The Sharp Edge of Educational Change

Teaching, Leading and the Realities of Reform

Nina Bascia, Andy Hargreaves

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9780750708654
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317973546
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The Sharp Edge of Educational Change conveys the realities of reform as they affect educators' practice. The collected chapters each focus on particular current reform and reveal the technical and logistical complications, social and political dynamics, cognitive disjunctures and limitations, and emotional demands of reform. In so doing, they provide new and rich conceptual perspectives on the contemporary nature of teachers' and administrators' work in classrooms, schools and other educational settings.

---

II COURSES OF CHANGE

---

---

2 The Attrition of Educational Change over Time: The Case of “Innovative,” “Model,” “Lighthouse” Schools

---

Dean Fink

Introduction

This chapter examines the long-term fate of one of the most widely used approaches to educational reform — the creation of new, “model,” “innovative,” “exemplary,” “beacon” or “lighthouse” schools, as they are variously called. What happens to these schools, not in the first flurry of interest, hope and excitement, but in the long run where their sustainability is at stake, is an important question not merely for these innovative schools themselves, but also for the wider systems in which they are embedded. What do innovative schools tell us? Do they last? What contribution do they make with respect to the “scaling up” of systemic educational reform and the sustainability of educational change? These are the questions that this chapter addresses, based on the evidence of one particular case of “break-the-mold” innovation, which I have analyzed for more than a quarter-century.

Slavin (1998) identifies two types of “systemic” reform movements. The first has been initiated by governments throughout the western world and reflects a deep pessimism that education can reform itself. These legislated, “systemic” changes are characterized by alterations in governance, accountability systems and mandated standards. Implicit in many of these reforms is the notion that the system is irremediably broken and requires either totally new types of schools or the reinvention of traditional schools. The desire to create new settings is reflected in the charter school movement and schools of choice in North America, and the preservation of selective grammar schools in the United Kingdom. Similarly, the trend in some American states and in the United Kingdom to close failing schools and reopen them with new leadership and a new staff reflects a hope that new beginnings will transform educational practice (Slavin, 1998; Stoll and Myers, 1998). In virtually all cases, these reforms are imposed by government mandate and involve limited consultation with the professional community.

Alternatively, scholars in many countries have rejected the pessimistic view and have initiated an approach to “systemic” change which attempts to develop “ambitious models for school reform” by “building networks of technical assistance, and school-to-school support to ever expanding numbers of schools that freely choose to implement the models” (Slavin, 1998: 1300). There are a number of examples, including Sizer's (1992) Coalition of Essential Schools, Levin's (1987) Accelerated Schools and the New American Schools network (Stringfield et ai, 1996) in the United States. The Learning Consortium (Fullan, 1991) and the Manitoba School Improvement Project (1997) in Canada, the Improving Quality Schools for All project (Hopkins et al. , 1994) in Britain and the National Schools Network (Ladwig et al., 1994) in Australia are similar examples. In these cases, partnerships between university scholars and school personnel have worked to change structures, cultures and learning conditions of schools. These networks hope the more adventurous volunteer schools will serve as catalysts to “scale up” reform across other schools in the larger systems in which they are embedded. Despite their differences, mandated and “networking” approaches to educational change share a conviction that new and/or innovative alternatives to existing schools can promote substantive changes in other schools on a wider scale. This chapter asks whether such faith is justified.

The creation of alternatives to more conventional schools is not a new approach. Over the years, many “new” and innovative schools have been initiated. These “new” schools have usually begun life as places of hope, enthusiasm and creativity. Advocates proclaimed their excellence (Doremus, 1981). Popular educational journals extolled their virtues (Guernsey, 1970; Schwartz, 1971). Within a relatively short time, however, a significant number of these new schools evolve, indeed regress, into quite conventional schools. This loss of initial momentum and innovative direction by many newly established schools occurs because of what I call the “attrition of change,” where the winds of certainty, tradition and nostalgia relentlessly wear away the face of change that these newly established schools represent. At the same time, innovative schools can paradoxically bring about change elsewhere in the system — also by attrition. By breaking precedents, innovative schools can open up opportunities for others. Moreover, they can foster cohorts of leaders who gradually carry innovative values, convictions and practices into other settings. This chapter explores these two complementary meanings of the “attrition of change” that innovative schools represent.

The Study

The study on which this chapter is based traces the twenty-five-year evolution of a new and purposefully innovative school, which I shall call Lord Byron High School in Ontario, Canada. Lord Byron opened in 1970, and quickly gained a reputation as one of Canada's most innovative schools. In its first three years of operation, 7000 visitors toured the school. Gradually, however, the school lost much of its innovative zeal and today it looks very much like other regular secondary schools. This school is of particular interest to me because I was an original staff member, its assistant (deputy) principal for a year, and later its district-office supervisor. I saw its attrition of change as an active participant and later as an interested observer. My personal history as both a participant in the school's early days and an observer and supervisor in more recent times presents unique opportunities as well as challenges for my research role.

My approach centered on three methodological components. First, the historical aspect of the case led to a search of relevant documents from the province of Ontario, from the South Board of Education of which Lord Byron was a part, and from the school itself. Second, I interviewed over seventy present and past Lord Byron staff members as well as key respondents from the South system to develop an oral history of the school's development. I selected my sample of respondents from among staff members from three different eras. I then randomly selected names from the staff lists for Lord Byron from 1975, 1984 and 1993.¹ In addition, all principals were interviewed in depth. My interviews focused on the changes in Lord Byron's purposes, culture, structure and leadership as well as the individual aspects of teachers' work and lives as they related to Byron's change agenda.

A third source of data was my personal involvement in and recollection of events at the school, in the South Board of Education and in the province of Ontario. As a practitioner researcher, I not only knew where to get important historical resources, but I also had participated in many of the school's and school board's significant events, and I was usually aware of most of the events reported by my respondents. This “inside-outside” relationship with the school enabled me to elicit in-depth answers to questions, and check on respondents' veracity (Hammersley, 1981; McNamara, 1980; Merton, 1970).²

The Life Cycle of Lord Byron

Evidence from Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States suggests that there is a characteristic life cycle to new schools. Many begin as places of creativity and experimentation, evolve though years of overreaching and entropy, and finally arrive at a state of survival and continuity (Fletcher et al., 1985; Smith et ai, 1987). Like most other societal institutions, schools contend with forces of both change and continuity. As the following narrative suggests, continuity is likely to win out.

Creativity and Experimentation: 1970–1975

The early 1970s was a unique era in the educational history of Ontario and the South Board of Education. For those of us who joined the staff of Lord Byron with a view to effecting change in the “deep structures” of schooling (Cuban, 1988) the times could not have been more propitious. Education in Ontario was in the midst of a progressive era which created a context for the South Board to initiate Lord Byron as an experimental “lighthouse” school. It is difficult to trace the exact origins of the Byron concept but certainly “the genuine interest” of the Director of Education was vital. Jim Sizemore was a charismatic and powerful intellectual and political figure. He established an Innovations Committee which provided the initial impetus for the school. Perhaps unwittingly, however, by authorizing a fairly elite group of South's staff to envision a school of the future, he created “a group of people working on a common problem independently of the larger community, tending to grow in a direction incomprehensible to their co-workers and associates who had not experienced the learning process undergone by the committee members” (Fullan and Eastabrook, 1977: 24). Most of South's other employees, and virtually all of the potential parents and students of Byron, had no idea what was being contemplated. Parents found out about the school through a series of meetings conducted by the school's first principal, Ward Bond, after many important decisions had been made.³

The appointment of Ward Bond was such an important decision. By giving Bond a year to plan, the opportunity to hire most of the staff, and the ability to use a different staffing process, the system enabled him to design what for the times was a radical alternative. He developed a timetable which not only divided the school year into two semesters, but required Byron teachers to be in class 66 per cent of the time compared to the regional average of 60 per cent. This arrangement enabled Byron to staff the school with fewer teachers than the regional average, and the Board agreed to give the school the money left over. This Differentiated Staffing Fund (DSF) was to be used to support the classroom through the provision of teacher assistants, secretarial help and professional development resources. The teachers' federation (union) worried that the move might create a precedent for reducing teacher positions elsewhere but reluctantly agreed to this arrangement as long as it was limited to one school.

Bond also challenged conventional thinking by setting up a leadership structure with far fewer department heads than existed in other schools. He invested much of the school's decision-making authority in the ten department heads and the staff as a whole. During his tenure, Bond succeeded in ensuring a balance among potentially competing micropolitical components of the school such as the school administration, the heads' council and the staff as a whole. Under ensuing leaders, however, these micropolitical rivalries would contribute to the “attrition” of change. At various times, school administrators, the heads' council, and even the staff as a whole expressed their belief that they had the right to a final say on policy issues.

Bond's contribution to South Board leadership was profound. In its first five years the staff of Byron produced two directors of education (CEOs), three superintendents (inspectors), ten principals, four assistant principals, and a number of consultants and department chairs. In fact the rest of the South system often referred to the “Byron mafia.” Virtually all of the “mafia” tended to lead in Bond's image. As one female respondent recalled, “I am not a hero worshipper but when I look back, he had a quiet leadership style rather than a really aggressive one, but I think his encouragement made people want to follow. In fact, he tended to make leaders rather than followers.” He succeeded in defining the “meaning” of Lord Byron. As one teacher recalled, “Ward Bond would say, when you find them doing something wrong, pick them up, dust them off and start them out again, don't throw them out.” While Bond articulated the original vision, it was shaped by the people he recruited as they tried to bring it to life in the school. The staff acted on the premise that most students were responsible, and adapted facilities and developed strategies to assist students on fulfilling this prophecy. An external evaluation report on Lord Byron published in 1975 stated:

As well as observing those in formal positions (principal, vice principals, chairmen) exercise enlightened leadership, we noted that teachers are able to contribute significantly to the decision-making process, not only within the departmental structure. The administration has consciously provided opportunities for recognition of leadership among staff, other than those formally designated as chairmen. This approach has not only guaranteed high-quality leadership within the school, but has served as a training ground for an exceptional number of persons who have moved on to positions of leadership within the system.

Over the first five years of Byron's development, distinctive patterns of group behavior emerged among the staff members. Collegiality was not planned as separate projects or initiatives, but evolved almost spontaneously. Although the openness of the school building facilitated collaborative action to some extent, in many ways it occurred out of necessity. The size of the task of opening a new school, the urgency to get the operation running, and the considerable public scrutiny of other professionals outside, many of whom hoped the school would fail miserably, motivated the staff to collaborate if for no other reason than to survive. The staff dedicated itself to continuous improvement and rigorous evaluation of all aspects of the school's operations. In 1975, an external review committee, composed of well respected Ontario educators, commented that:

the large amount of documentation produced by the Byron staff over the years attests to this commitment. At the same time this commitment caused our group serious concern. In essence we wonder if Lord Byron is “evaluating itself to death”? Evaluation consciousness is praiseworthy; too much may be counter productive.

Respondents who spoke about the early years described how their hard work and exhaustion were mitigated by the sheer exhilaration of doing exciting, meaningful work. “I worked like mad writing programs for five grades. I worked harder than I have ever worked — all departments did.” Another teacher recalled that “the early years were inspiring. There was a lot of altruism. People came to work because they thought they were doing something for humanity — more than a job, it was a mission.” Another teacher declared, “I became a teacher at Byron. I wrote more, I created from the gro...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Educational Change and Development Series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• The Editors
• List of Contributors
• I Introduction
• II Courses of Change
• III Contexts of Change
• IV Prospects for Change
• Index