to help each student succeed in her class.
She had been quite certain she knew all the answers when she decided to become a teacher, but as she worked through her first year of actual experience, she felt as though she had more questions than answers. It was not until the second semester that she came to realize that good teaching is driven by such questions. She gradually came to a clearer understanding and appreciation of the section of the school’s vision statement that said, “We will be a school that is noted for two characteristics: our commitment to promoting the success of every student and our continuous discontent with the immediate present.” In her school, the process of searching for answers was more important than actually having answers.
It was clear that every teacher was called on to ask him- or herself each day, “How can I be more effective in my efforts to be a positive influence in the lives of the students entrusted to me?” Yet, it was equally clear that teachers were never to conclude that they had arrived at the definitive answer to any fundamental question. The year had been exhilarating and exhausting, fun and frustrating, but at its end, despite all of the unanswered questions, Connie was certain of one thing—her life would be spent teaching!
The experience described above could not occur in a school that continues to operate according to the principles of the industrial model. Connie’s school offers a fundamentally different model based on significantly different assumptions, beliefs, and behaviors. The challenge of implementing this model is determining how schools can initiate and sustain a change process that transforms their traditional culture so that they can function as professional learning communities.
Summary
The assumptions that have guided the operation of schools since the late nineteenth century were based on the factory model and its reliance on centralization, standardization, hierarchical top-down management, a rigid sense of time, and accountability based on adherence to the system. That model is no longer valid in a post-industrial, knowledge-based society. Researchers both inside and outside of education have arrived at the same conclusions regarding a new model that offers the best hope for stimulating significant improvement in the ability of schools to achieve their objectives. This model requires schools to function as professional learning communities characterized by a shared mission, vision, and values; collective inquiry; collaborative teams; an orientation toward action and a willingness to experiment; commitment to continuous improvement; and a focus on results. The scenario that ends the chapter describes how a school organized as a professional learning community might function during the course of a typical school year.
Chapter 3
The Complexity of the Change Process
The issue is not that individual teachers and schools do not innovate and change all the time. They do. The problem is with the kinds of changes that occur in the educational system, their fragile quality, and their random and idiosyncratic nature.
—The Consortium on Productivity in the Schools (1995, p. 23)
We are wise to believe it is difficult to change, to recognize that character has a forward propulsion which tends to carry it unaltered into the future, but we need not believe it is impossible to change…. We create ourselves. The sequence is suffering, insight, will, action, change.
—Allen Wheelis (1973, pp. 101–102)
Those who review the research for help on how to implement and sustain a successful change process are likely to become confused. Consider the following explanations that have been offered for the failure of school reform initiatives:
• The change moved too fast—people were overwhelmed.
• The change moved too slowly—people lost their enthusiasm.
• The change lacked strong leadership from the principal.
• The change relied too heavily on the leadership of a strong principal.
• The change was too big and attacked too much at once—people change incrementally, not holistically.
• The change was too small—organizations need a more aggressive, comprehensive shake-up.
• The change was top-down without buy-in from the faculty.
• The change was bottom-up without the support of the central office or administration.
• Gains were celebrated too soon, and the sense of urgency was lost.
• Gains were not recognized and celebrated, and the initiative lost momentum.
• Schools were unwilling to change—they were steadfastly committed to the status quo.
• Schools embraced every change that came along and careened from fad to fad.
• Leaders failed to develop a critical level of support before initiating change.
• Leaders mistakenly insisted on overwhelming support as a prerequisite for initiating change; this stipulation ensured implementation would never occur.
Each of these observations can, of course, be a valid assessment of the failure of a change initiative. Yet the paradoxes they present fail to offer guidance on overcoming obstacles to substantive innovation. What is the answer then? What must educators understand about the change process if they are to transform their schools into learning communities?
Both research and practice offer one inescapable, insightful conclusion to those considering an improvement initiative: change is difficult. After more than a decade of efforts to help schools reform according to the principles of the Essential Schools Movement, a weary Ted Sizer admitted, “I was aware that it would be hard, but I was not aware of how hard it would be” (1996, p. 1). The complexity and difficulty of change is a fact that cannot be overstated.
One of the most damaging myths that aspiring school administrators often learn is that the change process, if managed well, will proceed smoothly. That myth amounts to little more than a cruel hoax, an illusion that encourages educators to view problems and conflict as evidence of mistakes or a mismanaged process rather than as the inevitable byproducts of serious reform. Seymour Sarason (1995) tried to expose that myth when he wrote:
The decision to undertake change more often than not is accompanied by a kind of optimism and rosy view of the future that, temporarily at least, obscures the predictable turmoil ahead. But that turmoil can not be avoided and how well it is coped with separates the boys from the men, the girls from the women. It is … rough stuff…. There are breakthroughs, but also brick walls (p. vii).
Those who seek to initiate substantive change must recognize that an existing system with a well-entrenched structure and culture is already in place. In general, those working within that system will always resist, always fight to preserve the system. The fragmented, piecemeal approach to change that characterizes most school reform lacks the power and focus needed to overcome that resistance.
Thus, change is a complex and formidable task that is certain to be accompanied by pain and conflict. Many argue that pain is an essential element for initiating change, that the familiar status quo is always preferable to change until the traditional way of doing things results in considerable discomfort to those in the organization. We contend that a learning community can foster constant exploration of change as part of its culture rather than as a response to pain. But that does not mean discomfort either can or should be avoided. The
