating instead on issues with which they feel more knowledgeable. centers. educational cooperati ves, and school -university partnerships and other collaborati ve relationships are especially useful. 9. Ensure acTive support jimn all levels of the organization. Councils will need political support from all levels as they revise pol icies and implement new programs. District office personnel must acti vely encourage thoughtful experimentation and risk-taking and must invite honest evaluati on of current practices. In addition, they must be ready to o ffer technical assistance and support in response to school requests. Similarly, principals mu. t learn new ways of leading to be supporters and managers o f change. A lso needed is socia l support because contlicts wil l inevitably arise. /0. Reward accomplishments, large and small. Thank you notes. articles in . chool newsletters, and other acknowl-edgments do much to encourage involvement. End-o f-school functions, dinners, and other public events can also recognize efforts and celebrate achievements. 1 I. W(Jrk ro establish a collabora-tive school cu./ture focused on improvem ent. P1i ncipals are instru-mental in changing attitudes so that teachers and parents realize that thei r new shared respon ibilities arc pan o f their normal roles. Pri nc ipals must offer leadership that influences, facil i-tates, and manages the change process. Ceremonies. rcu·eats, and j o int recre-ational activi ties can cult ivate a colle-gial sp iri t. To forestall the tendency of councils to avoid i ssues of teaching and learning, some counci ls directly address the history of change and ri sk-taking in their school. Reformers wi ll continue to imple-ment school-based decision making to foster more democratic chools and, in the process. make schools more effec-ti ve. Solving the most basic problems they w ill have to race w ill not only bri ng greater democracy to schools, but also improve relations among admin-i strators, staff members. and parents. Most important. it w ill increa.e the odd that teaching w ill improve and students will learn more. • References Bimber, B. ( 1994). Decentrali:ation Mirage: Comparing Decision Making !lrran~ements in Four High Schools. Santa Monica, Calif: lnstirutc on Educa-tion and Training, Rand Corporation. Darling-Hammond, L.. and M. W. McLaughlin. ( 1995). ·'Policies that Support Professional Development in an Era of Refo1111." Phi De/Ill Kappan 76. 8: 597- 604. David. J. L. ( 1994). "School-Based Deci-sion Making: Kentucky·!. Te~l of Decen-tralizmion ... Phi Dl'fta Kappan 75. 9: 706-7 12. Deal. T .. and K. D. Peterson. ( 1994). Tlw Leadership Pamdox: Balancing Logic and Artistt)' in Schools. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass. Fullan, M .G. ( 1993). Chcmge Forces: Probing the Depths of EducaTional Reform. London: Falmcr Press. Jenkins, J. R. , J. Ronk, J. A . Schrag. G. G. Rude. and C. Stowitschek. ( 1994). "Effects of Using School-Based Partic-ipatory Decision Making to Improve Services for Low Performing SIUdents ... £Lemen WI)' School Jouma/ 94, 3: 357-372. Lortie, D. C. ( 1975). Sdwo!Teacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University ol'Chicago Press. Malen. B .. R. Ogawa, and J. Kranz. ( 1990). " What Do We Know About School Based Management? A Case Study of the Literature-A Call for Research.'' In Choice and Control in American Educa-tion. Vol. II: The Practice of Choice. Decemm/izmion and School Res/me-luring. edited by W. H. Clune and J. F. Wiue. pp. 289-342. London: Falmer Press. Mayhan. M. (February 2, 1993). ·· ·D' Students Al lowed ro Play Sports at Lafayeue. But Smoking Bun Stays." Lexingwn Herald Leader: B- 1, B-2. Mohrman, S. A. . and P. Wohlstcucr. ( 1994). Sclwoi-Based Management: Organi:.in~ for High Petformwwe. San Francisco: Jo ·scy-Bass. Odden, E. R., and P. Wohlstcuer. ( 1995). "Making School-Based M anagcmem Work.'' Educational Leadership 52, 2: 32-36. Peterson. K. D .. and V. Warren. ( 1994). "Changes in School Governance and Principals' Roles: Changing Jurisdic-tions. New Power Dynamics. unc.J Contlic.: l in Restructured Sc.:hools." In Reshaping the Principalship: Insights from Tmnsfon nmiona/ Reform £]forTs, edited by K. S. Loui~ and J. Murphy. Thousand Oaks. Culi f. : Corwin Press. Summers. A. A .. and A. W. Johnson. (1995). "Doubts About Decentralized Dcc.:isions." School Admini.wrawr 52. 3: 24-32. Weiss. C. H.. J. Cambone. and A. Wyeth. ( 1992). ''Trouble in Paradise: Teacher Conllicts in Shared Decision Making." Educational !ldminisTralion QuarTerly 28. 3: 350- 367. Thomas R. Guskey is Professor, College of Education, University of Kentucky, 131 Taylor Education Build ing, Lexington, KY 40506 (e-mail : guskey@ ukcc.uky.edu). Kent D. Peterson is Professor, Department of Educational Administrat ion, University of Wisconsin-Madison, I 025 W. Johnson St., Madison, W I 53701 (e-mai l : kpclerson@ma i l.soemad ison. wise .ed u). 

The Road to Classroom Change

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&amp;context=edp_facpub

The Road to Classroom Change

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky