’ ' 575:“ ' n‘I‘J‘sz“'x’z,?c"“‘-f'~_ i} . ? - ' t2." .‘ ‘ ‘f. 2'. ,, ' .l i .504: . o» it I I ‘ l‘r -\ nil! .- .IJ - :5. u ,0 ml V 1.! f It H .3‘ 3 till ‘ In. tons-:1. «£101.33. . J... I . 1.. I! <1)! V 1". a a‘ .1 511‘ Q .O.“ 1‘0. t (I. ,1, 5:19..» Ix, '- I i 0 (SI ‘LwHVn. .. .1Ltf: . 0!. 11.5.10”. .43 -O 7,. 5:93” $I|| ..1 1 0.0.2.! (1......- a. {at :o. PoflLréltv . ..... . .{f 2 .11.! .3 :z , .ylu . .2. .I 91,: .i‘ 3‘). l .l..l.7t.0 b . . w .m crying, ‘ A. . .rnn..v.;.. . FIG. . 15:51. .- v ‘ .9 cc . (of. 1 9’8. .- a.’ I e . «l: . . \oxy roast-ls 15:- oil‘s ‘ I . . phi. L... rY-tlo V uan u n '>‘ I c' ~36 ‘.54¢6::1 . . 3,040. I? e 3.“ . I. E I. u... ushvivhr ‘ ail . . . . Ur“ ‘ , I. 3.5., u . . A .‘ fil..:l77¢.0ufl.‘lh(tl . :7... t I. 1. l‘flL ‘I . . elvarf.‘ . I535: .. , a 5 n... .3... :rvfyfllii 5‘ .. . rIAl.....§|v :ly . rt . . .. ‘ . 1.. . . .us-f‘.\~?fl.y huts. I . . l :11.- v... 1 : ‘ . 91 . H . .uwvtlaixstu ,3....mm&sr.. M. A. ‘uc llxpva)tii.vn. D. ..... A I It -7, o, til! ‘- vl .‘IYr ‘.'¢110F:.tvv, Ix! ton-ulfoln’pl' on 2.5x . 1- a... It .59.? .l. 5......(51 .' 1 4|..le u. Vil'. s...‘ 5" 4 '1}. Oil unlllcnOUI-‘I'lll‘bl .l’.‘ v: I. 3. 14o.c.vl;.y..u 0.9.... ilx‘lYéofzejlnovp .. 2.! .1 1“? v ..U|.Cav.ll!.tl.vt¢.;sllll.v.l . . I: . . A, ‘1‘.‘. .25": turn .. fin II... I. . It‘s 0......“ . I... thit}! If . .3. . I.!?I...Il.. .5.....r....||.rrr£ . . I- '- . .{ ’Jzfi’l...‘ '1. Sgttafil Li. I tspi‘natis.) 551.3,!- Is I §\,. xvii. .3! ‘ 1|:qu II is, if“. p 2) {to}! cults}; ‘ .P ‘ Is!) . In: I o 2:. 1.5 11v .c.l.'l.£.)tiu.t .‘.-.§aorl‘ . lash-f! i Iii! y ID$W . 0;.)11 LE“. .4" .A‘VI‘ $6.12!!" 3)! ’1 Illilli'llll lllllllllllllll lllllllll 3 1293 00904 9473 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Rorth Central Association's Outcomes Accreditation in Senior High Schools: j A Study of the Impact of GA on the Staff and the l Decision Making Process l presented by Julia K. Brunn-Machnak has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PHD degree in Educational Administration Major professor Date July 29, 1993 MSU ('5 an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ' __r___ __ ,7 l LIBRARY .Mlchlgen State i University 1 v—v PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE i‘ r 9": ' ' o' _ '3 .r I." - "c. ' i ‘ l *9: ‘ - fl ' " MSU ls An Affirmative Adieu/Equal Opportunity Institution . GWW l/r a NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION ’S OUTCOMES ACCREDITATION IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF OA ON THE STAFF AND ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS By Julia K. Brunn-Machnak A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1993 ABSTRACT NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION’S OUTCOMES ACCREDITATION IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF OA ON THE STAFF AND ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS By Julia K. Brunn-Machnak In the study the researcher describes and explains the efforts of three senior high schools in Michigan that have successfully used the North Central Association Outcomes Accreditation (0A) option for accreditation and school improvement. She presents a model based on the non-linear nature of the way the CA change process works. She explores in detail the impact of CA on the staff training and collaboration and on the decision making process. All three schools were completing their fourth or fifth year in CA at the time of the study. The data are gathered through a survey of the entire staff; on-site interviews with key players; and reports and school documents. The survey includes information about the educational and experience background of the staff; a description of the nature and extent of pe0ple’s involvement in OA; and their perceptions about their training, the nature of decision making, the extent of collaboration, and the impact of 0A. The interviews provide an opportunity to get a sense of the ups and downs in trying to implement the program and the reasons the staffs feel they are successful. The CA reports, the demographic and financial data, and union contracts give a sense of the context within which the schools work. The researcher finds that agreeing on a mission and target goals helps the schools focus and mesh the use of the organizational change process and classroom change. Age, gender, and length of time in education are not inhibiting factors for staff members. The involvement of the staff in choosing target goals and strategies also helps to increase informal collaboration among staff members and the likelihood of use of the techniques learned in training sessions. The CA process moves each school toward a more participative model of decision making. The nature and extent of teacher leadership seem to help to bring about the change. Central offices are supportive financially, although they continue to have their agendas as well. Teacher unions support 0A informally and plan to add contractual language for CA. Two problems surface in all schools. First, 0A is very time-intensive. Second, committees had to devise strategies to gradually increase the involvement of most staff. Copyright by JULIA KAY BRUNN -MACHN AK 1993 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this study could not have happened without the help of many others, both at MSU and at home. My advisor, Dr. Sam Moore, encouraged me when I needed a new outlook and kept me on track. My committee members, Dr. Gary Sykes, Dr. Alicia Marshall, and, in particular, Dr. Charles Blackman, who continued to serve after his retirement, guided me through this complex topic and kept trying to help me make it straightforward and simple. Jo Colby in the office never failed to help with the bureaucracy as I tried to keep a long distance relationship with MSU. Thanks also go to Dr. Bill Bushaw, Ken Kutzel, and Doug Sutherland who opened doors for me and shared their expertise about how OA works. In addition, thanks to Garden City Schools, and particularly to Dr. Mike Wilmot and Geraldine Kiessel for supporting me through the years. At home, my husband, Stan, suffered through the days spent in agony and the days I hovered over the computer screen and served as editor and cheerleader. My daughter, Liz, helped me through the maze of spread sheets and statistic packages while her sisters, Cathy and Sheri, kept me going. My step-daughter, Amy, put up with my time spent on this time- and energy- consuming project that she came into half-way through. Most importantly, though, my thanks be to God for letting the radiation and chemotherapy give me the chance to finish this project and get on with my life. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Purpose Background of the Study Perspective of the Study Theoretical Model Overview of the Study Significance Research Questions Definitions Summary Chapter 2 Social Organization Theory North Central Outcomes Accreditation Accreditation The Outcomes Accreditation Process The Relationship between 0A and the Effective Schools Movement Participative Management and Collaboration in 0A CA as Organizational Change Shared Vision and Goals Collaboration, Collegiality, and Decision Making Maintaining Change Model for the Study Fields in which the Process Operates Context Culture Process Vision and Mission Shared Goals, Program Strategies and Implementation Influences and Outcomes Students Staff Organization and Decision Making vi 16 16 18 18 19 21 23 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 35 36 37 vii Building Administrative Organization Central Office -District Administrative Organization District Union Summary Chapter 3 Unit of Analysis Sample Selection Data Sources and Methodology Survey Validity and Reliability Survey Analysis Ethnography, Visits, and Interviews Reliability Documents and Contextual Data Presentation of Data Stories Comprehensive Analysis Summary Chapter 4 Part 1: Schools Implementing 0A Central High School Data Collection Parental Support The Building Student Body Teaching and Learning Administrative Leadership District Resources Teaching Staff Outcomes Accreditation Initial 0A Experience Teacher Leadership for CA Target Goal Committees Staff Outcomes Staff Training Involvement Collaboration Decision Making Outcomes Internal Decision Making - Building Organization External 40 43 43 45 45 47 47 51 52 56 57 59 $$$83$393888$% 65 66 69 71 72 76 viii Central Office Decision Making 76 Union Decision Making 76 0A - Success Story or Not 78 North High School 80 Data Collection 80 The Building 80 Student Body 81 Teaching and Learning 81 Administrative Leadership 82 District Resources 84 Teaching Staff 84 Outcomes Accreditation 85 Initial OA Experience 85 Teacher Leadership for CA 86 Target Goal Committees 87 Staff Outcomes 90 Staff Training 90 Involvement 9] Collaboration 93 Decision Making Outcomes 93 Internal Decision Making - Building Organization 93 External Central Office Decision Making 97 Union Decision Making 98 0A - Success Story or Not 98 West High School 100 Data Collection 101 Parental Support 101 The Building 101 Student Body 102 Teaching and Learning 102 Administrative Leadership 103 District Resources 103 Teaching Staff 104 Outcomes Accreditation 104 Initial 0A Experience 104 Teacher Leadership for CA 104 Target Goal Committees 106 Staff Outcomes 108 Staff Training 108 Involvement 109 Collaboration 111 Decision Making Outcomes 112 Internal Decision Making — Building Organization 112 IX External Decision Making Central Office Decision Making Union Decision Making 0A — Success Story or Not Comparison of Schools Part II: Comprehensive Analysis District Resources Staff Involvement Nature and Extent of the Involvement Change in Attitudes and Behaviors Staff Experience Gender Staff Training and Collaboration Focus on Process and Target Goals Teacher Input Collaboration Problems Relative to Training Decision Making Internal - Building Organization and Management External Decision Making — Central Office External Decision Making — Union Summary Chapter 5 Summary Findings ”The Vision Thing” Staff and Training Training and Collaboration Building Level Decision Making Process Central Office Decision Making Union Impact on Decision Making Conclusions Reflections Limitations and Delimitations Recommendations for Future Research Summary Appendices Appendix A. Approval from the University Appendix B. Mailing to Schools Letter Summary of the Study 114 114 115 115 117 117 120 122 122 124 124 125 126 126 127 129 130 131 131 134 135 136 138 138 139 139 140 141 142 143 144 144 145 147 148 151 152 153 153 155 X Letter of Support, William Bushaw Appendix C. Phone Interview Questions Appendix D. Consent Forms — School and Individual Appendix E. N CA Standards for Schools Appendix F. Survey of School Staff Appendix G. Interview Questions - School Staff Appendix H. Staff Training and Experience by School Bibliography 157 158 159 161 166 173 175 176 Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. LIST OF TABLES Involvement by Teaching Area - Central High School Comparison of Trust and Teamwork by Administration and 0A Comm. - Central High School Building Level Decision Making — Central High School Responses to ”Majority of Staff Are Involved in Decision Making” Differentiated by Role - Central High School Comparison by Gender to Central Office Comparison of Trust and Teamwork by Administration and 0A Comm. - North High School Building Level Decision Making — North High School Involvement by Teaching Area - West High School Comparison of Trust and Teamwork by Administration and 0A Comm. - West High School Table 10. Building Level Decision Making — West High School Table 11. Comparison of Individual Buildings 70 74 75 76 95 96 110 113 114 118 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. School Improvement Model — N CA Outcomes Accreditation CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE The researcher’ s purpose in the study is to describe and explain the efforts of three senior high schools that have successfully used the North Central Association Outcomes Accreditation (0A) option for accreditation and school improvement. She describes the nature and extent of staff training, of staff involvement, of collaboration among teachers, and the decision making process in schools that have successfully used 0A to improve student outcomes. She focuses on schools that are in the fourth or fifth year of the project and centers on what happened within the staff and the organization as a result of working on student outcomes using the 0A process. The impact of the district, union, and building administrative structure on the nature of the decision making process is examined. The changes in the attitudes and behaviors of the staff, the extent of involvement, and nature and extent of collaboration are included in the experiences of each building. A model describing the 0A experience is presented that suggests that 0A is a non-linear process. The staff involvement, collaboration, student performance, and decision making process interact within the larger fields of ethos and context. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY The Outcomes Accreditation model developed by the North Central Association is a recent expansion of the effective schools and school improvement process into senior high schools. It is a model that follows many of the principles of the effective schools research and focuses on schools developing their own program to improve student success (North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Michigan Committee, 1991). Rather than I ,' 2 relying on student background or the school program per se (inputs), 0A examines the influence the school has on the students it serves (outputs). The CA process asks that schools identify no more than five areas on which they want to focus their improvement activities. Target goals are written for each area, focusing on both cognitive and affective areas. The goals are written in such a way that changes in student behavior can be measured over time. The process requires formation of a school improvement team chaired by faculty member(s). The team gathers information about the students and community, confirms the school’s mission, prioritizes instructional objectives, and selects target goals. To accomplish these goals, committees including teachers, administrators, community members, and possibly students meet to develop and implement strategies. The school is visited on three occasions over a five year period by a Resource Team that offers an outside opinion, ensures that procedures are being followed, and serves the needs of the school. At the end of the five years, schools either receive 0A status, continue in OA candidacy status, or return to a traditional evaluation format. Those who receive 0A status will continue the cycle of goal setting, planning, implementing, and evaluating. In a general sense, this is a study of ”effective” schools. The literature surrounding effective schools is extensive. Many criticize the methodology, however, asserting that it lacks solid output measures and control over variables (Purkey and Smith, 1983 ). Rosenholtz (1989) asserts that a more important concern is the conceptual base. She questions the fact that student learning gains have been associated with a handful of school characteristics without convincing rationales and empirical support for how those specific characteristics actually come to affect the internal dynamics of the schools. A 3 second concern is the one dimensional aspect of school effectiveness measured only by student learning. She asserts that most organizational theorists feel that effectiveness is more a multidimensional construct than a unidimensional one (Kanter 8: Brinkerhoff , 1981). Many of the early reports of effective schools practices came from elementary schools. Moving school improvement into senior high schools has proved more difficult. Purkey and Smith (1985) cite at least three differences between elementary and secondary schools that help to account for the smaller number of high schools engaging in school improvement: secondary schools are organizationally more complex; they are politically more complicated; and students differ because of established educational histories, definite attitudes toward learning, and competing peer group influence. In addition, the generally larger staff and student body of senior highs, conflicting interest groups, and greater socio—economic and educational diversity have produced a larger bureaucracy than in elementary schools, which tend to be smaller. Finally, secondary schools have more diverse goals so that many feel that performance on standardized tests in core subject areas is an inadequate measure of success. Producing real change in schools has received considerable attention in recent years by the public, educators, and researchers. Many studies have focused on initial requirements, have charted efforts for a short time, and have described the implementation of programs, often initiated top-down (Hord, 1987; Fullan, 1982). Little study has been made, though, of the characteristics necessary for the continued support after a period of several years as the change either becomes institutionalized or fades away. Hord (1987) recognizes that system-centered change is much broader and harder to define. Indeed, Lieberman and Miller (1990) assert that changes in 4 instructional practices do not take hold in schools that infantilize teachers and push them into patterns of defensiveness and conservatism. PERSPECTIVE OF THE STUDY In this study the researcher looks at school improvement from a social organization perspective. This holds that the ultimate variable is the meaning that the organization has for those who work within it. Further, reality is defined through shared assumptions about appropriate attitudes and behaviors, and meanings are exchanged and negotiated through communication and observation (Rosenholtz, 1989). This perspective is broader than organization and management. It focuses, as Schlectly (1990) suggests, on changing rules, roles, and relationships in school and on learning new ways of leading. As Perrow (1986) describes the approach, the explanation for organizational behavior is not in the formal structure of goals, purposes, and output of goods and services, but in processes, informal groups, conflicts between groups, recruitment policies, dependency on outside groups and constituencies, striving for prestige, community values, local community power structure, and legal institutions. The unit of analysis is the building. This tends to de-emphasize individual members per se. It recognizes that differences in teachers’ experience, education, and personality exist, but centers, instead, on the shared aspects of work that cut across individual stories with enough force to explain the pattern of beliefs and behaviors in schools (Rosenholtz, 1989). The researcher argues that context, school ethos, and the decision making process, form such a formidable structure that individual departments cannot isolate themselves and become independent ”improvement” projects, although they do set subject matter goals and develop attitudes and practices 3.85:3 £53896qu 380850 <02 Eco—z EuEgEAE— Begum H unswE mum mmUZm—DNLZ_ been 3535 5:83.560 Ems—mica: wEEEH 6 which vary significantly within buildings. However, the building is the focus of the broader goals often attached to senior highs in school improvement projects (Louis and Miles, 1990). THEORETICAL MODEL Traditionally, program change has been described as a linear process: Decide on goals, Develop strategies and program, Implement, Evaluate. The model (Figure 1, p. 5) shows the non-linear interaction of many aspects of the school organization as it struggles to change. The focus of this study is on only four of those aspects: the nature and extent of (1) staff training; (2) staff involvement; (3) collaboration; and (4) the decision making process. The purpose of the model, however, is to set those four aspects within a larger framework. The model has two fields in which the process develops: context and ethos. These are not constants, however. They change because of and during the process. For example, collaboration between teachers and administrators and among teachers may change the school ethos and the district context through a slow evolutionary process. Or, increased student performance may change the extent of community support. Context, used here, means the forces of national, state, community and district characteristics, laws, policies, and influential groups on the high school . Numerous studies have indicated the importance that factors such as state equalized valuation (SEV), expenditures per pupil, socio-economic status of the community, and education of the parents have on the student body and on the predictability of student outcomes. The nationwide call for school reform has been widely documented (e.g., National Commission on Excellence, 1983; Goodlad, 1984) and influences the beliefs of the community, board members, and teachers. Changes in state laws and regulations can force schools to change priorities. 7 School culture, or ethos, describes the characteristics and distinguishing attitudes, habits, and beliefs of those people in the building. In senior high schools, this includes those of both staff and students. The ethos manifests itself in speech, including stories and myths (e.g. Peters and Waterman, 1982; Rosenholtz, 1989; Louis and Miles, 1990); in physical symbols such as furnishings and architecture (e.g., Johnson, 1985, DePree, 1989); and in daily experiences and interpretations of reality (Rosenholtz, 1989, Louis and Miles, 1990). Although both context and ethos are critical in the functioning of school improvement, the model focuses more on what happens to three components: the students, the staff, and the structure of the decision making process. These components influence what happens during the process and change as a result of the process. The formal 0A process targets only specific student outcomes and measures the changes in student performance. Because these vary from building to building, formal comparison is difficult. The purpose of the study goes beyond student outcomes. It includes the nature and extent of the changes in staff attitude and behavior and the nature of decision making outcomes. In particular, the staff outcomes to be examined include changes in behavior and attitude as a result of training, the nature and extent of involvement and the nature and extent of collaboration. The decision making process outcomes include the impact of and changes in the building administrative organization, the district administrative organization, and the union organization. The model shows three influences on the process: students, decision making process, and staff characteristics. Students vary widely from district to district. Family background has been widely recognized as the best predictor of school success. Study of the effect of socio-economic status on student performance, in fact, served as the impetus for early effective schools research (Edmonds, 1979). Each school, as part of the OA process, describes the students 8 in the School and Community Profile and measures changes in data to describe the student outcomes. The study includes the goals of each school in their stories, but recognizes that the data have no common measure and cannot be compared across buildings. Another influence is the organizational structure. The key is how the organization adapts its decision making in the OA process. The structure includes not only the building administration but also the district administration and the district teacher organization (union). Lawler (1988) asserts that projects trying to change communication, goals, and culture must be owned by key power groups in the organization. Everybody, including top management, top union officials, and building administrators must see the project as theirs and must commit to its success. Bolrnan and Deal (1991) propose that complex organizations need to integrate four frames - structural, human resource, political, and symbolic - to effectively change. District administrative support includes not only rhetoric, but a commitment in resources such as time, dollars, and technical assistance (Louis and Miles, 1991). Another significant factor is the fact that decision making needs to be pushed to lower levels (Lawler, 1988). Lezotte and Jacoby (1990) conclude that changes using a participatory process to meet identified needs and student achievement goals are much more likely to become institutionalized. The study notes the resources and decision making authority given by central office administration and the effect on the perceived success of the program. Many studies have ignored the impact of teacher unions on school improvement. Rosow and Zagner (1989) assert that in the early stages both sides may want objective defenses, such as written agreement of intent or new language in the contract. Louis and Miles (1990) point out that labor conflicts may affect the willingness of staff to put in additional time. This dissertation 9 notes the interaction of union leadership with those in the buildings involved in school improvement. The role of the building administration relative to school improvement is more complex at the senior high, as well. Louis and Miles (1990) find that, despite the call for principals as instructional leaders, few high school principals feel qualified in curricular reform outside of the discipline in which they once taught. Moreover, they hardly have time because of the time required for overall management of the organization and the need to serve as the front line of contact for both the public and the district. Despite this, principals are accountable for how the programs are carried out (Lipham and Ranking, 1982). The relationship with the district is illustrated by the fact that 58% of the principals interviewed by Louis and Miles (1990) indicate that lack of autonomy created problems in carrying out their plans for reform. Principals still, however, generally control the nature of the decision making process and the extent of collaboration in decisions within the building. Shared leadership and greater collaboration are components of participatory management. The study explores components of the decision making such as the amount of information shared by administration, the development of a team spirit among the staff, collaboration between teachers and administrators, and shared decision making. The last influence is the staff. The isolated and departmental role of secondary teachers and the nature of their relationship with students has been widely documented (e.g. Cusick, 1983; Goodlad, 1984). Many calling for effective schools, restructuring, and participative management cite the need for teacher leadership (e.g. Peterson and Lezotte and Ramirez, Webb, and Guthrie in Bliss, Firestone, 8: Richards, 1991; Lieberman and Miller, 1990; Louis and Miles, 1990; Purkey and Smith, 1985). Many teachers, however, lack the training to work 10 collaboratively and the patience and time to tackle school improvement. Characteristics such as experience, education, and training make a difference in carrying out the teacher roles. Actual worker behavior is a function of two variables: the expectation that behavior will result in the desired outcome, and the belief that satisfaction will come from the outcome. These variables help to form the ethos of the school. Thus, the study describes the experience, education, training, beliefs and behaviors of the teachers in the programs. The center column on the model (Figure 1) describes the 0A process prescribed by North Central. It follows the change process described in current literature. It begins by developing a vision and mission, then develops shared goals and program strategies, and finally implements and evaluates the program. The process will be described in more detail in Chapter Two. Examples of how the process works in each building will be part of the stories in Chapter Four. The CA model, as do most other forms of school improvement or effective schools reform, uses student behavioral change as the sole outcome (e.g., incidence of behaviors, test scores, portfolios). Since high school measures vary widely, each school sets outcome measures based on the original data (a ”data- driven” model). The model forces schools to develop plans that deal with the ”quality with equity” issue. That is, a program strategy must bring an improvement in a subset designed to indicate that the strategy will help all students in the building, not just a small group at the top or the bottom. The CA model does require, however, affective as well as cognitive goals (North Central Association, Michigan Committee, 1990). Reporting to the Resource Team and to N CA is based solely on improvement in student outcomes on the target goals developed by the staff. 11 This study goes beyond student outcomes and focuses on what happens to the staff and the decision making structure. Recent studies have begun to recognize the limitations of using a one dimensional measure of an effective school (e.g., Sedlak, Wheeler, Pullin, and Cusick, 1986). The experiences of the schools describe the decision making strategies of the organization. The model shows many overlapping factors, as well as reciprocity between the influences, process, and outcomes. This reflects the complexity of changing behaviors and beliefs. Several have observed the importance of teacher-teacher collaboration in schools that have changed in a school improvement process (Lieberman and Miller, 1990; Conley and Bacharach, 1990). An important part of this may be the means of providing time for collaboration to take place (Watts and McClure, 1990). The researcher in the study describes primarily the staff and decision making outcomes in successful 0A schools. She describes three parties in decision making change: district administration, union administration, and building administration. The district factors focus particularly on sharing resources (time and personnel) and moving decisions to a lower level. The union factors focus on a willingness to allow buildings to change the decision making process. The building administrative factors include sharing information, developing a team spirit, and building teacher-administrator collaboration. She also describes three components of staff change: training, involvement, and collaboration. Training includes the nature and extent of training during OA. Involvement means both the numbers of staff involved and the nature of the involvement. Collaboration is the extent to which teachers work with and share information with each other. 12 OVERVIEW or “me STUDY The Sample The researcher recruited schools for the study among senior high schools that began the North Central Association’s Outcomes Accreditation process in 1988 or 1989. These schools are all located in Michigan. Site contacts were based on a list provided by the Michigan Committee of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The list was narrowed to three schools who perceived themselves as successful, who were willing to commit the time and energy to the study, and who were judged successful by others. To be judged successful schools met the following criteria: (1) Increased performance on at least three of the target goals; (2) A positive attitude towards the outComes of CA by both the principal and the teacher chairperson(s); and (3) Recognition by North Central Association as successful. The three schools are in the suburbs of a large metropolitan area. A more complete description of the process is included in Chapter 3. A more complete description of the schools is in Chapter 4. Information Gathered in the Study Information was gathered from three sources: documents, a survey of the staff , and interviews with various people involved within the school. Documents include basic demographic and financial data; reports prepared for N CA Resource Teams and yearly reports; school district and building guidelines; and teacher union contracts. Each staff member completed a survey that is described in more detail in Chapter 3. During on-site visits various staff members were interviewed, including several key teacher leaders, the principal, and various others who had been involved in each building. The process for the interviews is described in Chapter 3. Results of the data are presented in Chapter 4. 13 SIGNIFICANCE School effectiveness and school improvement receive constant attention today. The state and national contexts in which schools operate have become increasingly critical of the results on a national level, although many individuals support the results in their local schools. Moving the results of these programs into the senior high has proven a formidable challenge. Additional knowledge of the impact of various forces on the change, the process itself, and the outcomes will aid senior highs interested in engaging in a major change process. The importance is further highlighted in Michigan because of PA-25, enacted by the State Legislature in 1990. PA-25 requires a school improvement plan in each building overseen by a committee of teachers, administrators, parents, non-certified staff members, and students; a three year plan based on measurable outcomes; yearly written reports on the plan and progress to the community; and state accreditation . Schools using the NCA Outcomes Accreditation model will fulfill the requirements for the state accreditation visit, although schools will still need to meet the yearly reports for the state. RESEARCH QUESTIONS How and to what extent, if any, does staff involvement vary in successful OA schools? How and to what extent, if any, does the training of staff vary in successful OA schools? How and to what extent, if any, does teacher-teacher collaboration vary in schools successfully using 0A? How and to what extent, if any, does the decision making process vary in successful 0A schools? 14 DEFINITIONS Context. The impact of larger outside organizations on the building, including national, state, community, and district forces. Ethos. The culture of the school organization, generally expressed in the beliefs, attitudes, stories,and behaviors that form the individuals within the building and, reciprocally, are formed by them. Process. The steps used in accomplishing change through 0A: Development of a vision; Development of a mission; Setting target goals; Designing program strategies; Implementing; Evaluating. Student Outcomes. Student performance which may be measured not only by tests, but also by attendance and behavioral data, teacher observation, portfolios, etc. Involvement. The percentage of staff members involved in outcomes accreditation work and the extent to which the involvement represents more effort than existed before 0A. Outcomes Accreditation (0A). A school-based accreditation and evaluation model that helps schools document the effectiveness of their programs. Schools are required to target their evaluation efforts by measuring changes in student behavior, i.e., outcomes. Collaboration. A process of working with other professionals, as equals, to improve principal, teacher, and student learning. Decision Making. A process for sharing responsibility and accountability. Generally a group / person must have access to information, influence, and authority to be part of decision making. Participatory (participative) management. An organizational pattern that moves information to lower levels, seeks input, and shares decision making. It includes collaboration as equals among teachers and administrators. 15 SUMIWARY This chapter included the nature of the North Central Outcomes Accreditation Program. It presented a model for change that shows the OA process fitting into the larger fields of context and ethos. Influences on the process and outcomes from the process include the aspects of the staff, the decision making process, and the students. The process includes the developing vision, mission, shared goals, and program strategies, as well as implementing and evaluating the program. The process is not linear, though, with interchange happening at various stages and changing the nature of the influences. The study focuses particularly on the nature and extent of staff training and staff involvement and on collaboration among teachers. In addition it examines the decision making process used during the process, both external (district and union) and internal (building administrative structure). Chapter Two contains a review of the literature. Chapter Three explains the design of the study in greater detail. Chapter Four tells the stories of the schools in the study and provides quantitative data relative to the research questions. Chapter Five summarizes the findings, reflects on the implications, and suggests future needs for study. CHAPTER 2 Chapter 1 summarized the purpose and general design of the study. The purpose of the dissertation is to describe and explain what happens to the staff and the decision making process of a school as it uses the Outcomes Accreditation process. It presented a model (Figure 1, p. 5) that places the OA process within two encompassing fields - the context surrounding the school and the ethos of the building. It limited the focus of the study to staff changes (training, background, involvement) and decision making changes within the organization (district, union, and building administration). Chapter 2 reviews the literature relating to social organization theory, to Outcomes Accreditation, to change, and to the various components of the model. It shows the connection between the literature and the model for the study. SOCIAL ORGANIZATION THEORY Some argue that change in an organization is based in management theory. Bolrnan and Deal (1991) urge the use of a management perspective that integrates the structural, human resource, political and symbolic frames. They note that work in organizational theory that contains concepts from more than one of the frames is increasing rapidly, finding three examples in recent years that make use of all four: Kanter (1983), Perrow (1986), and Birnbaum (1988). Bolrnan and Deal conclude their book with several chapters that focus on leadership practices that discuss the integration of the frames. This dissertation recognizes the strength of their argument and recognizes that it describes the complexity of changing organizations. The researcher argues, though, that the loosely coupled nature of the secondary school mitigates the power of the principal as a single leader to bring about change. 16 17 Therefore, this study is approached from a social organization perspective which holds that the primary variable is the meaning the organization has for those who work within it. Fullan (1991) asserts that change in education is being played in social settings. Thus, ”solutions must come through the development of shared meaning. The interface between the individual and collective meaning and action in everyday situations is where change stands or falls” (p. 5). He notes that individuals have to develop new meaning, but that these individuals are insignificant parts of a gigantic, loosely organized, complex, messy social system that contains myriad different subjective worlds. Meryl Louis (1985) cites sociologists Howard Becker and Blanche Greer who describe a group culture based on a set of common understandings around which action is organized and expressed in a language containing nuances to any member of the group. She characterizes a group’s culture as a ”set of understandings or meanings shared by a group of people. The meanings are largely tacit among members, are clearly relevant to the particular group, and are distinctive to the group. Meanings are passed on to new group members ”(p. 176). Simon (1991) notes that what an individual learns in an organization is very much dependent on what is already known to (or believed by) other members of the organization and what kinds of information are present in the organization environment. Individual learning in organizations is very much a social, not a solitary, phenomenon. Over time the ethos and beliefs must change if behaviors are to change, although Fullan (1991) asserts that changes in behavior precede rather than follow changes in belief. Rosenholtz (1989) contends that people form meanings from everyday interactions so that social organization varies from school to school, causing 18 different definitions of school reality. She explains that all people need self- esteem. Teachers avoid situations where performance adequacy is called into question and they devise ways to avoid such occasions. In addition, age and years of experience in teaching affect the readiness and the nature of response of the staff to change (Huberman 1988). Bidwell and Kasarda (1980) explain that the social structure of instructional units affects the way they distribute resources to students and the way students use the resources they receive, particularly resources such as people, materials, and time. BaSing the study in social organization theory focuses attention on the staff and the changes in the staff as well as the interplay in the decision making process within the organization. As various aspects of the 0A process take place, people’s reactions and relations with each other Change. The stories of each school in Chapter 4 document the non-linear way these changes take place. The following section explains the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the Outcomes Accreditation process, and the relationship of 0A to both the effective schools movement and school improvement. NORTH CENTRAL OUTCOMES ACCREDITATION Accreditation The North Central Association, established in 1895, is the largest of Six regional accrediting associations. It is non-governmental and non- bureaucratic and works to ensure the community that minimum standards are maintained (NCA Michigan Committee 1991). Accreditation has reacted to the national assessment movement by trying to make the accreditation procedure more accountable to the public for the educational products. 19 (Elwell, 1992). Elwell argues that goal attainment and assessment must permeate the concept of institutional effectiveness. He notes the importance of the managerial process, organizational climate, and environmental adaptation (the ability to acquire and maintain resources and its vulnerability to environmental change). North Central has accommodated those concerns in its Standards for CA Schools and in its E-Standards (Appendix E). Schools meet the availability of resources required in the general standards. Beyond that, though, the OA process focuses on student attainment of specific goals. The Outcomes Accreditation Process The NCA Outcomes Accreditation is a process that follows many of the principles of the effective schools research and results in schools focusing their activities on improving student success. Schools are required to target their evaluation efforts by measuring changes in student behaviors, i.e. outcomes (NCA Michigan Committee 1991). The process, adopted for use in April, 1987, requires schools to focus on five goals, including three cognitive and two affective goals. Student outcomes are measured by comparing desired levels of performance with present performance as well as improvement during the 0A cycle. The CA process focuses exclusively on student outcomes. In order to show success in the process, schools are required to Show improvement in student outcomes in the target goals during the time of the program in order to receive full 0A accreditation. One advantage of the 0A process over some of the earlier effective schools studies is that it includes both cognitive and affective goals. Each building develops its own strategies, implementation plan, baseline data, and data to be used for evaluation. Examples of data sources include criterion and norm referenced tests; anecdotal records; attitude 20 inventories; teacher-made tests; student participation rates; writing samples; and attendance and enrollment figures. Surveys and questionnaires collected by the school also serve as important sources of information, especially in gauging perceptions. Affective goals may be measured by counts in behaviors, by change in the number of positive or negative behaviors, or by teacher observation of student behavior. The greater diversity of the high school has moved measurement of effectiveness away from a Single criterion of a test-based performance. Rossman, Corbett, and Firestone (1988) suggest that the definition of high school effectiveness Should be multifaceted because the quality of life and education seems to suffer when too much attention is given to just one criterion, especially if it is an achievement test. An important component of 0A is known as ”quality with equity,” described in the Standards for CA schools (Appendix E). A subpopulation of students is traced in order to monitor its success and ensure that quality programs are offered in an equitable manner. Any target goal must be directed at improving performance of the entire student body; it may not address only the needs of a single high-performing or low-performing group. Nor may it address the needs of students in a single department of study, unless the skills in that department are shown to permeate instruction across the disciplines. The program is guided by a school improvement team, chaired by a teacher. Committees composed of administrators, teachers, parents, and members of the community help to develop the strategies and monitor the progress of each of the goals. Requiring this type of team encourages the use of some elements of participative management. 21 A visiting team of teachers and administrators serves a dual role, ensuring that the procedures are being properly followed and serving as a resource to the school. It maintains contact over the five year period needed to achieve Outcomes Accreditation. During the first visit, about a year after the process begins, the team reviews the mission statement, information about the school and community, and the target goals selected by the faculty. The second visit, about one year later, monitors the strategies designed to accomplish the goals, the timeliness, and resources needed and the beginning of documentation. The third visit, about two years later, validates that the school is meeting the expectations that student success is observable and has been documented (Michigan Committee, 1991). In March, 1992, Battle Creek Central, the first high school in Michigan to complete the cycle, received full status as an Outcomes Accredited high school at the annual meeting of North Central Association. In 1993, Big Rapids, East Detroit, Kingsford, Mount Clemens, and Warren Fitzgerald high schools also received full status as OA schools. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OA AND THE EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS MOVEMENT In a general sense, 0A follows many of the ideas of the effective schools and school improvement movements. Effective schools research, begun in the 1970’s to respond to studies by Coleman (1966) and Jencks et a1. (1972), originally targeted inner city schools and studied schools where students performed better on standardized tests than would have been predicted based on socio-economic status and background of parents. Edmonds’ research (1979) was largely a description of characteristics of outlier schools that had performance records that were better than expected. Many criticized the movement (e.g., Purkey and Smith, 1983) for the lack of a 22 theoretical base and inadequate longitudinal data. However, it continued to grow during the 1980’s; the Government Accounting Office (GAO) (1989) estimated that 41% of the nation’s school districts used effective schools models in 1988. Many states mandated various components of effective schools under a school improvement model. Indeed the GAO study showed that 50% of the schools in its figures were required to use it. The exact definition of an effective school remains elusive because each program is idiosyncratic (Rossman, Dickson, Corbett, and Firestone 1988). But Purkey and Smith (1985) identified nine characteristics that appear in most of the literature: school Site management and democratic decision making; leadership; staff stability; curriculum articulation and organization; staff development; parental involvement and support; school wide recognition of academic success; maximized learning time; and district support. They note four common threads throughout the literature: collaborative planning and collegial relationships; sense of community; clear goals and high expectations commonly shared; and order and discipline. The first three are characteristics of Outcomes Accreditation as well. The CA process (North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Michigan Committee, 1991) has several components of effective schools and school improvement theory that this research assumes : (1) A focus on Student outcomes; (2) A process-centered approach encouraging idiosyncratic solutions to specific situations in each building; (3) A data-driven program that insists on quality with equity; (4) A change in the instructional approaches in the building; (5) A collaborative approach; (6) A more participative decision making process. Evaluation of the 0A process within each building (#1 in above list) focuses solely on student outcomes in the target goal areas determined by the school. The use of the process and quality 23 with equity (#2 and #3 in above list) is assured by the Resource Team Visitations and reports. The other components are assumed to have occurred. The purpose of this study is to describe and explain the nature and extent of changes in instruction, collaboration, and decision making that occur within successful OA buildings. PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION IN DA Two of the components of OA referred to above are collaboration and participative decision making. The study examines the effect that use of the 0A process has on them both. These two components describe the nature of leadership and decision making. The earliest effective schools models called for strong administrative leadership. Since then, however, the movement has been to include several components of participative management. Purkey and Smith (1985) review the literature and cite several characteristics relating to participative management. Those include school site management and democratic decision making, collaborative planning and collegial relationships, sense of community, and clear goals and high expectations commonly shared. Lezotte (1990) also includes several participative management components in his model: decentralized decision making; recognition of the individual school as the strategic unit for planned change; and the use of collaboration and empowerment to increase teacher and administration involvement in the planning and problem solving. The interest in participative management reflects that shown in industry (Lawler 1988; Peters and Waterman 1982). The theory expands on Likert's System 4 (1967) which is based on teamwork, mutual trust, and confidence. Ouchi's Theory Z (1981) is characterized by information and initiative from the bottom up rather than top down; by top management as a facilitator of decision making rather than as an issuer of edicts; by middle 24 management as an impetus and shaper of solutions; by consensus; and by a concern for the personal well-being of all the workers. Locke and Schweiger (1979) include delegation, group involvement or decision making, and power sharing in their description of participative management. Participative management in education appears in a variety of proposals for restructuring. Ramirez, Webb, and Guthrie in Bliss et al., (1991) describe a continuum that exists when teachers, other employees, parents, and students are given a voice in the operation of the district. Schlechtly (1990) includes the following standards in his criteria for schools of the twenty-first century: Having a shared Vision; Relying on participatory decision-making; and Focusing on outcomes. Participative management takes various forms, but many programs have not maintained their effectiveness over time (Lawler, 1988). Lawler urges a new design in high involvement management that calls for core values and beliefs commonly Shared, employee involvement and responsibility for decision making, and information, power and knowledge moved to lower levels. Participatory management appears to be multi-dimensional, including both involvement and empowerment. Several components make up empowerment: Access to information; Knowledge necessary to implement; and Power to make a decision (Lawler, 1988). Even though neither effective schools nor Outcomes Accreditation focus on decision making and staff outcomes, evidence is beginning to appear that shows that student outcome changes seem to come in the schools that have greatest success in changing the organizational and work relationship to a more collaborative effort. Rosenholtz’s study (1989) of 78 elementary schools in Tennessee categorizes the schools into ”moving” and ”stuck" 25 schools. In moving schools, teachers work in specific goal-directed endeavors, work collaboratively, and help make decisions as a means of learning new ways. Teachers in stuck schools are unable to conceive of a future that is different from the past and deny that they have any power to help change the situation. Similarly, Louis and Miles’ (1990) study of school improvement in urban high schools finds that school improvement is most successful when schools and the districts are actively engaged with each other, but have few strict rules and much autonomy for the school. The staff’s cohesiveness and a reasonably coherent school organization also make a difference. Louis and Miles identify both symbolic behavior and strategies for involvement that were critical in the successful urban high schools. Symbolically, spending time indicates the level of importance of school improvement. The feeling of the principal, or a ”passionate belief in and caring about the school” conveys the values and vision to the staff. Focus helps staff Sift through the variety of activities and demands on time. Strategies include power sharing by finding staff who want to work and giving them lots of responsibility and freedom. Rewards for staff may include intrinsic ones (e.g. increased self-esteem from workshops and from successful implementation) as well as extrinsic ones. Openness and inclusiveness also marked successful programs; anyone could get involved at any time, and there were many activities they could engage in that did not require extensive commitments of time. Both power sharing and openness are characteristics of participative management. An increasing number of researchers note the connection between change in the amount of collaboration and the beliefs of the staff with an improvement of student performance. Chubb and Moe (1990) note that improved school organization alone is worth roughly one-half a year of 26 achievement. When the effects of tracking are counted, school organization is more important than either student ability or family SES. Wilson and Corcoran (1988) studied 571 secondary schools recognized as unusually successful. They found active leadership and professional work environments as two of the familiar themes in the schools. Wayson (1988) includes open communication within and across groups, shared decision making, and collegial planning and problem solving in his characteristics of effective schools. Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) also argue for schools that build collaboration into their design. The model displays these characteristics as changes in the decision making process of the organization (district, union, and building) and changes in staff involvement and collaboration as a result of working through the process. The study explores the idea that those who successfully use the process have a district and building administration that shares information and decision making and that develops team spirit — all parts of participative management. OA AS ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE School improvement and 0A efforts are based on the assumption that the way of doing business in the school will change. The literature of change is extensive. Earlier study of educational change (Hord, 1987; Fullan, 1982) focused on the implementation of programs, often initiated top-down. Fullan (1982) found that educational change depends on ”what teachers do and think - it’ s as simple and complex as that” (p. 32). Hall and Hord (1987) describe a model of Change, the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) that addresses personal and management concerns before consequences on the actions and collaboration can take place. 27 Hord (1987), however, recognizes that system-centered Change is much broader and harder to define. The model is based on tenets of humanistic psychology which stress non-hierarchical structure, personal interactions, and maximum communication. Sykes in ”Teaching Incentives: Constraint and Variety” in Schools as Collaborative Cultures (Lieberman, 1990) asserts that in the future schools must be seen as dynamic organizations undergoing cycles of growth, decay and regeneration. Lieberman and Miller (1990) discuss the difference between adoption of a program and using new processes. ”School-based management and new decision making structures are not ends in themselves; they are means to achieving more efficient environments for learning and teaching. Changes in instructional practices do not take hold in schools that infantilize teachers and push them into patterns of defensiveness and conservatism” (761). Shared Vision and Goals The importance of vision and mission has been widely explored in management literature, both in business and education (e.g., Peters and Waterman, 1982; DePree, 1989; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Schlectly, 1990). Lezotte (1990) distinguishes Vision as coming from the belief structure of the leadership of the school. A more broadly representative group agrees on the mission for the organization based on an appraisal of the student body, community, and staff. Change at the system level seems to focus on a shared vision and goals (Rosenholtz 1989; Louis and Miles 1990; Barth 1990). Rosenholtz notes that without common goals, faculties fracture into atoms with entirely separate orbits in which individual preferences force isolation from colleagues. Many authors focus on the need for a Shared Vision understood by leaders and every member of the organization as a means to more effective action (Peters 28 and Waterman 1982; Bennis and Nanus 1985; DePree 1989). O’Toole (1981) notes that workplace reform means changing the organization structure (the system of actions) and its ideology (system of beliefs). He points out that it is easier to Change the culture than individuals because change comes with systemic, total organizational change that involves worker participation in all phases and active support and commitment by top management. For schools this means the involvement of teachers and other staff in decision making, collaborative planning and flexible change strategies. Purkey and Smith (1985) note that efforts to change schools are productive and enduring when directed toward influencing the entire school culture Via a strategy involving collaborative planning, Shared decision making, and collegial work. The business world recognizes this as well. Lawler (1988) notes that evidence shows that participation in decisions about major organizational changes can lead to significant reduction in the resistance to change. Change in any organization, though, can be subverted by the individuals within. Thus, the organization does not change without the individual changing. Collaboration, Collegiality, and Decision Making Change for individuals is a process whereby they alter ways of thinking and doing. It is a process of developing new Skills and of finding meaning and satisfaction in new ways of doing things (Fullan 1985). Rosenholtz (1989) cites the need for transformation of meaning in order to achieve new and stable forms of organizational behavior. Communication with principal and colleagues points out fresh interpretations of experience. Only with fresh perspectives will the behaviors become subject to change. Louis and Miles in "Toward Effective Urban High Schools: The Importance of Planning and Coping” in Rethinking Effective Schools (Bliss et al., 1991) argue that effective 29 learning and change occur not through logical analysis (plan, then do) or random accumulation of data (trial and error), but through reflection in action, a more intuitive way of analyzing and dealing with personal behavioral issues. That approach focuses on the need for collaboration as a component in the change program. Louis and Miles (1990) explain that a solid vision is grounded in an understanding of historical strengths of the school and its staff, in realistic (but high) goals for pupils, and in an understanding of how past strengths may be tied to future performances. They add that change leaders help people develop images of ”how to get there.” These process themes tie action to vision. Maintaining Change Trying to get a change to stay in place over time is difficult. School improvement and outcomes accreditation focus on changing the process of doing things, not just implementing a single program. Fullan (1992) suggests that the relationship between changes in behavior and meaning is reciprocal. Most people try to change a behavior and then believe in its usefulness. Ownership is a progressive process. It is not something magical at the beginning, but something that comes out the other end of a change process. Fullan (1991) asserts School effectiveness projects are in the business of institutionalizing the long-term capacity for continuous improvement. We need to make this goal more explicit because one can succeed in the short run in establishing an exciting, innovative, effective school only to find it doesn’t last. Deeper changes in the very culture of the school and its relationship to outside agencies are at stake if we are to develop this generic capacity for improvement (p. 90). Huberman and Miles (1984) note that institutionalization depends on whether or not the change gets embedded, gets built into the structure 30 through policy, budget and timetables, and generates a central mass of administrators and teachers skilled in and committed to change with established procedures for continuing assistance. Purkey and Smith (1985) list chief barriers that prevent effective schools projects from maintaining success. These include implementation failure, union opposition and administrative resistance, unclear or contradictory goals, lack of central office and board of education support, lack of resources, and the absence of shared decision making. The CA process and the model (Figure 1, p. 5) reflect the importance of vision, mission, and goals in the change process. The process begins with vision, mission, and shared goals. The model shows that the process is not necessarily linear and reflects the belief that early, small successes may be necessary rather than too much time spent early in the process on defining the vision (Fullan 1992; Louis and Miles 1990). The model also focuses on the changes in both organization and staff as a result of going through the process. Thus, even though OA focuses only on student outcomes, the model builds on the multi-dimensional role of change. The study described in the following chapters explores the nature and extent of those changes. The rest of this chapter explores the literature related to the model for the study shown in Figure 1. It forms the base for the design of the study described in Chapter 3. MODEL FOR THE STUDY Fields in which the Process Operates The two fields in which the process is embedded are context and culture. Although the scope of the study does not include extensive study of these areas, they do impact the events in the three schools studied and do play 31 a part in the descriptions of the schools in Chapter 4. An understanding of them is therefore integral to an understanding of how OA works. QM The model for the current study shows the context surrounding the influences, process, outcomes, and ethos. The picture emphasizes that the improvement process does not exist within a vacuum, but within a complex social and political milieu. In Michigan this includes P.A. 25 (a 1990 legislative act mandating school improvement and accreditation of all schools in the state), Governor Engler’s Schools of Choice proposal, rollbacks in state educational funding during 1991 and 1992, complicated debates over property tax reform (the defeat of Proposals A and C in the November, 1992, election), as well as various local and national concerns. Rosenholtz (1989) suggests that the environment is a set of concentric circles. Inside each circle is a smaller one whose dimensions are constrained by the larger one. Fullan (1992) observes that the educational system has been organized to be conservative. The current environment is bombarded with change, and the two do not mesh. He suggests that changes in schools get generated from the political process as much as from within. That contrasts with the picture Perrow (1986) paints when he suggests that the environment of most powerful organizations is well controlled and stable and is made up of other organizations with similar interests. The increasing criticism of education throughout the country shapes any school improvement action, just as it shapes the daily activities within the school. The 1990’s have brought an increasing number of critics who feel that change must be brought by external forces because schools are incapable of changing themselves. In the midst of budget cuts because of the recession and increasing responsibilities for a changing school clientele, many 32 educators feel that the future of public education is in doubt (Banach, 1992). Many schools see the school improvement process as one that begins with setting a vision and mission, the process contained within the middle box in the model (Figure 1). They fail to recognize the importance of the larger context. More researchers are noting that change in individual buildings will be affected by the district (Rosenholtz, 1989; Louis and Miles, 1990; Lezotte, 1990; Olson, 1991). Firestone, in the Introduction to Rethinking Effective Schools: Research and Practice (Bliss et al., 1991), notes that schools operate in a complex environment with multiple internal and external constituencies. Even though the scope of this study precludes a detailed analysis of the effect of the context on the OA process, its effect shows itself in the descriptions of events at each school provided in Chapter 4. Further study is required in this important area. 93131.3 The culture, or ethos, of any organization shapes the nature of what goes on there. Management theory suggests that real change depends upon changing the culture. Lawler (1988) reports that a number of studies have shown that programs limited to a few individuals or groups have trouble surviving because they are foreign entities in a hostile environment. Bennis and Nanus (1985) suggest that designing and managing the ethos is one of four pivotal responsibilities of a leader and call for transformational leadership. They note that ”Mature organizations must revitalize in one way or another in order to compete in increasingly tough environments” (p.151). DePree (1989) similarly calls for leaders to foster environments and work processes within which people can develop high quality relationships. Schools are no different. Rosenholtz and Simpson (1990) note that organizational settings can foster exchange of ideas among staff, encourage 33 use of feedback from superiors to improve, and emphasize introduction of new ideas to assist performance. They find that school settings that facilitate learning may increase teachers’ commitment. Lawler (1988) notes that people who are given interesting tasks and participation in decisions about how to perform them have high levels of intrinsic motivation. Kouzes and Posner (1990) identify trust as the most significant factor of satisfaction with an organization. People who trust allow others to participate. Those who do not trust cannot be dependent on the work of others and do it all themselves. Collegiality is another central theme of school improvement literature that forms part of the culture of the school. Lieberman and Miller (1990) call for a new way for teachers and principals to work together to uphold a collaborative culture. Barth (1990) urges schools to move away from ”list logic” that tends to be prescriptive for other people and other people’s children and instead become a community of learners and leaders. He holds that staff development has its greatest success when it rearranges the conditions and structures under which teachers work. Rosenholtz (1989) extends the importance of teacher learning when she finds that students learn more when teachers have greater opportunities to learn. Purkey and Smith (1983) note that schools involved in the effective schools process link content with process to arrive at a notion of school culture that includes the organizational structure, roles, norms, values, the nature and style of political and social relationships, and the flow of information within the school. The model in this study displays the culture as a field in which everything rests and interacts. The ethos changes as a result of the interaction of the influences, process, and outcomes. Staff training and background interact with the administrative and union organization within the district as well as the building administration. Culture will not be analyzed in detail, 34 but the stories the schools tell in Chapter 4 will include references to the culture and its change during OA. Process The DA process as prescribed by North Central begins with formulating vision and mission. After gathering student data, the staff sets target goals . Teacher committees develop and implement program stategies to reach the goals. The model (Figure 1) shows the process as a linear one in keeping with the prescribed process. The process, however, is not that simple. In reality, the influences on the process and the outcomes from it continually interact to change it. To demonstrate this, the model shows the entire process within a box, producing outcomes and interacting with staff, student, and decision making both as an influence and as an outcome. The formalized OA model uses the linear approach although reality seldom works that way. Louis and Miles (1990) cite the need for some small ”wins” early in school improvement programs. That implies that a few strategies will be implemented rather quickly while others take much longer. The multiplicity of the goals and strategies forces a much more complex implementation. The fact is that staff development activities change the input of the staff and the more participative model may change the building organizational pattern and the school culture even before a full program has been implemented. Vision and Mission Fullan (1992), for example, feels that early successes are critical and precede the forming of a vision. His assertion that ”behavior forms beliefs” rather than the other way around supports the idea that the process is not a linear one. Several researchers suggest that spending too much time at the beginning forming vision, mission, and goals without producing anything 35 can keep the program from becoming institutionalized (e.g.,Louis and Miles, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989; Fullan, 1991). Many feel that vision develops over time as work proceeds on specific programs (Fullan, 1991; Louis and Miles, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989). School improvement and Outcomes Accreditation literature suggest that the process is critical (e.g., Lezotte and Iacoby, 1990; Fullan, 1991; Hall and Hord, 1987). The vision of the school, both personal and shared, seems central to most descriptions of effective schools. Barth (1992) suggests that vision is the most important condition in bringing about change. Block (1987) differentiates between visions and goals. A vision is strongly value-laden, alluding optimistically to possibilities of greatness and of how we would like the organization to be. The case studies of Louis and Miles suggest that reasonable staff cohesiveness is required to begin the task of spreading ownership and understanding of themes and vision. Typically a vision is generated out of the planning process, rather than prior to it This happens as schools generate strategies that link to their own histories and as themes become integrated into a vision through informal planning and articulation. Certainly when writers cite the idiosyncratic nature of school improvement, they reinforce the fact that vision has to be developed over time. Block (1987) argues that mission and vision are not the same. ”The mission statement names the game we are going to play... a vision is more a philosophy about how we are going to manage the business” (p. 218). Lezotte (1990) suggests that all schools must choose ”teaching for learning” as their primary mission. Shared goals, Program Strategies, and Implementation Shared goals spell out the programs that schools plan to use to achieve the visions they have. Outcomes Accreditation requires that schools choose 36 five target goals, generally three cognitive and two affective. The plan suggests that schools consider the student profile report, current initiatives, and staff concerns as they decide on the particular goals. Target goals must be written as student outcomes and must be measurable. (Michigan Committee, 1990). Teacher committees decide how to document success and establish baselines and desired levels of student performance. Then they develop an improvement plan which contains strategies for reaching the goals. These strategies may include staff training, curriculum changes, testing changes, or program changes. Some pieces of the plan may be implemented rather quickly and others may take much more time. The model suggests that this is not a linear process leading directly to outcomes after implementation. Instead, stories from the schools in Chapter 4 disclose clues that show that the process works for greatest effectiveness when goals and strategies are continually monitored and adjusted. The process itself is not a part of the analysis, although stories from the school tell how the process affected the development of the program over a period of years. Data presented in Chapter 4 include actual student outcomes from two of the schools that are in their fifth year. Influences and Outcomes The model shows three influences and outcomes in the OA process, each oval overlapping with the others. The interaction with the process block in the center is an ongoing one, rather than one that happens once at the beginning or end. The primary focus of this study is on the staff and organizational decision making influences and outcomes. Students are central, though, to the process described by N CA. The discussion in the following sections combines the literature reflecting influences and outcomes since the change during the process is central to the study. 37 mm A study of the nature of the student body is one of the first steps in the OA process (Michigan Committee, 1991). Schools develop a school and community profile (student profile) that includes data on the student population, the fiscal base, the sociological context of the district, and performance levels of the students. The profiles provide the information that helps the staff to choose target goals. Rosenholtz’ study of elementary schools in Tennessee includes data such as the socio—economic status of students, per pupil expenditure, district size, and teachers’ education. She examines the effect of those elements on school improvement projects. Louis and Miles (1990) studied only urban high schools and note differences in the development and skill levels of students. They cite typical norms described by Powell et al. (1985) and compare urban high schools to them. While Powell et al. describe a typical school that has 15 percent of the students with skill deficiencies or learning disabilities, they find the median school in their study has 35 percent of students performing one or more grade levels below national norms on standardized reading tests. Every school must analyze the nature of the behavior and abilities of the students to determine appropriate target goals. The CA process, as does the effective schools model, focuses exclusively on student outcomes. In fact, in order to receive full Outcomes Accreditation status, a school must show improvement in the target goals it selected. Early effective schools research based effectiveness on a narrow, measurable definition that could be compared among several buildings. Thus, standardized tests became popular. High schools, though, have greater diversity, as previously noted. The diversity exists in the nature of students’ educational experiences before 38 reaching senior high and in the lack of a clear national or state direction for secondary school educational goals. Outcomes tell the story of school improvement and Outcomes Accreditation. The programs focus exclusively on student outcomes. Each school gathers data to show the change in student performance. Evidences of success include a wide variety of approaches such as criterion—referenced, norm-referenced, and teacher constructed tests; student attendance and participation rates; teacher observations; student portfolios or anecdotal records; and attitude inventories (Michigan Committee, 1990). The data from each school on each student outcome are examined in Chapter 4. Since these goals (and the resulting data) are not consistent across buildings, statistical comparison is not possible. Stories are explored to look for common themes, problems, and successes. Since OA focuses on process, the impact of using the process is also described. The information relating to students and the achievement of the target goals form an important part of the stories from each school included in Chapter 4. The focus in the analysis in this study, however, is on the nature of the organizational and staff changes that accompany the change in student outcomes. 53a_ff Another of the influences on the school improvement process in this model is the staff. Aspects that influence the process include the experience, age, formal education, and training in specific skills through degree programs and through staff development (e.g. communication, cooperative learning). The influence of the staff on the operation of a school cannot be over- emphasized. The movement during the 1970’s was to create curriculum and textbooks that were ”teacher proof.” The downgrading helped to remove 39 decision making from the classroom teacher. Rowan (1990) suggests that if teachers perceive their tasks as routine, organizational theory suggests little rationale for collegiality. Thus organizational arrangements that are control based are not well suited to the management of schools that require teachers to make complex decisions about instruction. Fullan (1992), citing work by Judith Arin-Krup and Michael Huberman, notes that age and experience help to predict the attitudes of teaching staff toward school improvement and change. Fullan clearly links teacher development to school development. Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) assert that age, stage of career, life experiences, and gender factors affect people’s interest in and reaction to innovation and their motivation to seek improvement. Rosenholtz and Simpson (1990) suggest that teachers need different kinds of organizational support at different stages in their careers in order to feel committed to the mission of the school. In addition, teachers from different disciplines may react differently to the OA process and to the implementation of target goals in the building. In this study the relationship between the staff, the organizational decision making, and student outcomes is examined. The stories told by staff members in the school help explore the nature of the relationships and how they change as a result of the process. Factors examined include the teachers’ roles; the nature of the staff development and their role in determining it; their education, stage of life cycle, and age. The surveys completed by the entire staff provided insights that helped to direct the interviews and visits at the schools. 4O annization and Decision Making The third influence and outcome in the model is the organizational decision making. The influence comes from the building administrative organization, the district administrative organization, and the union. Building Administrative Organization. As previously noted, early effective schools literature called for a strong, directive leadership role for the principal. During the 1980’s, however, the importance of participatory decision making, collaboration, and collegiality became apparent (Darling-Hammond in Schools as Collaborative Cultures, Lieberman, 1990; Imber, N eidt, and Reyes, 1990; Olson, 1991; Louis and Miles, 1990). Darling-Hammond cites research that indicates that participatory school management by teachers and principals based on collaborative planning, collegial problem solving and constant intellectual sharing, produces both student learning gains and increased teacher satisfaction and retention. The words ”participatory decision making” alone, however, do not produce these outcomes. Imber, N eidt and Reyes (1990) describe the complexity of it and suggest that satisfaction with particular participatory decision making experiences does not guarantee a positive feeling toward participatory decision making in general and vice versa. The actual influence of the group is the critical factor. Louis and Miles (1990) suggest that real ownership means sharing influence and authority. Even if the initial idea comes from central office or principals, teachers need to know they can influence the vision and its actualization in significant ways. Participation is not just exhorting other to believe, but it is a sharing of responsibility and accountability. 41 Olson (1991) reports on a study of shared decision making in New York City during the first two years of a project by the Teacher Center of the United Federation of Teachers. Among the findings are the following: Teams must work to avoid elitism and exclusiveness; The process is as important as the change; Programs need a manageable initial project with wide involvement and visible concrete results. Wood (1989) analyzed groups of teachers and administrators over a fifteen month period and found four reasons for the inability to accomplish tasks. Members lacked the requisite skills and did not seek outside expertise; affiliation needs interfered with the attention to task; the operating procedures were ineffective in resolving critical issues; and groups let formal status differences dictate outcomes. Peterson and Lezotte in ”New Directions in the Effective Schools Movement” (Bliss et al., 1991) suggest that increasingly school leaders act less directly and more collaboratively with teachers, acting in what Burns calls transformational leadership. This leadership gains much of its power by tapping the shared values of followers and building normative commitment to the mission of the school. These leaders focus on shaping the culture of the school as well as the professional and instructional structures of the organization. The model for this study examines the nature of administrative leadership, the extent to which teachers perceive themselves to have real influence on decisions, and the use of training to develop the needed skills. It includes questions about sharing of information, teacher-administrator collaboration, and development of a team spirit. Although this study does not explore the connection between changes in student performance and the changes in staff and organization, it is an important one. Rosenholtz (1989) observes that shared goals are central to 42 making the connection. The goals develop most readily when daily activities are congruent with a unitary definition of teaching, but multiple performance dimensions. In this context, self-esteem is enhanced because teachers can select practices that suit them best. Change leaders are important because they help people develop images of ”how to get there.” Process themes tie the vision to action (Louis and Miles, 1990 p.31). The stories told by staff in the schools help describe the basis of this connection. Central ice - District Administrative Or anization. An increasing number of people agree that buildings cannot restructure and achieve long lasting reforms without district change (Olson, 1991; Lezotte and Jacoby, 1990; Louis and Miles, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989; Fullan 1992). Fullan (1992) warns of the danger of substituting site based management for district support. Chubb and Moe (1990) note that schools with a greater percentage of academically achieving students had substantial school autonomy from direct external control with central office exhibiting less influence over curriculum, instructional methods, and hiring, dismissing and transferring teachers. Some feel that the district’ 5 primary responsibility is to provide resources, particularly time. Purkey and Smith (1985) identify the following vital resources: Time, Meaningful incentives for participation in staff development, Provision of expert guidance and assistance, A supportive environment that encourages risk tasking, and Visible support from the district office. Rosow and Zager (1989) note that attendance without authority signifies a refusal to commit time and resources. Fullan (1991) points out that the continuation of innovations depends on whether or not the change gets embedded and built into the structure with policy, budgets, and timetables 43 and has established procedures for continuing assistance. These are functions generally under control of the central office. The model includes district organization and its direction in decision making as one of the variables contributing to the outcomes. Stories from schools in Chapter 4 are analyzed to look for those organizational support systems. Dismgt Union. Some school improvement literature ignores the existence of active teacher unions and education associations. Others, however, increasingly note the need for union support (Purkey and Smith, 1985; Fullan, 1991; Levine, 1985). Rosow and Zager (1989) argue for union partnership from the inception. This makes the process legitimate in the eyes of the members and encourages them to participate. They feel that unions will not risk the blame for failures unless they can take credit for successes. They support the need for collective bargaining to continue to deal with issues of pay, grievances, and contract that runs separately from employee involvement in school improvement. The model incorporates this component in the organizational decision making influences. The data and stories in Chapter 4 look for the relationship between the union direction in decision making and the operation of the OA process. SUMMARY In Chapter 2 the literature relating to social organization, to outcomes accreditation, and to the various components of the model was reviewed. It showed that the OA process does not exist within a vacuum, but rather is influenced by the context and culture of the school. It suggested that although OA focuses only on student outcomes, that staff and organization outcomes 44 result from the processes used to develop those outcomes and from program strategies developed to change instructional methods or program. The study examines the staff, and decision making factors in particular- both as influences on the process and as outcomes from the process. Chapter 3 describes the design for the study. CHAPTER 3 In Chapter 2 the literature relative to examining the changes in the staff and organization of high schools who are using the North Central Outcomes Accreditation (OA) process was reviewed. The literature included topics relating to social organization, to Outcomes Accreditation and its relationship to school improvement and change, to collaboration and collegiality, and to various components of the model. It suggested that using the OA process produces organizational and staff outcomes. Chapter 3 describes the process for the study. This includes the selecting of the sample, the data sources and methodology, the use of ethnography, the questions to be used in interviews, the nature of the survey, and the survey analysis to be used. UNIT OF ANALYSIS The unit of analysis is the building. Although individuals within the building must change, the focus is on the collective action. Lieberman and Miller (1990) suggest that schools involved in restructuring need a strong shared culture and need to celebrate collegiality, collaboration, risk taking, and experimentation. Louis and Miles (1990) give an example of the importance of the building as the unit of change when they describe the development of school visions in the urban high schools they studied, noting that change happens within buildings. ”Visions become strong not because faculty believe in the principal, but because they believe in themselves and their ability to really change the school for the better” (p. 237). North Central aims schools toward comprehensive target goals, rather than departrnentally specific ones (NCA Standards for Schools, Appendix E). Chapter 4 lists the target goals of each of the schools in the study. Even goals 45 46 that have traditionally been treated within only one department (e.g. reading and writing taught only by English teachers) have been extended for use by all teachers within the building. Still, departmental differences form important sub-groups in large comprehensive high schools. Data analysis in Chapter 4 explores the differences in involvement and attitude by department. In the rest of the chapter, the various data sources and contact procedures are outlined. A copy of each of these is included in the appendices and are mentioned individually as appropriate throughout the discussion. SAMPLE SELECTION Dr. William Bushaw, Director of the Michigan Committee of the North Central Association, provided the names of all the high schools that began Outcomes Accreditation in 1988 and 1989 and received official status by 1991. High school principals were contacted by letter (see Appendix B) and phone (see Appendix C). The contacts provided a proposal that outlined the goals of the study, the nature of the involvement and the time needed, the assurance of anonymity, and the value of the study for their school and for the OA process. These schools are all in Michigan. Nine high schools have been involved in OA long enough to be included in this study. One, Battle Creek Central High School, finished the process and was approved by the North Central Association as the first OA high school in Michigan to successfully complete the process in March, 1992. Several have provided leadership to others by presenting at conferences and leading workshops. Several schools declined to be part of the study for a variety of reasons, including change of principal and/ or teacher chairperson, contract disputes that might cloud results, lack of time of building staff, inability to be able to meet the study timeline, and lack of approval from central administration. 47 Three schools agreed to be part of the study. All three are comprehensive high schools in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area. Two of the schools completed the OA process during the 1992-93 school year and received full OA status in April; the other will host the final visit in the fall of 1993. Characteristics of these schools are described in detail in Chapter 4. DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY The study combines qualitative and quantitative data. It is designed to provide a base for understanding the OA process and to develop ideas that can be further explored with more definitive quantitative study. Data were gathered through the use of surveys, visits, and interviews, as well as through the use of various documents pertaining to OA. Two extensive recent studies about school improvement have combined the use of surveys and interviews. Rosenholtz’s study (1989) of elementary schools in eight Tennessee districts included teacher questionnaire data, school demographic data, and teacher interview data. Louis and Miles (1990) surveyed 238 urban high schools and did case studies in five of them to give a more detailed picture. Their frameworks helped give direction to this study. Survey Louis and Miles (1991) note that the purpose of their survey after the case studies was ”to derive empirically supported generalizations about the issues facing urban high schools when they implement major change program and the way in which these affect outcomes”(p.79). Rosenholtz (1989) administered her teacher questionnaire during the first year of the study and then interviewed at specific schools, based on the survey responses, choosing schools that were outliers on the social organizational variables the survey measured. 48 The purpose of the survey is to assess the general feeling of the staff about the events that happened during the OA process. It serves as a vehicle to explore differences in attitudes toward OA and the nature and extent of involvement between those in various departments and at different career stages. It also serves to direct the nature of the interviews and information gathered during subsequent visits. Developing the questionnaire was an eight step process. 1. A review of literature for appropriate themes, concerns, and phrases. 2. An examination of standardized tests that profile a school, including Likert’s Profile of a School, (1986) and the San Diego and Connecticut surveys. 3. A first draft organized around the model presented in Chapter 1. 4. A review of the draft by a group of teachers and administrators currently using OA and by Dr. Bill Bushaw, State Director of NCA for Michigan. 5. A second draft reviewed by the dissertation committee. 6. A third draft submitted to receive study approval. 7. A fourth draft tested using interactive field testing with four OA teachers. 8. Final revisions incorporated into the document used by the three schools. The mechanics of administering the survey were planned with the team chairpersons and the principal in each building and were tailored to the situation in the school. Surveys were given to the entire staff at one time. At West, staff completed the survey during a staff meeting held at a normal time at the end of a complete day of working. Eighty-nine percent of staff completed surveys. Seventy-four surveys were completed; full-time 49 professional staff includes 83. At Central, staff completed the survey during a full day inservice held on school time. Seventy-seven percent of staff completed usable surveys. Eighty-five surveys were returned, but five were too incomplete to be counted; full time professional staff is 104. At North, staff received the survey during a half day inservice held on school time and returned the survey later. This produced a smaller return of only 54%. Twenty-four surveys were returned with a full time professional staff of 44. Since respondents were told to skip items on which they had no opinion, some responses in the last two sections do not total 100% of those taking the survey. In the Staff Survey (see Appendix F) each staff member was surveyed relative to three types of information. One type describes the individual’s education, gender, experience, role, and training. The second describes the nature and extent of involvement in the Outcomes Accreditation process, in staff development and training, and in decision making during OA. The third type questions perceptions about the process and the results. Questions on position and background are based on ideas developed in the literature review in Chapter 2. Fullan (1992) and Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) suggest that age, experience, stage of career, and gender factors affect people’s interest in change and motivation to improve. Questions 1-5 address these issues. Questions 6-15 describe the nature and extent of involvement, and reasons for lack of involvement, if applicable. Questions 16-27 describe the nature of staff development and training experienced by the individual and involvement with decision making. The decision making questions compare decision making before OA to that used now, using a five point Likert scale ranging from ”Never” to ”Always.” 50 Questions 28-59 use a five point Likert Extent Scale to describe staff members’ perceptions about the OA experience. Questions 28-34 deal with the building administration and organizational structure, asking about sharing information, decision making, and developing a team spirit. Questions 35-38 deal with the district organization, asking about moving decision making into the schools (and providing the information needed to make the decisions) and about the resources (money, time, support personnel) committed by the district to OA. Questions 39-41 ask about the nature of union support of OA. Questions 42-48 deal with the nature of the relationships within the teaching staff, exploring the extent to which collaboration has developed. Questions 49-52 ask about the impact of OA on the individual’s work within the classroom and within the building. Questions 52-55 ask about the extent to which roles and attitudes of teachers, administrators, and students changed during the OA process. Questions 56-58 ask about the individual’s perception of the success and likelihood of continuation of OA. Finally, questions 60-62 ask for open-ended responses about OA. Vali i an R lia ili Content validity was determined by the inspection of the test items by the comments of those pre-reading each version of the questionnaire, and by the pilot testing. Every effort was made to assure that the test items related to the issues raised in the model. The Cronbach alpha was used to test internal consistency reliability. Asher (1976) suggests it is an index of unidirnensionality of the measure. Using the sections of the test indicated above, the data were divided into subsets of involvement (questions 7, 10, 11, 12, 14); building organization (questions 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34); central office organization (questions 35, 36, 51 37); union organization (questions 39, 40, 41); collaboration among staff (questions 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48); teacher impact (questions 49, 50); change of performance and attitude (questions 52, 53, 55, 56, 57). The Cronbach alpha on each of the subsets showed the following results; Involvement — alpha of .501; Building organization - alpha of .922; Central office organization — alpha of .869; Union organization — alpha of .849; Collaboration among staff - alpha of .884; Teacher impact - alpha of .849; Change of performance and attitude - alpha of .897. Asher (1976) suggests that in early research, reliability above .80 is acceptable. Only the Involvement alpha falls below that range. Examination of the questions (See Apendix (3) shows that Questions 10, 11, and 12 are different in nature from Questions 7 and 14. Only Question 7 speaks to an evaluation of personal level of involvement at the present time. Survey Analysis The purpose of the survey is primarily to add depth and detail to the description of the successful schools. Because only successful schools are in the study, no attempt is made to show cause and effect. Thus, most of the data are descriptions or attempts to explore correlation. The data are shown both for individual schools and in total as appropriate. Using a Macintosh computer, the data were entered in the spreadsheet Microsoft Excel. Systat 5.1 was used for statistical analysis. Descriptive data for the background information in questions 1-6 were printed in tables in total and disaggregated by experience, gender, position, and department. Descriptive data of the kinds of OA activities (question 13), reasons for non-involvement (question 15), and staff development and training (question 16) were printed in tables in total and disaggregated by experience, gender, position, and department. 52 Basic descriptive statistics including mean, minimum, maximum, variance, and standard deviation were tabulated on several categories of questions. Responses were printed by building and in total and disaggregated by experience, gender, position, and department. The groups of questions included the following: Involvement (questions 7, 10-12, 14); Nature of decision making before and after OA (questions 17-27); Building organization (questions 28-34); Central office organization (questions 35—38); Union organization (questions 39-41); Sharing and collaboration within the staff (questions 42-48); Change in teacher behaviors and attitudes (questions 49-50, 52, 54-57); Staff training (questions 51-52); Success (question 58); and Continuation (question 59). Responses for questions 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14 used a five point Likert scale, with responses varying from question to question. Questions 17—27 used a five point scale ranging from Never to Always. Questions 28-59 used a five point scale ranging from Not at all to To a very great extent. Relationships suggested by the data were explored through the T-test using a .05 level of significance. Results are reported in the stories of each school and the comparative analysis in Chapter 4. Responses to the open-ended questions (60-62) were printed by building and grouped by topics. Ethnography, Visits and Interviews After processing the surveys, visits and interviews were scheduled in each building. Since Outcomes Accreditation is a relatively new variation of school improvement, little research exists that validates the process. Field research helps to expand the understanding that others have about the process and its outcomes. Firestone and Dawson in Fetterman’s book (1988) suggest that subjective understanding can be fully utilized as a source of data, 53 as a means to generate new hypotheses and as a way of helping the reader develop a fuller appreciation of phenomenon of interest. Pugh (1988) reiterates that an ethnographic approach can give a critical perspective which empowers others. After results of the survey were returned, on-site visits were made at each building during November and December, 1992. Visits averaged three days spread out over a period of time. During the visits, interviews began with at least four people: the principal, teacher chairperson(s), a teacher not in a leadership role, and a member of the union governance structure. These four basic interviews and the surveys provided a basis for finding other key players to interview who were important in the OA process in that particular building. The number of additional interviews ranged from one to eight in different buildings. The interviews provided the information to tell the story of what happened during the OA process. They helped form the perspective for telling the stories about using OA that are in Chapter 4. In addition, during the on-site visits, informal discussion about OA with a wider group of staff members was possible, allowing the opportunity to verify, enlarge, or change perceptions. The stories of the change process, strategies, the problems, the successes, and the outcomes were gathered primarily in these interviews. 3 Questions included two types of open-ended questions. One set was descriptive of the events and setting. The other was causal or explanatory questions. These interviews of 30-60 minutes explored topics that relate to the development of the OA project, relating that development to the model for the study. Questions cover the initial status, changes during the project, and outcomes to this point in time. Topics relative to the model were covered: context; culture; development of the mission and vision; the district, union, and building organizational support; the background, 54 experience, and training of the staff; the process itself; coping and problem solving strategies; decision making process(es); and involvement. Questions posed to a specific person varied, based on the person’s role and involvement in OA. The full set of questions is contained in Appendix G. The on-site time also helped to increase the richness of the data. Interviews were recorded if participants were willing. Scripts were typed from the interviews. In three cases participants were unwilling to have the interview recorded. Notes were taken; as soon as possible summaries of the interviews were written. The stories were explored for common dimensions that help to increase the understanding of school improvement, in general, and Outcomes Accreditation, in particular. They help to show how individuals and institutions involved in a change process live through it and change (or do not change) with it. Reliability All of the interviews were completed by the researcher. A draft of the findings was sent to the co-chair(s) at each school for reactions to see whether they felt that the findings represented what they felt to be true about their school. Documents and Contextual Data Documents of the OA process at each school include the school reports to the Visiting Team and district documents such as the negotiated contract. These provide a formal description of what happens in the district. The following data were collected from each school in the study: the School and Community Profile (an NCA report prepared by the high school at the beginning of the OA process); the reports on baseline data, goals, and strategies prepared for the visits from the Visiting Teams; any reference to 55 school improvement in the Contractual Agreement between the district and the teaching staff; and district guidelines for school improvement, staff development, and curriculum development, if available. Contextual data were gathered from district financial reports, census documents, and interviews. They included SEV per student, dollars backing each student, size of the student body and staff, socio-economic status of the community, and the goals, strategies, and outcomes of the process. Financial data throughout the study refer to the 1991-92 school year, the most recent audited data available at the time of the study. The NCA School and Community Profile includes the following categories of information. The @1333 includes population, area, types of buildings and dwelling, sources of incomes, history, and sociology of the district. The Student Population includes numbers, growth patterns, other schools in the district, special education population, drop-out rate, and percentages of graduates pursuing education or entry level jobs following high school. The Fiscal Base includes tax rate; budget; assessed valuation; votes on recent tax levies; and quartile rank in the state in assessed valuation, tax rate, per pupil expenditures, teachers’ salaries, and economic level of the community. The School District Staffing includes number of professional personnel, ratio of professional employees to students in the district and the building; ratio of non-teaching personnel to classroom teachers. 56 The Community Influences on the Educational Proggams include political, economic, sociological, and geographic factors (NCA Michigan Committee). The baseline data, target goals, and updates on progress track the progress over the life of the project. Data vary from school to school, depending on the target goals of each building. Questions on the target goal forms include the evidences of success, current and desired student performance, strategies, and research upon which the strategy is based. The information from these reports provided a framework for seeking information from the staff members who were interviewed. Each of the schools has had the first two visits from the visiting team. At the time of the study two schools were planning for the third visit within the next two or three months and one by the fall of 1993. One school, North, had the Final Report completed so that final results could be included in Chapter 4. The district contract and guidelines for school improvement, staff development, and curriculum development provided a picture of the extent to which decision making has been moved to the building level. A follow-up visit, after the results were analyzed, served to expand, verify, and check on perceptions gained through the interviews, where possible. PRESENTATION OF DATA m The stories of each building’s experiences during the several years in OA are told in Chapter 4, showing the nature and extent of the involvement, training, collaboration, and decision making. The stories draw on information from all three data sources - documents, interviews, and surveys. The stories have the following headings within them: The Schggl - People and Resources. Within this section, the following topics are included: Data collection, Parental support, Physical plant, Student 57 body, Teaching and Learning, Administrative leadership, District resources, Teaching staff. MW Within this section, the following topics are included: Initial experience, Teacher leadership for OA, Target goals, Target goal committees. Staff Outcomes. Within this section, the following topics are included: Staff training, Involvement, Collaboration. Decision Making Outcomes. Within this section, the following topics are included: Internal - Building organization; and External - Central Office; Union. QA - Sucgess Stoty or Not. Within this section, the following topics are included: the achievement of target goals; the extent to which teacher behavior in the classroom has changed; the extent to which the staffs are working together; the extent to which decision making has become more participative; and the staff perception of success. Cgmprehensive Analysis. After the stories of each school are completed, a comprehensive analysis looks at all three schools. Topics in comparative analysis include the following. Distrigt Resourgss. Staff Involvement. Within this section t0pics include Nature and Extent of Involvement; Change in Attitude and Behaviors; Staff Experience; and Gender. Staff Training and Collaboration. Within this section topics include the following: The melding of both process and target goals; The teacher involvement in the organization and delivery of training; The effect on collaboration. 58 Dsgision making process. Within this section topics include Internal - Building organization (administrative management style); and External (central office and union). SUMMARY Chapter 3 described the design of the study. The methodology combines a review of documents, interview and visits, and survey techniques. The chapter described the selection process for the buildings studied, the nature of the documentation used, and the justification for the use of ethnography. It included the nature of the interview and survey questions and the portrayal of the results of both in stories and in statistical treatment. Chapter 4 tells the stories of the schools and gives a comparative analysis of the results. CHAPTER 4 Chapter 3 reviewed the process for the study. It identified the building as the unit of analysis and described the process for choosing three high schools that are completing or nearing completion of the OA cycle. It described the three data sources used in this study - survey, interview, and documents. It also indicated the nature of the data analysis of the survey. Chapter 4 is divided into two parts. The first part presents a detailed picture of each school, combining the information gained from all the sources to describe how the process works in the building. This includes the nature and extent of staff training, staff involvement, and collaboration among teachers, as well as the decision making process in the organizational structure, both internal (building administrative structure and practices) and external (district and union). The second part gives a comprehensive look at all three schools by looking at the four research questions posed in Chapter 1. PART I: SCHOOLS IMPLEMENTING 0A CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Central High School sits in an inner suburb of a major metropolitan area. It is the only high school in the blue collar, primarily white, community of about 35,000. The 1990 census (Annual Metro, City, Country Data Book) shows approximately 60% of the population completing twelve years of school and 7% completing sixteen years of school. The per capita income is $11,726. Financially, the district falls in the mid-range of Michigan school districts. An in-forrnula district, its state equalized valuation (SEV) per pupil is $61,499 and per pupil expenditure is $4,568. Central completed the OA cycle in 1992-93 and held the final visit during the second semester. 59 60 Data collection After the initial phone interview, the researcher met with the OA chairperson and a union representative to plan the best time and place to give the survey. The survey was administered by the researcher during an all day inservice attended by most staff. Eighty-eight teachers (of a total staff of 100 full time personnel) and all four administrators attended. Eighty-five returned the survey, but five surveys lacked so many responses that they are not included in any data analysis. That represents a 77% return, including 100% of the administrative staff and 76% of the teaching staff. Subsequently the researcher spent time in the building and interviewed various staff members. Results of the survey and the interviews are woven together in the following account. Parental Support Parent support for the school is high. A parent survey at the beginning of the OA project in 1989 showed that 86% of parents felt positive about the leadership provided by the principal, 84% agreed that their child was able to complete homework by themselves, 94% were proud their child attended Central High School, and 84% believed academic excellence was the major goal of parents, students, and teachers at the school. One indicator of current support is an attendance of over 70% of parents at the fall parent conferences in November of 1992, an unusually strong showing in a senior high school. The Building The building sprawls from the original 1934 building, incorporating additions made during the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s. It includes facilities for various vocational programs, including a kitchen for culinary arts and an auto shop. Student population has declined from a high of 3,000 in grades 10-12 to a current size of 1,830 in grades 9-12. Ninth grade students were added in the fall of 1991, midway through the OA process. 61 Student Body The student body reflects the white, blue collar community in which the students live. Approximately 30% of the graduates continue with higher education. ACT scores are slightly below the state of Michigan averages. At the beginning of the OA data collection process only 23% of the sophomore class had passed the informational section of the tenth grade Reading MEAP test. Students are very involved in an active extracurricular program and approximately seventy-five percent work. The drop out rate was about 9% in 1990. Teaching and Learning Central has been active in adopting Outcomes Based Education (OBE). Many teachers use the OBE grading concept of no failure. The school schedules the last half hour of the school day for teachers to tutor students and to help them make up and retake tests. The commitment to OBE is extensive, with many staff members and administrators presenting workshops on the topic. The school continually works to get students to believe that the half hour is part of the school day. Most teachers show a belief that all students can learn and that, as teachers, they can organize their classrooms to help make that happen. One math teacher comments, ”Outcomes education helped me to focus on what I actually wanted students to know and be like when they exited my class.” Another adds, ”Students are very supportive when they know where the lesson is going. This is one of the best points of OBE.” Central’s work in OBE extends the commitment that OA requires. Teacher comments reflect a holistic response in most cases, not drawing a fine line separating one program from the other. Central has practiced relatively little collaboration between departments in actual curriculum change. For example, as described in more detail on page 65, the reading and writing target goal committees achieved their initial success by 62 changing the English curriculum rather than by involving teachers from all departments. The two corrunittees are beginning to use more efforts across departments now, in the end of the cycle. Because of the relatively low number of students continuing their education, changing the attitude of students and teachers toward the importance of high school education has been a focus of attention. The efforts seem to be paying off as noted in increased student performance on the MEAP and the ACT. Administrative Leadership During most of the OA project, the principal was a man with many years of experience in the building. Teachers report support from him in trying various ideas and in providing support in relations with central office. In September, 1992, a new principal was hired from outside the district. This is the first school he has worked in that uses Outcomes Based Education or OA. At the time of data collection, only two months after he started, the teaching staff was adjusting to him and his administrative style. Responses to the survey include the responses to the new administrative leadership. The superintendent has been in the district during the full five year OA cycle, and the principal during the first four years of the project is now on the central administrative staff. The district prides itself as a leader in various innovations, including outcomes based education. One teacher observes, ”I find it exciting that a small district such as ours is a leader.” And another, ”Our district has always been progressive in maintaining and changing to meet the needs of our students.” Teachers are accustomed to receiving training in various ideas. Before OA began, they had already been introduced to Outcomes Based Education , Instructional Theory into Practice, Reality Therapy, and Lezotte’s Effective 63 Schools. Reality therapy, which became a strategy used for one of the target goals, had been presented in administrative organized inservices before it came into wider practice with the Time-Out Room during OA (See p. 66). Administrators and teachers have presented at various conferences locally and nationally. Committee chairs have been active in providing leadership to other schools who are beginning the OA process. District Resources Both teachers and administrators perceive district financial support for the OA process. The building has received between $7,000 to $10,000 per year to allow teachers to meet and develop programs, to attend conferences, and to visit other schools, although the allocation was reduced in 1992-93 to about $6,000. The OA Steering Committee has control over the expenditure of the money. In addition, the two teacher co-chairs each have one period assigned to coordinate the OA project. Additional money is also available for staff training. The principal receives $4,000 for training for building level school improvement projects, and central office allocates significant additional dollars ($80,000 one year) district wide for staff training. Teachers and administrators also perceive central support for their activities, although many teachers qualify that by criticizing the wide variety of ideas urged on them by central office. One notes resistance from some teachers because, ”The district has always been involved in too much at one time.” Another observes, ”Central office is confused about outcomes.” Teaching Staff The current staff of 104 full time professionals has extensive experience. Sixty-one percent of the staff completing the survey have been in education for more than twenty years and another 20% for fifteen to twenty years. Only 6% have been in education less than five years. What is more, most have been at 64 Central for a great deal of their career. Fifty-two percent have been at the school for more than fifteen years. Indeed, many of those new to the building came with the addition of twenty-five teachers to accommodate the ninth graders in 1991. Most are teaching in an area in which they have an undergraduate major; only five do not. The staff reflects the school community - almost all white. Most are very involved in the life of their school; 78% have education- related activities beyond regular working hours. This includes extra-curricular (46%); district-wide committees (45 %); union and negotiating (19 %) and teaching outside the regular day (13%). [Total is more than 100 % because many teachers have more than one activity] Outcomes Accreditation Initial OA Experience Central began working on CA primarily because the former principal and the superintendent felt that the outcomes process fit the emphasis of the school on outcomes based education and they wanted to use CA for their North Central evaluation process. Although current recommendations from North Central require a teacher vote on whether or not to use OA, the requirement was not firmly in place as Central began. Some teachers still feel bitter about the top- down nature of the original decision. Criticisms from teachers note that, ”0A was imposed on the staff. Very little empowerment was given.” Others feel, though, that most staff members agreed with the decision and feel they have benefited from OA. One of the chairs notes that despite the fact that the administrators initially served as leaders, teachers became the leaders because of the nature of the OA model. He feels that most teachers recognize their larger role in OA and have moved beyond the intial resistance. 65 Teacher Leadership for OA. The teacher leadership for OA came from three teacher co-chairs. Two led the project for the first four years: One is a social studies teacher and the other a math teacher. Both are male and have more than fifteen years experience in the district. After four years as OA chair, one became a math coordinator for the district at the beginning of the 1992-93 school year, and another math teacher took his place. All have good relations with the other teachers. ”We each had strengths and used those strengths in working with the rest of the staff. We were a nice complement to each other. We knew when we had to unite to ask for something from central office or the principal,” noted one. He also observed that many things were accomplished through ”schmoozing” with others and that many teachers saw that the committee chairs and steering committee were working so hard that the others felt that they had to join in and do their part. Tar et oals The School and Community Committee gathered extensive data during the first year. Parents, staff, and students responded to surveys in addition to using various test results and performance indicators. After analyzing the results, the staff chose the following five target goals. 1. All students will use a problem solving process to offer possible solutions to an academic problem. 2. The number of students passing the information section of the MEAP will increase to a minimum of 50%. 3. In all subject areas, students will write clearly. 4. Students will demonstrate respect for others. 5. Students will assume responsibility for their learning by being in class and satisfactorily completing assignments. 66 The wording of these goals was adjusted during the length of the project, but the primary direction remained the same. Target Goal Committees Extensive surveying during the initial year provided baseline data and helped the staff narrow the target goals to the five listed above. Each committee had 10-15 teachers and administrators working on it. Not everyone had to be on a committee. Committees met on released time and after school. Some conunittees were very active, organizing strategies early and showing substantial success. The Reading Committee was one of these. Early efforts were directed toward improving MEAP test performance. Later, the English curriculum was restructured to provide a single set of classes so that reading instruction became more intentional. Small strategies helped, too. Teachers in all disciplines received training and materials in strategies to work with the new definition of reading. Students received instruction through the English course incorporating a study skills unit and aiming at the MEAP reading goals. Scores rose, reducing the numbers in the lowest category from 43% to 25% from 1989 to 1991 and increasing the numbers in the highest category from 21% to 40%. The scores in the fall of 1992 showed 50% of the students passing the information section. The committee is now looking at incorporating strategies to reach across the curriculum. It is focusing on strategies to improve reading by students in science courses. The Writing Committee also changed the English curriculum as one strategy in reaching its goal. Writing samples were scored holistically by an outside agency. A surprising finding was that the students needed more help in style than in correctness. Strategies tried to attack the problem. The structure of the revised English curriculum used by the Reading Committee also addressed the problems in writing. One disadvantage of this is noted by a teacher on the 67 committee who comments, ”Giving the ’English goals’ over to the English department was a bad thing. That is beginning to change now.” The committee is currently trying to extend writing across the disciplines. Performance levels in writing skills increased but not as significantly as in reading. The Self-Directed Learner Committee used the ideas of Reality Therapy that had been presented earlier by the administration in developing a Time Out Room. Seven teachers from the committee visited Fox Chapel Schools in Pennsylvania and five became trainers in reality therapy. A pilot program began during the last marking period in the 1990-91 school year, and the full program began during 1991-92. This year referrals to Time Out are down, with only 74% as many students being referred in comparable time periods. The Time Out Room coordinator feels this shows improved behavior. He attributes this to the fact that more teachers are using reality therapy in their classrooms since those steps must be used before students are sent to Time Out. The use of the Time Out Room itself is voluntary, but teachers must use reality therapy in order to use it. Teachers on the Self-directed Learning Committee made the decision on who would staff the room. Inservice in using reality therapy is offered on a regular basis to all teachers, but it is not required. The Concern for Others Committee used citizenship grades as its primary measure. Various incentive and motivational strategies were incorporated as well as role modeling by the teaching staff. As the committee set up its program, it targeted the entire school population, including professional and support staff as well as students. Results have been positive. The Critical Thinking Committee changed its wording as the members had trouble deciding on an approach. Although they gathered baseline data using the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, they feel that it does not 68 describe what it should. The committee had significant turnover of membership. During the final year, they began to focus on the work of Art Costa and now feel they are more on target. Because of the dissatisfaction with the measurement tool and the difficulty in getting on target, results are minimal. Staff Outcomes W Central High School has a long history of active staff development. Before CA the topics were determined primarily by the administration . Teachers are accustomed to being able to attend conferences and to receiving district money to be trained in some of the most up-to-date topics in education. Of the 80 staff members responding to the survey, 73% report participating in staff development activities before OA began. Pre-OA training experiences in a total of 252 staff development topics by the 80 staff members responding result in an average of 3.15 topics. During CA the comparable numbers are 258 and 3.23. Despite this, 19% of the staff members never participated in staff training and another 13% received training in only one topic. The topics with greatest participation during OA included Effective schools/ school improvement (50%), Developing a mission (39%), Curriculum planning (35%), and Specific subject staff development (30%). Two topics had wide participation before OA began: Cooperative learning (43%) and Communication skills (44%). The topics and those participating are listed in Appendix H. The data show relatively little increase in the amount of staff training during OA. As comparisons in the other schools show later in this chapter, the starting point was higher than the starting point in other schools so the rate of improvement is not as great, even though the final participation rate is comparable. 69 Another issue is the attitude toward the training. The mean response to the question, ”I received adequate training in the skills I needed to be involved in the process and implement the programs,” is 3.052 with a SD of 0.972 and variance of .945. The responses are grouped in the middle, with 69 of 80 responses ranging from ”To a very little extent” to ”To a great extent.” Responses do not seem to vary based on gender. Using the T-test sample, the statistics show T=1.527 with DF=73 and probability of .131. Teachers are less satisfied with the amount of follow-up to the training, with a mean score of 2.786, a SD. of .915, and variance of .837 in response to the question ”There was adequate follow-up and support of the staff training.” The responses are comparable across most departments, but the Art, Music, and Physical Education teachers are less positive than the others. The results of the training are also somewhat weak. In response to the question, "The staff training changed my skills, behaviors, and attitudes,” the mean is 2.855 with a SD. of 1.042 and variance of 1.085. A response of 3 shows ”To a little extent.” Only 25% of the 80 teachers respond positively (4 or 5) to the question. Differences across departments are minimal. Involvement One of the OA chairs estimates that about one-third of the staff were fairly actively involved. Survey data substantiate his impression, with 16% seeing themselves as highly involved and 23% involved as much as time permits. The mean score was 3.138 with a SD. of 1.250 and variance of 1.563. However, 11% see themselves as not involved at all. More women than men saw themselves as involved to a great or a very great extent (mean of 3.425 compared to 2.921 for men), but the T-test sample statistic of 1.828 with DF=76 and a probability of .071 shows no evidence that there is a statistically significant difference. Some difference also appears in the extent of involvement within various departments 70 (See Table 1). Although the percentage of those involved in smaller departments is deceptive, mathematics, physical education, and special education departments are particularly noticeable in the lack of involvement Table 1 Involvement by Teaching Area -Central High School Department N Involved as Highly Percentage responding much as involved (5) 4 and above possifle“) English 12 3 4 58% Social St. 8 2 1 38% For. Lang. 2 1 0 50% Math 9 0 1 11% Science 8 4 1 63% Business/ Comp. 6 1 2 50% Home Ec/IndArt 10 2 2 40% Art/ Music 3 0 2 67% Phys. Ed. 5 0 0 0% Spec. Ed. 6 0 1 17% N =80 The average teacher perceives that the time spent now is about the same as it had been before OA. Most see themselves as having put in extra hours for over a year and expect to continue the level of involvement for another two years. Time spent on CA varies from as little as no time at all each month to as much as 100 hours per month. Reasons for the significant number of extra hours generally reflect the need to meet a deadline for getting materials ready for other teachers, preparing an inservice, or putting together a report. Finding the time to put in the huge number of hours is a problem reflected by many. Target goal chairpersons mention that they really need a reduced work load (a period of release time) to try to keep up with the demands. One teacher notes that the lack of time to be on committees kept real change from happening in some instances. Another observes, ”In order for collaborative efforts to succeed, the staff must have regular and frequent opportunity to meet. Half a 71 day twice a year is very insufficient.” Someone else who has been in the building over 15 years notes the lack of departmental planning opportunities; she feels that OA cannot supplant the regular department curriculum work. The very conunitted, spending ten extra hours a month (22% of the teaching staff), and the not committed at all, spending no extra time (31% of the teaching staff) mark the two extremes. The rest are spread fairly evenly across the middle. The mean of 11.425, with a standard deviation of 20.778 and a variance of 431.741, shows the spread. The most common reasons cited by 28 teachers for not being involved include family obligations (9%) and already too involved in school activities (8%). The length of time in teaching affects the very new, with fewer than 5 years of experience (33% of the 15 teachers in this group rank themselves as not involved at all) and the very experienced, with more than 20 years of experience (17% of 30 in this group rank themselves as not involved at all). The type of activity that most have experienced, as might be expected, is the ”Sit and Get” presentations and training (73%). A significant number (64%) report using the new techniques and approaches in their classrooms. Half of the staff serve on various target goal and problem solving committees. And many (35%) report working collaboratively with other teachers to share and develop programs and strategies. Collamration Teachers report relatively little planning and coordinating of efforts between departments (mean of 2.1, SD. of 1.129, variance of 1.129), but more note planning and coordinating among teachers (mean of 2.9, SD. of 1.238, variance of 1.238). They give a higher mark to the amount of collaboration (mean of 3.133, SD. of .901, variance .901 ). No significant difference exists in the responses by gender. The T-test sample statistic of .668 with DF=71 and a probability of .506 72 shows no evidence that there is a difference. Teachers with less than 5 years of experience are more likely to work collaboratively (80% with a positive response), although the small number (5) of teachers in that group who responded to the question makes the statistic unreliable. Decision Making Outcomes Internal Decision Making - Building Organization The major player in the building organizational structure, the principal, is new to the job this year, as noted above. He acknowledges, ”Change will be slow this year. They [staff] look at you as the new guy and have to take time to believe.” In general administrators see themselves as involved, with 2 of the 4 reporting putting in 15 hours a month and seeing themselves as highly involved. The other two rank themselves as somewhat involved, putting in between 2 and 8 hours a month. One teacher notes, though, ”I’m not seeing modeling in the administration for OA.” Only one administrator reports training in many of the OA topics. Three out of the four report training in only 3 topics or less. The principal feels that he is ”open to all kinds of input” including participative management. He is not a believer in top-down management. He is still getting used to the roles that various teachers have taken on in the building. He illustrates this with an example of a discussion about parent-teacher conferences. He shared some feedback from board members with the staff and began to formulate a response. A teacher committee asserted that this was its job. He was happy to let the teachers take control. The staff is still adjusting to the change from the former principal. Many sense less openness now than in previous years. But one teacher observes, ”We [OA steering committee] know more about what is going on in the building [than he does]. A new principal has to have trouble dealing with that.” An example of the change in approach involved the organization of the November inservice day 73 when the survey was completed. In the early years of OA, teachers organized and presented the inservices, but in November, the new principal decided on the agenda and led much of the discussion. Some even note that their responses to the survey are based on the three months this year, not on the way OA was before. Teachers score the question ”The building administration gives the staff adequate information so that it can do the best possible job” somewhat negatively with a mean of 2.800, a SD of .944 and a variance of .892, with 2 representing ”To a very little extent” and 3 ”To a little extent.” Table 2 (p. 74) shows the extent of trust of and team work established by the administration in comparison to that established by the OA steering committee. The disparity in the attitude toward the administration and the building committee shows a much different attitude toward fellow teachers than toward administration. The building committee is perceived as encouraging more teamwork and as being more worthy of trust. The T-test statistic comparing question #33 (Administrators, staff and students work together as a team) and question #43 (The building committee encourages the staff to work together as a team) is 6.533 with DF=73 and probability of .000. The T-test statistic comparing question #30 (I view communications from my administrator(s) with trust and confidence) and questions #44 (I view communications from building committees with confidence and trust) is -4.313 with DF= 71 and a probability of .000. This may reflect the practices and attitudes of the particular chairpeople. A chairperson of one of the study committees reports that she has worked hard to give ownership to the teachers and to give thank-you’s and perks to committee members for their hard work. She feels that the staff has become more aware of each other because of the committee work. .__-_ 74 Table 2 Comparison of Trust and Teamwork by Administration and OA Comm. Central High School Question Not Very Very No at Little Little Great Great Mean SD Vat-Resmnse All Extent Extent Extent Extent [ View communication from administration withtrustandconfidence 2.676 1.048 1.099 6 10 25 19 19 1 Administrators, staff, students work as a team 2.763 .945 .892 0 5 30 26 17 2 View communication from building comm. with trust and confidence 3.316 .941 .886 4 3 10 29 28 6 Building comm. encourages staff to work as a team 3.568 .829 .687 6 0 8 24 34 8 N =80 The subject matter of decision making in Central seems to have changed relatively little during OA. T-tests run on questions #17 - #27 compared decision making before OA and now. Only two topics show a difference: developing a mission and goals for the building; and developing and organizing staff development. For developing a mission and goals, T=2.267 with DF = 66 and a probability of .027. For developing and organizing staff development, T=2.524 with DF = 66 and a probability of .014. In general, teachers do not perceive themselves as very involved in decision making, feel that the decision making process involves the majority of the staff only to a little extent and feel that teachers have relatively little influence in the building (see Table 3). Interestingly enough, administrators perceive teachers to have much more influence (mean of 4.250) than the teachers perceive themselves to have (mean of 2.452). 75 Table 3 Building Level Decision Making - Central High School Question N Mean SD Variance Building administration gives adequate information 75 2.800 .944 .892 Administrator seeks and uses ideas about non 71 2.457 1 .151 1 .204 academic matter I view communication from my administrator(s) 74 2.676 1.048 1.099 with trust and confidence I have been involved in the decision making in 80 2.613 1 .278 1 .633 this building Decision making process involves majority of 79 2.671 1.047 1.095 staff rather than a small part of staff Administrators, staff, and students work as a 80 2.763 .945 .892 team Administrators in the building are more 73 2.542 1.186 1 .476 influenced by teacher opinion than before OA 2 = To a very little extent 3 = To a little extent =80 One question, then, is whether the way of doing business has changed as a result of using the OA process. The responses to questions relating to current building level decision making are indicated in Table 3. Responses at Central do not appear very positive. Teachers and administrators View the issue of team spirit very differently. All four administrators respond ”T o a great extent” while only 19% of the other staff members respond either ”To a great extent” or ”To a very great extent.” Responses to the question ”Decision making involves a majority of the staff rather than a small part of the staff” differentiated by role are shown in Table 4. Those who are most involved in 0A in general, though, also feel 76 involved in the decision making process at the building. The t-test statistic is 3.945 with DF = 79 and a probability of .000. Table 4 Responses to ”Majority of Staff Are Involved in Decision Making” Differentiated by Role — Central High School Role No Not at Very Little Little Great Very Great Response All Extent Extent Extent Extent Administrators 0 0 0 1 3 0 Teachers, 7 13 27 17 9 3 Counselors, Media N=80 Staff members perceive relatively little change in their roles as a result of using OA (mean of 2.521, SD of 1.094, variance of 1.197), with 81% of 80 teachers responding to the question ”The roles of teachers and administrators changed as a result of using the OA process” with ”To a very little extent” or less. Time spent in education makes relatively little difference in response to the question. With 65 staff members in education for 15 years or more, 20% give positive responses ”To a great or very great extent.” However, 19% either did not respond to the question or felt their role had not changed at all. This may not be a negative response. One teacher notes, ”The professionals in the schools are still just as effective and efficient as they were before the process.” External - Central Office Decision Making The building staff feels that central office has given the resources of time and money to help develop and implement OA. With 78 staff members evaluating the resource allocation, the mean response is 2.974 . Of those, 37% give a positive response. However, staff gives poorer ratings to the extent to which decisions have been moved to appropriate levels (mean of only 2.355) and 77 feel little change in the amount of teacher influence at central office during OA (mean of 2.297). Results also rate the amount of information received from central office in a negative manner (mean of 2.241). There is no significant difference in responses between men and women on these questions (See Table Table 5 Comparison by Gender to Central Office - Central High School Question M-Mean F—Mean T-test statistic DF Prob. Decision moved to appropriate level 2.389 2.342 -.215 72 .839 Information received from CC 2.263 2.256 Teacher influence at C0 2.361 2.278 -.320 70 .750 M=40 F =38 5). Several teachers show frustration with what they perceive as central office personnel who are building a reputation for their own benefit after they leave the district. Another also cites the lack of real involvement of central staff with what is going on. Extgrnal - Qnion Decisign Making Staff members see the support from the union in a more positive light. The question ”My union encourages participation in school improvement” has a mean response of 3.573 with a SD of .808 and a variance of .653 while ”My union supports building level decision making for OA recommendations” has a mean response of 3.618 with a SD of .931 and a variance of .867. This may be due in part to a district-wide committee with union and administrative representation that meets monthly to address issues in outcomes education and to agree to temporary language to solve the problems. A member of the teacher negotiating team notes that the time commitment is absurd and hopes that some solution can 78 be found. No specific language is in the contract at this time, but the expectation is that some will be added. OA - u ces t or Not According to North Central, the prime determination of success is the change in student outcomes. As noted above in the target goal committee discussion (pp. 64-67), most target goals are met, with student performance increasing in reading, writing, respect, and responsibility. This study looks at success also based on its impact on the staff and organization. One determination of success is whether or not CA has affected what happens in each classroom. The response to the question ”Implementing the target goals and strategies has affected what I do in my classroom” has a mean of 3.043 with a SD of 1.206 and a variance of 1.454. Although some teachers express a belief that it is still too early to tell, many feel that teaching to outcomes has made a difference for them as they work in the classroom and in student understanding as they learn. Another measure of success is the extent of the staff working together on similar goals. For the question, ”Implementing the various target goals and strategies has affected how I work with and view other staff members,” the mean response of 2.959 with a SD of 1.098 and a variance of 1.207 is slightly more positive than for some aspects of OA. In four departments, 50% of teachers in the department give a positive response. The departments include English, Foreign Language, Business, and Vocational. Only one department, Physical Education, has no positive responses. Length of time in education seems to affect responses. The largest group of negative responses (69%) comes from the 13 teachers with 15 or more years of experience. Gender, however, does not seem to affect responses. The T-test sample statistic of 1.423 with DF=69 and a probability of .159 shows no evidence of a difference in responses between different genders. 79 The reason for the little change may be in the attitude of one teacher who observes, ”As a traditional educator, I find it difficult to change.” The impact of OA on the organization at Central is difficult to evaluate because of the change in administration. Some movement toward teamwork and expanded teacher leader roles seems to have occured as noted above, but many feel the change is minimal. The size of the faculty may have impacted the involvement of staff and therefore their attitudes. This is developed more in Part II of this chapter (see p. 120). A final determination of success is found in staff perception of success. The statement ”0A is successful in this building” has a mean response of 2.913 with a SD of .836 and a variance of .698. An analysis of the variance shows that most staff members are not extremely negative. Only two staff members mark ”Not at all.” However, they are not extremely positive either. Only one marks ”To a very great extent.” Still, some are very enthusiastic. ”Very useful and effective.” ”I believe this is the right approach, vastly superior to the older accreditation methods that measured input.” ”We have started on some very useful projects to make education better and [to make it possible] for a better quality of learning to occur. But we still have a long way to go.” ”Much better realization of goals for both teachers and students.” ”It made us look at what we were doing, what was working, what was not working.” ”It works, but the transition for staff is difficult.” ”The first time around is always difficult. This was a new process and not totally understood. As a catalyst for change it was a good thing.” Further analysis is included in Part II of this chapter. 80 NORTH HIGH SCHOOL North High School sits in an outer suburb of a major metropolitan area. It is the only high school in the blue collar community of about 18,405. The 1990 census shows a black population of about 18%. The black population is stable, having been part of the community life for many years. The per capita income is $11,008. Approximately 63% of the population have completed twelve years of school and 10% have completed sixteen years of school. Financially, the district falls in the mid-range of Michigan school districts. An in-formula district, its S.E.V. per pupil is $51,169 and per pupil expenditure is $4,751. Data Collection After a phone interview with the principal and a personal contact with a former OA chairperson, the researcher made arrangements with the OA chairperson. The survey was distributed by the researcher during a half day inservice that was the final staff meeting before the last visit by the Resource Team. An extremely tight agenda at that meeting meant that the surveys had to be returned the following day. The staff includes 44 professional staff. A total of 24 surveys were received, a retum rate of 54%. This includes 100% of the administrative staff and 51% of the teaching staff. As results of the survey are noted in the following account, the reader needs to remember the relatively small percentage of staff who responded. Possible reasons are explored in the comparative data in at the end of this chapter. Subsequently the researcher spent time in the building and interviewed various staff members. Results of the survey and the interviews are woven together in the following account. The Building Located in a central town area, the school sprawls from a 1950’s center, incorporating various additions. Offering a comprehensive program, it includes facilities for various vocational programs. Student population is 950 students in 81 grades 9-12. The building is serviceable and clean, offering a down-to-earth atmosphere. Student Body The student body reflects the community. Approximately 38% of the student body is black. The school has a long tradition of academic thoroughness. One teacher reports that he had moved to the community during the 1970’s so that his own children could attend the excellent schools. At the beginning of the OA study in 1988-89 27% of the graduates continued with higher education. ACT scores went from 16.3 at the beginning of CA to 20.3 in 1992, with twice as many students taking the test. At the beginning of the cycle 38% of the students were in Category 1 (the lowest score) on the MEAP math test (the older, more traditional version). At the end, no students were in category 1 on the same version. Students seem to feel a surge of interest in the tests and their performance on them. They talk about increased interest in reading and increased sense of responsibility because of the new programs introduced through OA. Teaching and Learning CA has caused a real change in the day-to-day operation of many classrooms. A business teacher notes, ”The whole process turned us around. We went from a staff that was very tired, very demoralized, and very fragmented to a group of people who seemed to have some kind of ownership.” One of the co- chairs notes, ”Each teacher worked hard [before OA] individually and now the shift is to using techniques and tools that make for greater success.” Three target goals required teachers to use part of the class time in every classroom to allow for open reading time, for writing in each class daily, and for doing a math warm-up weekly. The tactics forced increased concern for all learning, not just the learning connected with a single department. The extent of 82 increased connection between departments is shown in the following example of a conversation overheard by a counselor. A wood shop teacher was arguing with the biology teacher over the effectiveness of time spent reading versus time spent writing. She was amazed at the difference in attitude this represented in teachers of two disciplines that previously had been single-minded in their approach to subject matter. She feels this illustrates a change in attitude from a narrow subject-centered approach to a broader, skill based approach that can be seen throughout the staff. Teachers note that far less time is spent in the lounge now. Instead during plan periods they are in the library looking for resources and are checking out various strategies that they can use to increase student learning. They feel a greater sense of energy. One teacher notes that the process requires her to do some higher level thinking instead of just ”doing the book.” Still another observes, ”Mediocrity is no longer acceptable in many classrooms, thus enabling the student to do more and better work. Students feel they can achieve.” Several comment on increased teamwork and effort. Administrative Leadership Before the OA project began, the principal had already established a solid working relationship with the staff. He had extensive experience in the district and knew the staff well but had only been principal here for a few years. He had read widely about participative management and had in fact already talked to the staff about site-based management but could not get the teachers excited about trying it. Although he has been supportive of OA, the impetus to begin OA came originally from teachers. In the fall of 1988 the principal asked the two teachers to chair a traditional NCA study and to attend a conference to get started. At the conference the two became very excited about OA, a process that was in its infancy, and came back to sell the principal on going OA rather than 83 using the traditional style. The two teachers, a male and a female counselor, became the co-chairs of the study process. The principal supports the participative model incorporated into OA and has moved toward using it as a decision making model in other areas as well. The superintendent had just begun her term that fall and quickly supported the decision to try OA. She has remained committed to staff development and has developed Academies for all professional staff that operate during both the summer and the school year at no cost to teachers. This serves as the vehicle for training for various OA projects as well as for district topics. Everyone has completed district training in Instructional Theory into Practice (Madeline Hunter), Cooperative Learning, and Classroom Management. The Academy is discussed in more detail in the Staff Training section (p. 90), but it serves as an example of how the district and building training is coordinated. The district organizes the Academy and helps pay for it by serving several surrounding districts. The superintendent has been in office throughout the OA cycle. Not everyone sees the central office enthusiasm for training as positive, however. Some note that additional work from Central Office hindered progress of high school staff by adding extra work when the staff was already overloaded trying to work on OA. Another observes, "The administration forced us to do so many other professional development activities that some felt burned out.” Various teachers have presented at conferences on a wide variety of topics and have taken over the presentation of most staff development for the high school. The principal sees his role as a motivator and as an enabler rather than as a top down decision maker. 84 District Resources District resources have been supplied to support the project. What is more, the Steering Committee has authority to allocate the dollars within the building. This even served as a model for greater involvement in aspects of the rest of the budget as well. Despite the financial commitment by central office, however, no release from regular duties was provided for either of the OA chairpersons. Although their time was flexible because they were counselors, both note the serious problem that finding the necessary time to do the organizational work presented. The district does commit dollars for meetings and training, helping staff members become trained and capable of training others. A significant bonus came through a Michigan State Department of Education Section 90 grant for $35,000 in 1989-90, with continuing grant money of $24,000 in 1991-92. The leadership recognizes the huge difference that this money made in the success of the program. The ability to meet, to train, and to know that money existed to help develop ideas made a difference in the attitude of the staff. Teaching Staff The current staff of 44 full time professional staff has extensive experience. Of those completing the survey, 91% have been in education for fifteen years or more, with 83% putting in more than 20 years. As was the case with Central, most have been at North for most of their career, with 77% of the teachers spending their entire career at North. They know the territory and many note that prior to OA they felt demoralized and burned out. Currently though, a positive feeling is evident in the building. Nearly all are teaching in an area in which they have an undergraduate major; only one does not 85 Most are very involved in the life of their school; 79% have education- related activities beyond regular working hours. This includes extra-curricular (54%); district-wide committees (71%); union and negotiating (37%); and teaching outside the regular day (16%). [Total is more than 100% because many teachers have more than one activity] Outcomes Accreditation Initial OA Experience As indicated above, North began working with CA because the two teachers came back from a conference very excited about it. The two had worked together as counselors and were taking a graduate class together. The principal had asked them to chair the traditional NCA accreditation. After they retumed from the conference where they heard about the introduction of OA, which was in its infancy at the time, they convinced first the principal and then the teaching staff to try the OA model. Teachers remark on the extent to which the beginning experience relied on the influence of the co-chairs. One notes, ”[They] found the key to convert the staff to OA.” Because they believed that the staff responded better in small groups, meetings were held during plan periods to explain the OA process and take the vote on whether to use OA. An overwhelming 95% voted to try OA. 0 Because North was one of the first schools to become involved, the staff helped to formulate the current process. One teacher comments, ”W e began at a time when no road maps existed. Therefore our process was more of an adventure than a journey. Next time, we will be able to address the elements in a more effective and efficient manner.” An example of this is the fact that N orth’s mission statement was developed before the district had begun work on one. During the first year, North applied for and received an MDE grant of $35,000 to 86 help fund their work. The co-chairs worked to get the funds and to change the attitude of those who did not believe in the process. Teachsr Leadership for OA Teacher leadership has come from three teacher co-chairs. Two led the project for the first four years. Both were counselors with more than twenty years of experience in the district. One was male and one female. They complemented the skills of one another. One kept things going and took care of details, while the other used the experience in extensive committee work in the building and district to make contacts and make things possible. During the fourth year of the project, one was appointed assistant principal in the building. The teaching staff voted to retain her as OA co-chair. During the last year, the other was appointed to an administrative job outside the building. He was replaced as chairperson with a teacher who had been actively involved as a member of the Steering Committee and as a chair of one of the target goals. She teaches English. All have good relations with the staff. No resentment seems to exist towards the original two for taking administrative jobs. Instead, other teachers acknowledge their leadership skills. One teacher observes, ”Improvement works best when it is generated by the staff itself.” Most of the staff attribute the OA success to the leadership, dedication, and example of the chairpeople. Tar et als The Steering Committee organized data collection during the first year to formulate the target goals. All staff, including support staff completed questionnaires and attitude surveys. In addition, departments were surveyed for outcomes the school should stress. After revision later that year because of overlap, the following target goals were chosen. 1. Rsaging. Students will become strategic, motivated readers. 87 2. Writing. Students will improve their writing skills in all content areas. 3. Mathematics. Students will gain the mathematical knowledge, skills, and techniques necessary to solve everyday problems. 4. CourtesyZRespect. There will be an increase in respectful student-to- student and student-to-staff attitudes (culture, race, gender) and behaviors so that students will ultimately increase their effectiveness in the community at large. 5. Mp; Students will improve their self-concept as related to setting realistic educational goals. Target Goal Committees Because of the relatively small size of the staff, every teacher on staff became involved in some capacity. Although membership and leadership changed in some committees because of staff changes and the time that could be spent, the majority of the staff stayed involved. Committees met on released time and during half day inservices as well as on their own time. The Reading Committee maintained a consistent cooperative effort throughout the OA cycle. After several changes of direction at the beginning, the group decided that it wanted all students to be strategic, motivated readers and set about determining components of the desired behaviors. An important decision was to make reading the responsibility of all teachers in the school, not just those in the English department. Committee members trained other staff in various reading strategies to use in all classrooms such as Sustained Silent Reading, mind mapping, previewing and predictions. A fifteen minute time period is set aside throughout the building on Tuesdays-Fridays each week for silent reading in every classroom. Various incentives and rewards have been given. Students have changed their attitude toward reading. One girl reports that she had never read a full book before, but now reads regularly. Teachers 88 observe that students have upgraded their reading choices for the free reading time gradually over the years of the project. There has been an increased use of the library and many staff members have their own supply of newspapers, magazines and books. The goal of having no one reading in Category I on the MEAP was achieved by 1989. By 1992 all students have passed the MEAP reading test. Various strategies were used to increase use of library and of reading by teachers in all subject areas. Over 70% of the teachers took classes to the library for research during the 1991-92 school year. The Writing Committee set the following goal: 60% of the class will score four or higher on a scale of six on the General Educational Development (GED) Writing Test. By the end of the project, 73% of the students had reached this standard. Despite several changes in membership and leadership of the committee during the OA years, significant training and changes in curriculum occurred. Staff members have been trained in holistic scoring. Writing samples were scored by teachers from all departments, not just from English. A teacher observes, ”Writing is no longer the domain of just the English department.” Committee members and outside experts conducted inservices on writing- to-leam and journal writing techniques for use in specific content areas. At the beginning of the writing across the curriculum phase, writing was required every hour, every day. A significant increase in the amount and types of writing required by teachers in every department has been shown. A business teacher, for example, uses journal writing to help students process their learning. Topics for use in each content area were developed by staff members to help initiate the program. Learning log notebooks are available to all students within each department. As a result of all these efforts, a 20% improvement in content area writing has been achieved. In addition, the ninth and tenth grade English curriculum was revised to teach the process writing skills more effectively. 89 The Mathematics Committee set a goal of mastery of 75% of the MEAP math objectives by all seniors, using the old math test. Indeed, 100% of the students met the goal. The committee stayed together, with almost no change in membership or leadership. A unique component of their plan was the use of math warm-ups once a week by teachers in all subject areas. All teachers attended a workshop on strategies for teaching math concepts. The group also taught elementary and middle school teachers some of the same techniques and provided an impetus to change the eighth grade curriculum. A significant increase in the use of calculators and in the number of students taking and receiving a grade of C or better in Algebra has also occurred. The committee working on the affective goal of an increase in respect and courtesy had several changes in leadership during the OA cycle. Reality therapy became a strategy to increase student responsibility for personal behavior. Although North lacked the money for a Time-Out Room, 40% of the staff has been trained in reality therapy and use it in their classes. Special sessions (future planning by ninth graders) and senior planning activities were developed to increase student responsibility in planning for their future. These activities were offered to everyone and taught by various staff members. Citizenship grades improved during the course of OA. The second affective goal was improving self-concept and setting realistic educational goals. The committee struggled with defining the terms and with separating its goals from the Courtesy committee as well as with a change in leadership and key committee members. Various motivational speakers and workshops have attacked the problem of motivation. The efforts have been well received. A number of smaller reward and motivational efforts were initiated such as certificates, posted lists, and bumper stickers. 90 Staff Outcomes Staff Training North High School benefited from the extensive Academy program initiated by the superintendent at the beginning of the OA process. The training was offered during the summer and on weekends, as well as on school time. Significant numbers of teachers used their own time for the training so that they would not be out of their classrooms. Between 12 and 24 courses have been offered each year since its beginning in 1989. By the end of the current school year, 100% of the faculty have completed ITIP, Classroom Management, and Cooperative Learning. In addition 45% have completed Reality Therapy, 27% Peer Coaching, and 18% Teacher Expectation Student Achievement (TESA). The staff also attended and presented at a significant number of conferences and workshops. During a three and a half year period, over 260 experiences were logged. Responses to the survey show that the staff did increase the amount of training during OA. Of the 24 staff members responding, 18 (75%) reported participating in staff development activities before OA began. They had training in 94 experiences for an average of 3.91 topics. During OA the comparable numbers are 100% participating in training. They had 179 experiences for an average of 7.46 topics. Of particular note is the breadth of training that each person is reporting. Making sure that all staff members have the training necessary to implement goals is critical. The expectation that they must broaden their repertoire of skills outside their discipline is noteworthy. Specific topics are listed in Appendix H. Again, the importance of training is whether staff members feel adequately prepared to use the training. The mean response to the question, ”I received adequate training in the skills I needed to be involved in the process and 91 implement the programs” is 4.125 with a variance of .375 and a SD of .512. Responses are very positive, with no responses in the ”Not at all” or ”To a very little extent” categories. Staff members are somewhat less satisfied with the amount of follow-up provided, with responses to the question having a mean of 3.522, with a variance of .534 and a SD of .730. The responses are comparable across departments and by gender. The training does appear to make a difference in teacher behavior. The question ”The staff training changed my skills, behaviors, and attitudes” has a mean response of 3.696 with a variance of 1.221 and a SD of 1.105. Thirteen of the 24 responses (54%) respond positively (4 or 5) to the question. Differences by department or by role in the school are minimal. Teachers note that the real impact is even more subtle. The nature of teacher talk has changed from general ”lounge talk” and complaining to discussion of real professional issues and growth. The changed teacher attitude then influences the students. One teacher notes that this is much different from earlier experiences. Teacher comments seem to imply that an informal network for follow-up exists that is a positive influence on whether teachers are willing to risk applying skills learned in training. Involvsmsnt One of the OA chairs feels that almost everyone was involved, noting only 2 negative teachers by the end of the project. Survey data substantiate her impression, with 38% of the teachers seeing themselves as highly involved and another 38% seeing themselves involved as much as time permits. All others see themselves at least somewhat involved. N 0 difference by gender is evident from the data. A T-test by gender on the question shows a variance of .744 with DF=21 and a probability of .465. Differences across departments are minimal. The involvement grew gradually during the process. One teacher describes how he 92 was not a ”believer,” until, about two years into the project, the pressure became great enough from other teachers that he approached the chairpeople and asked to get training and experienced what he describes as the ”Aha!” experience. The average teacher perceives that the time spent now is more than it has been in the past. Most have been involved for at least two years (mean of 4.091 in answer to the question ”Indicate how long you have put in extra hours beyond the normal work load for OA”) and 63% expect to continue for another OA cycle. Time varied from as little as no extra time at all spent on OA to as much as 100 hours per month of extra time spent. Extra time was spent most typically for preparing inservices, attending training, or working on a particularly time- intensive activity for a committee such as preparing reports or data analysis. Finding the time to put in the number of hours is a problem that staff members from North note just as Central’s do. The CA chairpersons do not have released time from regular duties and feel that CA has been an intense personal commitment that probably cannot be maintained into the future. Several other teachers note the lack of time as an impediment to change in answering the open- ended survey question #61. In addition, some note that the time issue was complicated during OA because central office began adding additional agenda items. One teacher evaluates the issue of time, ”T he lack of ’time and treasure’ is the biggest complaint. If a district could adequately provide these two items, the system could totally change instead of minor tinkering. In retrospect, the lack of time and money forced us to be more creative which might be a factor in our success. This was valuable except it cannot continue to be sustained since the toll is too great on the major contributors.” A significant 67% of the teachers spend at least ten extra hours a month on OA. Only 13% spend no extra time at all. Reasons cited for not being involved include family obligations (2 teachers, 8%) and already too involved in school 93 activities (8%). Little difference in time spent appears between teachers with various length of teaching experience. The numbers show considerably higher extra involvement than at Central, even when adjusted for the low return rate. The feeling in the building substantiates the data, with most teachers feeling that they put in extra time because of the work on target goals and various strategies. Everyone (100%) reports receiving staff development and serving on planning committees. A large number of teachers report using new techniques and approaches in their classrooms (75%), working collaboratively with other teachers to share and develop programs and strategies (79%), and implementing new programs and strategies (63%). Collaboration Teachers report a high amount of collaboration (mean of 4.167 with a variance of .493 and a SD of .702), but not quite as much planning and coordinating between departments (mean of 3.458, variance of .868 and a SD of .932). They see more efforts to coordinate and plan with other teachers individually (mean of 3.833 with a variance of .667 and a SD of .816). N 0 difference in responses exists between genders on the issue of collaboration (identical means of 4.167). Little variation in responses of teachers in various departments exists on the amount of teacher coordination and planning. One teacher notes, "The cross-curriculum communication was greatly improved, resulting in reinforcement of each other’ 5 subject and content areas.” Decision Making Outcomes Internal Dscision Making -- Building annization The principal has several years of experience in his job at North. As noted earlier, before the beginning of OA, he had attempted to interest the staff in site- based management. He sees his role as one of encouraging and enabling rather than forcing. He was ready to move into the OA model, even though he was not 94 the moving force behind its adoption. Administrators see themselves as highly involved in the process (2 out of 3) or involved as much as possible (1 out of 3). They have received extensive training as well, receiving training in at least 7 topics during OA. The principal has worked to extend the participative decision making skills that are part of OA. For example, new hires in the building are now interviewed by a teacher team. Those who are hired must agree with site-based decision making and be ready to work collaboratively on issues. Participation is also used in developing and implementing the building budget. Although one teacher sees the beginning of OA as illustrative of the principal’s willingness to go along with a staff movement rather than his readiness to lead the staff into it, most feel he supports them. The principal feels that his job is to provide the opportunity for staff to work together and to ”run interference” with outside forces so that teachers can accomplish what they need to. Teachers have demonstrated their readiness as they organized and delivered many inservices around topics developed by target goal committees. A problem that has affected the operation this year is the first tenure hearing for dismissal of a teacher in the building. Several people mentioned the issue as one that has strained the relationship and the trust between administration and teaching staff. On the other hand, a trust of administration is demonstrated by the fact that the staff voted quickly to allow the OA chair who became an administrator in the building to continue her work as chairperson. Table 6 (p.95) compares the extent of trust and teamwork established by the administration in comparison to that established by the OA steering committee. Although the trust and sense of teamwork is greater toward the fellow teachers on the steering committee, a positive response toward the building administrative team is also reflected. That these responses were made 95 during the controversy over the tenure hearing and dismissal referred to above is of particular note. Committee chairpeople show a real sense of working together toward a common goal. Although everyone recognizes that a few do not participate, most credit OA with changing the sense of teamwork in the building and helping to make teachers sense that they can be a part of decision making. Teachers seem to have caught the enthusiasm and the need for coordinated and concerted effort to change student achievement and behavior. Table 6 Comparison of Trust and Teamwork by Administration and CA Comm. North High School Question Not Very Very No at Little Little Great Great Mean SD VstResmnse All Extent Extent Extettt Extent _ View communication from administration with trust and confidence 3.957 .971 .944 1 0 3 2 1 1 7 Administrators, staff, students work as a team 3.667 .816 .667 0 0 1 10 9 4 View communication from building comm. with trust and confidence 4.042 .751 .563 0 0 0 6 1 1 7 Building comm. encourages staff to work as a team 4.391 .656 .431 1 0 0 2 10 1 1 N =24 The subject matter of decision making at North has changed in some areas during OA. T-test comparisons on questions 17-27, comparing decision making now with the time before OA show change in the following areas: Developing a mission and goals; .curriculum development; helping to develop school-wide policies; and developing school-wide programs. For the decision making question T=2.267 with DF =66 and a probability of .027. For curriculum development T=2.0780, with DF =23 and a probability of .050. For developing 96 school-wide policies T= 3.234 with DF =2 and a probability of .004. For developing school-wide programs, T= 3.425 with DF =2 and a probability of .002. The data in Table 7 show that the staff at North generally feels involved in the decision making process. In general teachers feel that they receive adequate information from building administrators so that they can do the best possible job. They feel that they work as a team. Teachers’ and administrators’ responses on the extent of teacher influence in the building are similar. The mean of administrator responses is 3.333 with a SD of 1.528 and a variance of 2.333 while the mean of teacher responses is 3.259 with a SD of 1.28 and a variance of 1.533. Table 7 Building Level Decision Making - North High School Question N Mean SD. Variance Building administration gives adequate information 22 3.909 .971 .944 Administrator seeks and uses ideas about non 22 3.364 1 .002 1 .004 academic matter I view communication from my administrator(s) 23 3.957 .976 .953 with trust and confidence I have been involved in the decision making in 23 3.696 1 .105 1.221 this building Decision making process involves majority of 24 3.542 1.062 1 .129 staffratherthanasmallpartofstaff Administrators, staff, and students work as a 24 3.667 .816 .667 team Administrators in the building are more 21 3.333 1 .197 1 .433 influenced by teacher opinion than before OA 3 = To a little extent 4 = To a great extent N =24 97 One teacher observes, ”The process helped cement a staff that was already like a huge family into a more unified staff than ever before.” And another, ”It’s a great process. It made our staff (or at least 90% of them) into a team that works together to improve education for all our students.” Staff members perceive a change in their roles with a mean of 3.591, variance of 1.015 and SD of 1.008. Administrators see the greatest change. All 3 of them feel they have changed to either a great or very great extent. By contrast, 38% of the teaching staff feels the same way. Since only 4 teachers have less than 20 years in education, no conclusion can be made concerning the effect of time in education on the perception of a change in roles. The generally positive feeling, though, is reflected by a teacher who notes, "The process pulls the best from the faculty and staff, makes communication increase, causes sharing and understanding, and promotes a sense of empowerment and responsibility.” From another department, a teacher observes that teamwork had to be learned both through training and experience. External - en a1 ce Decision Makin The staff feels that central office has given the resources of time and money to help develop and implement OA. Several people note the extent that the Academies set up by central office give the school a vehicle for staff development that is critical for several of the target goal committees. The mean response for the extent of central office resources was 3.708 with a variance of .737 and a SD of .859; 63% of the staff marked to a great or a very great extent. However the staff gives poorer ratings to the extent to which central office gives adequate information (mean of 2.875, variance of .897, SD of .947); the extent to which decision making has been moved to appropriate levels (mean of 2.864, variance of 1.075, SD of 1.037); and the extent to which central office is more influenced by teacher opinion than before OA (mean of 2.545, variance of 98 1.688, SD of 1.299). N 0 significant difference is shown in responses by men and women. Using the t-test sample statistic, T=-1.479 with DF=20 and a probability of .155. The primary problems with central office seem to come from the amount of additional work it asks for beyond OA. The time commitment for OA puts so much pressure on staff that additional agendas from central office become too much. One teacher notes, ”Additional work from central office hindered progress of the high school staff by adding additional work to already overloaded schedules and work loads.” In addition, the tenure hearing noted above strained the trust that had developed among staff. External — Union Decision Making Staff members see the union as being fairly supportive of OA. The question ”My union encourages participation in school improvement” has a mean response of 3.476 with a variance of .962 and SD of .981 while ”My union supports building level decision making for CA recommendations” has a mean response of 3.632 with a variance of 1.023 and a SD of 1.012. A union representative notes that one of the teacher co-chairs had been a member of one of the bargaining teams and both co-chairs had been recognized as being strong teacher advocates. He observes, ”Probably the reason OA was sold here was because it was sold by our colleagues.” He comments that the contract calls for teacher participation at the district level in a curriculum council. The latest contract also has language that covers how school improvement and outcomes accreditation works. He feels that if school site decision making works, the district teacher input processes should end and site based teams take over. He concludes that OA begins to make the transition to participative management and that he expects the district to move in that direction. 99 OA — Success Stoty or Not Again, using North Central’s criteria of improved student outcomes, N orth’s experience is a success. Significant increases in writing, reading, and math scores in the cognitive areas are evident in the details noted above. The affective areas also show improvement. N orth’s success was affirmed when it received full accreditation in April. Beyond student outcomes, though, several questions determine success. One question is whether or not OA has affected what happens in each classroom. The mean response to ”Implementing the various target goals and strategies has affected howl work with and view other staff members” is 4.200 with a SD of .951 and a variance of .905. Little difference in response is shown by teaching area or by gender. One teacher notes, ”I was teaching the same way I had been taught forty or fifty years ago. [N ow} new ideas are being used. Staff team efforts work .” Further, most seem to feel more positive about their role as an educator. The mean response to the question ”I feel more positive about my role as an educator as a result of my involvement in OA” is 3.773 with a SD of .973 and a variance of .946. A feeling of pride permeates many actions. Reports in a major metropolitan newspaper and on television reinforce the successful image portrayed by the staff at North. Another aspect is how staff members work together. The mean- response to ”Implementing the various targets goals and strategies has affected howl work with and view other staff members” is 4.000 with a variance of .957 and SD of .978. Positive responses (To a great or very great extent) were noted by 75% of those responding. The means of male and female responses were identical. One teacher comments, ”When teachers improve and grow in their thinking, [along with developing group planning and gaining support,] students experience success. There is a contagion that occurs with success for each level.” 100 The impact on the organization at North appears to be positive as well. On the principal’s part, a familiarity with staff and a predisposition to use a participatory management style has brought the staff along. In the district as a whole, the superintendent’s efforts to provide training help staff members perceive support. Because of the number of active union people in leadership roles in OA, union support is positive as well. A third determination of success is found in the staff perception of success. The statement ”0A is successful in this building” has a mean response of 4.217 with a variance of .723 and SD of .850. Of the 23 responding on that question, 83% mark ”To a great or very great extent.” There are a few negative responses such as ”I have seen no changes,” ”Some persons refused to change or try new practices or work in committees,” ”A lot of effort for the amount of time involved,” and ”Working through the negativity of the staff [was a problem].” Still most are very enthusiastic. ”I feel this is a fantastic process.” ”It is a highly effective way to get total staff involvement.” ”Probably [this is] the most useful and effective process ever invented to promote worthwhile school improvement that will directly relate to student achievement.” ”I can’t wait for the next five year cycle to be completed!” ”Getting through the process was hell, but it has made us stronger. We now function as a family.” ”The process becomes the driving force. Through staff participation in the above events, people experience the opportunity to discuss professional issues and concerns rather than just ’lounge talk.’ The process becomes the vehicle of growth both personally and professionally.” Further analysis is included in Part II of this chapter. WEST HIGH SCHOOL West High sits in an older suburb of a major metropolitan area. It is one of two schools serving the town of 65,000. Minorities make up less than 1% of the 101 population. Over 78% of the adult population have completed four years of high school and 30% have attended four years or more of college. The per capita income is $13,900. Financially stronger than Central and North, the district has an S.E.V. per pupil of $155,609 and a per pupil expenditure of $6,564. West is in its fourth year of OA and expects to complete the process during the 1993-94 school year. Because of this, reports from the target goal committees are not as complete as those from East and North. Data Collection After the initial phone interview, the researcher met with the principal and the OA chairpeople to explore the study. The survey was administered by the school staff at a regular teacher meeting after school. Seventy-two teachers and two administrators returned the survey. This represents over 95% of the teaching staff. Subsequently the researcher spent some time interviewing the principal and co-chairs of the Steering Committee and examining the reports that had been prepared for the first visits by the outside team. Results of the survey, interviews, and reports are woven together in the following account. Parental Support Parental support for the school is high. Survey data during the school self- study at the beginning of OA showed 80% of the parents satisfied with the job the school was doing. Parents are involved on the Steering Committee and continue to show support. The Building The building is in the middle of an extensive renovation of the original 1950’s site. Massive rebuilding has extended through most of the OA years and is slated for completion in 1993-94. Student population in the 9-12 school has varied by two hundred or so over the last five years and is 1254 for the 1992-93 102 school year. The new facility will include more technology, remodeled vocational and athletic facilities, and updated classroom and media components. Student Body The students body, reflecting the community, is almost 100% white. Approximately 60% of the graduates attend a four year college or university the first year after high school graduation. ACT scores are slightly above the state averages. The school prepares students for further academic training and focuses on skill development for college level work. Teaching and Learning West began activity in CA in a setting that already put greater emphasis on traditional high school learning. Because of this, changes may not seem as dramatic. Still, West has been active in the formulation of Outcomes Accreditation. Although it began the process a year after North High and Central High, it has focused on the process of the change as the most important element of OA. The focus on the process is apparent, even in the effect on students. One teacher notes, ”Students are aware that we are working on the change for them.” An OA chairperson reiterates that the most important product of OA is the knowledge and ability to work with process that the staff has gained. Two of the target goals the school selected require the use of different approaches to teaching in every curriculum area: writing across the curriculum and the use of higher level thinking skills. Several teachers note more communication between departments. The fact that West is not as far along in the process as North and Central is apparent in a feeling of several staff members that it is still too soon to tell what the real impact has been. One observes, though, that once students recognized that teachers thought their learning was important to teachers, it became important to them as students as well. 103 Administrative Leadership The principal was a primary motivator in the move to use the OA process. He had been in his position for one year when the opportunity to use OA came up. He felt that it would energize the staff and serve as a focal point for a more comprehensive change that he wanted to see happen. He approached the staff, held inservices on the issues with outside speakers, and sold the staff on the idea of CA as the best vehicle to school improvement. He knew that PA-25 was on the horizon in the Michigan legislature, although it had not yet been adopted and saw the building ready for change. He believes strongly in participative management and sees his role as an enabling one. He works energentically to keep interruptions to a minimum and to run interference for his staff so that it can do the job in the classroom. The superintendent has been in position throughout the OA process and supports the activity with dollars and with support for training and time. He is on state committees that provide insight into future directions and recognizes the importance of changing public education. He, also, knew at the beginning that PA-25 would change the face of the way schools operate and recognized the way that OA fits with school improvement in general. The district presents the image of one that fosters quality education and trains students for continuing education. District Resources The district has provided consistent financial support. Each year the school has received $5,000 for OA, as well as 90 days of release time, some of which was used to pay staff for work in the summer. The co-chairs have one hour assigned to OA organization as part of their regularly assigned duties. In addition, some support staff from central office have provided regular guidance and support throughout the OA process. 104 Teaching Staff The current staff of 70 full time professionals and several more assigned for part of the day is experienced. Most (65%) have been in education for 20 years or more, although 11% have five years or less experience. Many (46%) have been at West for more than 20 years as well, although 21% have been there five years or less. Nearly all (98%) are teaching in an area in which they had an undergraduate major. The staff, then, is slightly younger than the ones at Central and North. Most are very involved in the life of the school; 81% have education related activities beyond the normal working hours. Of the 74 staff members responding, 49% are involved in extracurricular supervision, 59% in various district wide curriculum and staff development committees, 14% in union related activities, and 19% in teaching outside the regular working day. [Total is more than 100% because some do more than one.] Outcomes Accreditation Initial QA Experience West began OA because the principal convinced the staff that it provides an effective way of bringing together a variety of efforts to change the way the school operates. Seeing the staff as ready for change, he talked to the staff, brought in speakers at inservices, and then took a vote on beginning OA. He saw the implications for participatory management that are part of OA and wanted to move toward that organizational pattern. Since the district had already been involved in Lezotte’s Effective Schools model, the direction fit in with the rest of the district. The staff then chose OA chairpeople and began gathering data and getting training. The staff seems satisfied that the decision was theirs, not one imposed on them. 105 Early OA experiences included extensive work on the process of setting goals, increasing communication, and involving staff. The direction and leadership of the Steering Committee helped to develop the skills in the process of OA. Tsachsr Leadership for OA The teacher leadership for CA comes from two teachers during the first four years of the project: a female learning lab teacher and a male English teacher. At the time of the data gathering, one was changing the role played during the first years. Both teachers focused on the importance of the process used in developing and adopting change. They worked at developing trust with the staff slowly, trying to overcome the suspicion that shadows most change processes. From the beginning, communication has been an important cornerstone in building the sense of team spirit. Both focus on the need to take the time to talk to teachers and get a feel for what is going on. After each inservice, they feedback all responses to the staff to reinforce the importance of communication. They have presented at state and national conferences on the change process. Teacher leadership has taken on responsibility for inservices. Primary goals are that they have continuity and purposefulness. This year three are set aside for various North Central topics and one is devoted to MEAP. The CA co- chairs and the Steering Committee work closely with the principal to keep activities focused as much as possible. Even the topics that are not directly connected with CA are arranged by teacher leadership, an example of how the process has changed the way of doing business. 106 Target Goals The School and Community Committee gathered data during the first year. Parent, student, and staff surveys, as well as test results and grades, provided baseline data to help develop the following target goals. 1. Students will be able to express themselves clearly in writing. 2. Students will use higher level thinking skills. 3. Students will accept responsibility for their learning through attendance, preparation, and participation. 4. Students will develop self-esteem through the development of confidence. 5. Students will demonstrate cooperative behavior by contributing ideas and interacting positively. Target anl ngmittees Less information is presented about the committees’ work at West than at Central and North for two reasons. First, final data are not available because West is one year behind the other two in the process. Second, the researcher did not have the opportunity to interview committee chairpeople and needed to rely on written progress reports. Committees met on release time and during the summer. Most committees tried to avoid working very long after the contractual day because of competing obligations of members and because of a belief that working after a full day’s work causes a loss of effectiveness. The writing committee has taken steps to integrate writing into all subject areas. Every teacher received inservice on the teaching of writing. Some of these were led by outside experts, some by central office support staff, and some by West teachers. Focusing on the use of writing as a learning tool in all departments, the committee added a requirement for every department that students have at least three writing assignments each marking period. The 107 committee uses the N AEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) writing test to measure skills. After training, the staff holistically scored the tests. At the beginning of the project, junior and senior scores were very similar to those of freshmen. About 46% received scores of 3-4. In an updated testing in 1992, the number increased to 67% for juniors and seniors. One teacher notes, ”Our effort on the writing goal will perpetuate itself because we now have a tool to increase student learning. We have seen that it works.” The higher order thinking skills committee struggled early on with a definition and with appropriate measures. It has experienced a change in leadership as well. Staff has received training, but the difficulties in clear direction make the results harder to see. At the time of this research, little hard data existed to show progress on the goal. The committee working on students accepting responsibility for attendance, preparation, and participation has met with some success. The number of students failing classes because of attendance has dropped by 50% during a two year period. This reflects district projects as well as the efforts of the school committee. Strategies to increase student responsibility for their own learning has incorporated strategies for increasing personal responsibility and moving all make-up work to after school hours. The self-esteem committee works more with students and parents. They moved rapidly to institute various efforts for students. The difficulty in measurement, though, means that results are not as quantifiable. Several strategies for increasing student pride and self-esteem have been implemented. The committee on cooperative behavior organized inservices on cooperative learning for staff. It broadened its definition to include development of interpersonal skills in students. Several components of cooperative learning are now common across departments, including cooperatively developed course 108 expectation sheets and use of a ”study buddy” to increase the connection among students and to focus on each student’ 5 responsibility for personal learning. Staff Outcomes Staff Training West High uses OA as a way of making inservice more cohesive and goal directed. It receives more direct involvement in the planning from central office support personnel, possibly because it is the largest of the three districts. Although some training is offered by outside experts to all staff, the emphasis is on follow up and making the connection to the classroom. The amount of released time makes it possible for committee members to receive training that they can use, both for developing plans and for providing follow up. Many, however, still cite the time factor as a continuing problem. ”Our department needs more time to spend to put more thought into outcomes rather than a few minutes here and there.” And another, ”[The process and training] is good but at times overwhelming. We may be trying too much at once.” More people received staff development during OA than before. Of the 74 staff members completing the survey, 66% had participated in staff development activities before OA began. Training experiences in a total of 218 topics result in an average of 2.95 topics. During OA the comparable numbers are 327 and an average of 4.42. However, 12% still report no training and 14% received training in only one topic. Since West has a younger staff than the others, this group may come from those new to the building and education who arrived after some of the first training efforts. The topics with the greatest participation during OA include cooperative learning (62%), developing a mission (54%), effective schools and school improvement, (49%), communication skills (39%), and consensus building (35%). The topics and those participating are listed in Appendix H. 109 The attitude toward the inservice is critical. The mean response to the question, ”I received adequate training in the skills I needed to be involved in the process and implement the programs” is 3.544 with a SD of .854 and a variance of .729. Responses tend to be fairly positive, with 55% responding ”To a great or very great extent.” There is no evidence that there is a difference in responses between genders. Using a T-test sample statistic, T = 1.261 with DF = 66 and a probability of .212. Teachers are also fairly positive about the follow-up to staff development. The mean response to the question ”There was adequate follow-up and support of staff training” is 3.515 with a SD of .763 and a variance of .582. One teacher agrees that staff development is always necessary but adds that more teacher- coaching seminars are needed. The outcomes of the training show a fairly positive result as well. The mean response to the question ”The staff training changed my skills, behaviors, and attitudes” is 3.485 with a SD of .702 and a variance of .492. In fact, 50% respond positively (4 or 5) to the question. Another measure, ”Implementing the target goals and strategies has affected what I do in my classroom” has a mean response of 3.776 with a SD of .813 and a variance of .661. Involvsment Most teachers feel involved with the OA project. The mean response of staff members when asked ”Indicate the extent to which you feel/ have felt involved in OA” is 3.903 with SD of .891 and a variance of .518. Indeed, 92% of staff members indicate that they are at least somewhat involved, with 23% of the total feeling highly involved. Responses from men and women are very similar. Very little difference exists based on time in education. Teachers in most departments show similar levels of involvement (see Table 8), with the exception of those in home economics, industrial arts and special education. 110 Table 8 Involvement by Teaching Area - West High School Department N Involved as Highly Percentage responding much as involved (5) 4 and above posihlet‘l) English 10 4 4 80% Social St. 5 3 0 60% For. Lang. 4 2 1 75% Math 10 5 2 70% Science 7 6 1 100% Business / Comp. 5 1 3 80% Home Ec/IndArt 4 1 0 25% Art/ Music 2 2 0 100% Phys. Ed. 6 4 0 67% Spec. Ed. 8 3 0 38% N =74 Many teachers (35%) see that the time spent now is about the same as it had been before OA. More (50%), however, see themselves as having put in extra time for two years and expect to continue through another OA cycle. Time spent on CA varies from as little as no extra time at all on OA to as much as 75 hours per month. As in the other buildings, those spending larger amounts of time attribute the need to work longer to their role as chairpeople of committees, and to the need to prepare for deadlines and for inservices. The problem of time again surfaces as a major problem. Several note the fact that CA is time consuming and that not enough is done to provide the time. One teacher observes that some people did not get involved because of other commitments so that on some committees only a few people did the real work. Another cites data collection and clerical work as so time consuming that work beyond regular hours was essential. The implication is that many feel the level of involvement cannot be sustained as a regular part of the work process. 111 Most teachers spend at least some additional time on OA. Only 12% spend no extra time at all. At the other extreme, 16% spend ten hours or more a month on OA. As at North and Central, only 30% cite reasons for not being involved. The reasons given most often for not being involved are over- involvement in other school activities (41 %), family obligations (27%), and taking classes (14%). The number of years in education seems to make little difference in being involved in OA. Only one teacher with more than 15 years of experience reports not being involved at all or involved as little as possible. Teachers are widely involved in many types of OA activities. A significant 72% see themselves working collaboratively with other teachers to develop programs and strategies, 81% report working on target goal committees and problem solving teams, 70% receive staff development presentations, 62% implement new programs, and 54% implement new programs in their classrooms. Despite the feeling by a few teachers that not everyone is involved, West has rather wide participation by most teachers in their self-reporting. 991w Teachers report a high amount of collaboration (mean of 3.833 with a SD of .712 and a variance of .507). They do not see as much collaboration between departments, though, with a mean of 3.324 with a SD of .984 and a variance of .968. They do, though, coordinate their efforts more with individual teachers, reporting a mean of 3.529, with SD of .912 and a variance of .833. Males are somewhat more likely to work collaboratively than female. The male mean is 4.026 and female is 3.618. The T-test statistic of 2.251 with DF=70 and a probability of .014 shows some evidence that there is a difference. 112 Decision Making Outcomes Internal D ° i n Makin - Buildin anization The principal at West used OA as a way to make a change and to move the building toward a more participative mode. As a fairly new principal at the beginning of the process, he saw West as a building ready to make a change. He sees his role as a motivator and as an enabler. He tries to run interference for the staff and committees so that they can do their jobs more effectively. Administrators responding to the survey see themselves as highly involved in the process and have received extensive training, receiving training in 10 topics or more during OA. The principal has worked to extend the participative process developed in OA to other topics as well. Recently, for example, a decision about homeroom used the same process as the one that has been in use for CA because it allowed more input and teachers felt more a part of the decision. He recognizes the time commitment and works to keep extra work and intrusions on classroom time to a minimum. Teachers score the question “The building administration gives the staff adequate information so that it can do the best possible job” fairly positively, with a mean of 3.861, with a SD of .827 and a variance of .685, with 4 representing ”To a great extent.” The extent of trust and team work established by the administration in comparison to that established by the OA steering committee is shown in Table 9 (p. 113). The strong similarity of results between administration and committee shows the extent to which trust and teamwork have become the way the school operates on a day-to-day basis. The subject matter of decision making has changed relatively little during OA. Only the work on mission shows a real difference from the time before OA with a mean of 2.356 (SD of 1.141 and variance of 1.302) before OA and a mean of 3.284 (SD of 1.360 and variance of 1.850) now. This may be because the 113 Table 9 Comparison of Trust and Teamwork by Administration and OA Comm. West High School Not Very Very No at Little Little Great Great Question Mean SD VarResDOnse All Extent Extent Extent Extent , View communication from administration with trust and confidence 4.099 1.002 1.004 3 3 3 5 33 27 Administrators, staff, students work as a team 3.634 .975 .950 3 2 7 18 32 12 View communication from building comm. with trust and confidence 4.000 .810 .657 6 1 2 10 38 17 Building comm. encourages staff to work as a team 4.029 .798 .637 4 1 1 12 37 19 N =74 principal’s tenure matched the beginning of OA fairly closely; since he incorporated participative management techniques from the beginning, staff may have felt highly involved before OA. In general, teachers feel fairly positive about the decision making process at West. The data in Table 10 show that the staff at West feels involved in the decision making process. Teachers seem to feel they receive adequate information and feel involved in decisions. They feel they work as a team. Teachers and administrators view the extent of teacher influence similarly. Staff members see a change in their roles, with a mean of 3.361, a SD of .775 and a variance of .601. The relatively small number of teachers with less than 10 years of experience makes it difficult to draw any valid comparison based on length of experience, but numbers seem consistent across the years. Men feel more positive about the decision making process. The T-test statistic of 2.799 with 114 Table 10 Building Level Decision Making - West High School Question N Mean SD Variance Building administration gives adequate information 72 3.861 .827 .685 Administrator seeks and uses ideas about non 71 3.394 1 .102 1 .214 academic matter I view communication from my administrator(s) 71 4.099 1.002 1 .003 with trust and confidence I have been involved in the decision making in 69 3.333 .965 .931 this building Decision making process involves majority of 69 3.377 1.016 1 .032 staff rather than a small part of staff Administrators, staff, and students work as a 71 3.634 .975 .950 team Administrators in the building are more 63 3.532 .970 1 .124 influenced by teacher opinion than before OA 3: To a little extent 4: To a great extent N =74 DF=67 and a probability of .007 shows a difference at the .05 level of significance. xtemal - en al D ' ion Makin The staff feels very positive about the amount of resources, both money and personnel, available to support the OA process, with a mean of 4.000, a SD of .713 and a variance of .508. Nearly 68% of the staff rate that question to a great or a very great extent An example of the help is one of the central office staff who has been very helpful in work on various target goals and in getting the staff in touch with useful technical advice. The staff gives somewhat poorer rankings to the amount of information shared by central office (mean of 3.394 with a SD of .820 and a variance of .673), the extent to which decision making has been moved to appropriate levels (mean 115 of 3.435 with a SD of .880 and a variance of .774), and the amount of teacher influence at central office (mean of 3.175 with a SD of .933 and a variance of .966). The responses stay relatively high, however, in comparison to the other schools. Part of this may be attributable to the fact that West has been used as a resource for the rest of the district. Central office is using the process developed there for other schools in the district to follow to gain accreditation. The T-test statistic of 2.675 with DF= 60 and a probability of .010 indicates that there is a difference in responses between men and women on the extent to which decisions have been moved to an appropriate level at a .05 level of significance with men feeling more satisfied than women. External - Union Decision Making Staff members see the union as fairly supportive of OA. The question ”My union encourages participation in school improvement” has a mean response of 3.516 with a SD of 1.141 and a variance of 1.301 while ”My union supports building level decision making for OA recommendations” has a mean response of 3.517 with a SD of 1.127 and a variance of 1.271. One reason for this may be that several target goal committee chairpeople are union leaders as well. Although teachers perceive little improvement in union-building relations as a result of OA (mean of 2.887 with a SD of 1.121 and a variance of 1.256), this may be because of satisfactory relations before OA began. A - uc to or Not The reporting of success to North Central based on student outcomes is not complete, but positive results have already been noted in reading and writing. Completion of the final report during 1993-94 will tell a more complete story. Part of the determination of success depends upon whether or not CA has affected what happens in each classroom. The mean response of ”Implementing 116 the target goals and strategies has affected what I do in my classroom” is 3.7765 with a SD of .813 and a variance of .661. One teacher sees a gradual change in student learning rather than a dramatic one. Another sees a change not just in test data but also in student awareness and attitudes. The change does not seem to be as all-encompassing as the one at North, but one that has changed some teacher behavior, nonetheless. Another aspect of success is how the staff works together. The mean response to ”Implementing various target goals and strategies has affected howl work with and view other staff members” is 3.691 with a variance of .885 and SD of .784. Positive responses are noted by 68% of those responding. Men feel more positive than women. The male mean is 3.889 while the female is 3.469. The T- Test statistic of 1.996 with DF=66 and a probability of .05 indicates that a difference may exist at the .05 level. One teacher notes, ”T his has given our staff unity, confidence, more mutual respect and the impetus of change.” And another, ”A lot of people from different departments are working and sharing ideas.” A change in organization seems somewhat apparent, although it is difficult to tell whether that stems from the management style of the principal or from a direct outgrowth of OA. Teachers do seem to feel part of a team and a conscious change effort. Union and central office organizational structures appear supportive and enthusiastic, although not particularly ready to change the structure. A final indicator of success is found in the staff perception of success. Staff members feel that OA has been a success, giving a mean response of 4.000 with a SD of .661 and a variance of .438. Of the 65 teachers responding to that item, 82% respond positively. Again, there are a few negative comments such as ”The time factor required to make this a successful venture is of great concern to me. It 117 oftentimes pulls us away from really addressing other critical issues in this building” and ”Good [program], but at times overwhelming. We may be trying too much at once.” Still most are enthusiastic. ”Every staff member is aimed in the same direction.” ”The process alone was a catalyst for re-evaluation of habits and practices.” ”The best thing about it is being more aware of the possibilities of the teaching process.” ”Motivational!” Further analysis is included in Part II of this chapter. COMPARISON OF SCHOOLS Table 11 (pp. 118-119) provides a summation of data from the three buildings to compare characteristics and findings. PART II: COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS The first part of this chapter tells the stories of implementation of Outcomes Accreditation in three high schools. It describes each school, telling how it began using OA, and presents data from interviews, surveys, and documents. For each school it describes the staff training, involvement, and collaboration; it describes the decision making process as it affects the internal building organization and the external decision making impact of the central office administration and the teachers’ union; and it describes the perception of success within the building. The next part of the chapter presents the research questions posed at the end of Chapter 1, and, using both qualitative and quantitative data that are pooled from the three buildings, formulates answers to the questions. The nature of the effect of the available financial resources, involvement of the staff, staff training and the decision making process, both internal (building) and external (central office and union) are explored. awn—u .: mo: :28: 3m: 8: $8 . 8:23:58 <0 :o 028 $5 a 829:: mm «o: .Umdm .9405}: 0603 . <0 5 8295 boat“ is emu . 2:0: .3? do E 82935 «in . :mwon <0 523 32. 30:05:: .98 Emu: m :9: mm: tau :0 as: .98 20.: .5 98» cm 03% :0 $8 :flm 2228820 mm owe—28 .28: v 2:3 02:28 $8 323 083 9.32:5me :msm .8: $93 2:56:80 5:8 223 savanna-s mam—u .: 8: :28“ 3o: 8: Saw . awn—u .: 8: E52 3o: 8: Ham . 8222—58 <0 :0 ~38 $8: a 8:568 <0 co 2C8. $8 . $050 .8202: 3:95.880 :< a mm 8202: mm 20: .vmdm :md .522 . <0 5 822.: 29:8 2:: son . <0 5 8:95 :38“ is $8 . 9:5: baa do E 8202: SE a . mic: Sam .8 E 28202: San . gamma <0 2&8 .895 82 E .828 >52 .96 who» m :9: $2 ram 20 I»: .98 9.8: m :5: m8. usm Lo 80 .98 EOE .5 980% cm :9... :0 $3 .98 EOE Lo 98: cu :8m :0 $5 an...” 3:280:05 3 :8. 3:28:80 x: 8:838 2:3 225:8 GEN 8.5853 53 02:28.... *8 x83 exam 0::3 :a «mo::< 0:55:0me :93 you Show 83%—8&8 :msm Sm womem £5558 8:8 02: 3:55:80 5:8 2:: £5me om... “NTm $5me 08: “2-0 mUZ—DH—Dm A~QZ~ m0 ZOmEEOU HH manfifi vmmd :6 8:0: :82 . $120 8: 8.: :82 o :N :0 8:88: :82 o .E on :28 83232.00 .3 m: :08 8:208:00 a: a: :98 8:208:00 8:88.. 82:8: fink . 8:928.— w2:mom $3. 8:928.— o2:mom $8 . mem we 8:008: :82 o no: mo 8:008: :82 o 8:” «o 8:88: :82 . 2.2800 2 2:3. 120 DISTRICT RESOURCES One concern of schools considering using CA as a change process is the cost, with some claiming that only wealthy districts can afford the process. As discussed earlier in this chapter, two of the three districts have similar per pupil dollars available. Central ($4,568) and North ($4751) are slightly above the state average in per pupil expenditures. West is somewhat higher ($6564). Despite the higher amount of available money, similar dollars have been available for use in the 0A program. West and Central have budgets between $5,000 and $10,000 each year in addition to two hours of teacher assignment time (an approximate cost of $15,000-$20,000 per district) to provide one hour a day for each of the teacher co-chairs. During the project, North had the advantage of additional dollars ($40,000 over a three year period) from the Michigan Department of Education through Section 90 monies. All three schools use regular district training dollars for staff development in addition to the dollars allocated for the 0A project. Valid quantitative conclusions cannot be drawn with the available data; qualitative data show that the staffs are generally satisfied with the extent of available financial resources. However, most also cite the problem of time to complete 0A in addition to regular assignments. A solution of this problem may often, but not necessarily, involve additional expenditures of dollars. The teacher leadership at North, for example, poured extensive personal time into the project because no release from regular duties was given. Whether staff members can continue that level of involvement as part of their. regular duties or whether others will be willing to pick up the reins of leadership that requires such an extensive donation of personal time remains to be seen. In all three districts, some turnover of teacher leadership has taken place within the four to five years of the project. Yet staffs in all three schools attribute much of the success of the program to the strong teacher leadership in the building. Identifying the best 121 ways of developing and maintaining this kind of leadership is essential if 0A is to continue as a viable means of both school improvement and accreditation. These districts, though, do have more resources than many schools in Michigan. Some educators may be tempted to look at the achievements of these schools as ones that are out of reach financially because of the cost of released time for planning and training and organizational time for teacher leaders. Creative approaches to the time issue, such as rearranging student class time to provide for school improvement may provide one answer to this concern. In a time of declining financial resources for schools, though, the issue cannot be ignored. Further study is needed, particularly in districts with varying financial resources. The three districts also provide central help in ways other than direct dollar allocation to the building. North’s training academy is the most obvious. It allows greater flexibility in scheduling staff development for all teachers at little or no cost to the district. Central’s district office also has a long history of supporting extensive staff development and offers a wide variety of programs that the building may connect with. West, the largest district, provides central office personnel to give ongoing help in organizing goals and staff training. All three seem to have worked to allow the building 0A committees to actively plan, organize, and often deliver the inservice they want. It is interesting to note, though, that all three schools feel frustrated because central office wants to add its agenda and training on to the already full agenda planned by the buildings. This reflects an on-going struggle in site-based decision making between the goals of the site and goals of the central organization. The larger issue of true site-based decision making is not addressed by CA, but may directly impact whether systemic change is possible. 122 STAFF INVOLVEMENT The first research question posed in Chapter 1 is ”How and to what extent, if any, does staff involvement vary in successful OA schools?” In answering the question, the research focuses on the nature and extent of the involvement, the impact of the involvement on attitudes and behaviors, and the extent to which age and gender are predictors of involvement. Nature and Extent of the Involvement The nature of the involvement is apparent in the stories from the individual schools told earlier in the chapter. It is somewhat predictable, with most (82%) receiving staff development and voting on new programs. In addition, 58% serve on various teams and committees. The heart of any program, though, is the extent to which it is used. An impressive 61% report using new techniques and approaches in the classroom, and 56% work collaboratively with other teachers. Involvement does vary among the schools. Staff members at both North (mean of 4.130) and West (mean of 3.903) feel far more involved than those at Central (mean of 3.138). Still, an enthusiastic core of at least 30%-40% of the staff members in each school are very involved and committed to OA, even at Central. Certainly the time factor needs to be considered. A teacher at North comments, ”Most of the staff was extremely cooperative, especially at the beginning before they realized the true work load.” Possible reasons for the variation in involvement do not surface in the quantitative data. One element that is not factored into the study is the respective size of the staffs. Central’s staff is 33% larger than West’s and 225% larger than N orth’s. Future research needs to explore the relationship between size of a staff and the extent and nature of involvement in OA. 123 Another element that is difficult to explore quantitatively is the effect of the target goals on the need for involvement. Central’s strategies for the cognitive goals of writing and reading began by focusing on a single department and the other cognitive goal of critical thinking had trouble finding a direction. Central is only beginning now to extend the impact of the reading and writing target goal committees beyond the English department. Thus, other teachers do not have to buy in to the increased expectations and changed teaching strategies. No goal at Central requires every teacher to participate; the use of the Time-Out Room and reality therapy, though, was open to all. Still, it is much easier for teachers at Central to remain untouched. North, on the other hand, requires activities in reading, writing, and mathematics from teachers in all departments on a weekly basis. Although staff members acknowledge that a few do not use the strategies as much as they should, most teachers remain involved and the peer pressure among staff to participate is greater. West also requires the implementation of writing strategies and some cooperative learning practices by every teacher. The possible connection between the use by everyone and the feeling of involvement needs to be explored in future research. Another factor in involvement is teacher leadership. As those leaders talk, their energy and commitment to OA becomes apparent. Staffs at Central and North, in particular, seem to tie the success of the program to the strong teacher leadership, even though faces have changed. In fact, several teachers mention the commitment of the teacher leaders as an important model for the rest to see, a model that says ”If I can do it, you can too.” An interesting future exploration might be the extent to which involvement like this provides the stimulus for re- focusing and energizing after 15-20 years in the same job. 124 Another aspect of teacher leadership is the strong model that teachers in all three buildings provide. Fellow staff members perceive all of them as having a strong voice for teachers. Several of them have an active union background. This may help others to see them as voices for teachers, not as a surrogate voice for the administration. Change in Attitudes and Behaviors Another measure of involvement is the extent to which attitudes and behavior change. The mean response to the question ”The staff training changed my skills, behaviors, and attitudes” is 3.228, with a SD of .986 and a variance of .972. Overall, 39% of staff members respond positively to the question. Slightly more positive is the response to the question ”Implementing the target goals and strategies has affected what I do in my classroom,” with a mean of 3.506, a SD of 1.103 and a variance of 1.219. Overall, 56% of staff members respond positively to the question. Indeed the percentage responding positively is again much greater at West and North. For the question about staff training changing skills, attitudes and behaviors, 51 % at those two schools respond positively, while for the question about whether implementing the program affected the classroom, 67% respond positively. This seems to support Fullan’s (1991) observation that action precedes rather than follows belief. Teachers at West and North do not have to believe in writing in their classrooms, for example; they just have to use it. Further study of the factors contributing to this difference may shed more definitive light on the reason for the disparity. Staff Experience All three schools have very experienced staffs, with only 15% with 10 years or less experience and 66% with 20 years or more. Fullan (1992) cites Huberman’s study in 1988 that shows that teachers with 19 or more years in 125 education tend to ”focus down.” He divides those into some who are positive but doing their own thing and those who are withdrawn and either critical or bitter. The teachers in Central, North, and West seem to contradict that pattern. Leadership roles are filled with teachers with over twenty years of experience. They seem very involved and energized by their involvement. Indeed the percentage of those with 20 years or more experience who respond to question #7 (the extent to which the person felt involved) with either 4 or 5 (Involved as much as time permits or highly involved) is 60%. The same response of those with less than 20 years experience is 54%. Only 8% of those with 20 years or more respond not involved at all. In fact, the breadth of their involvement appears to exceed that of those with less experience. Question 13 asks for staff members to check as many activities as they have been involved in. Of those with 20 years experience or more, 49% respond with 6 or more, while only 36% of those with 19 years or less experience respond 6 or more. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for the differences between these results and those implied by Huberman’s study. One possible hypothesis is that many of the experienced teachers in all three schools seem to recognize that because there is not a large group of younger, possibly more energetic, teachers to take up the leadership, they must do the work if they want to be proud of their schools. Generally the pride of the teachers is evident. Both Central and North received full outcomes accreditation in April, 1993, and celebrated their role in developing standards for the North Central organization. Gender T-tests on critical questions on the survey show no indication of a significant difference in involvement, attitudes, and beliefs between male and female staff. Qualitative data also show little variation in attitude based on 126 gender. Male and female leadership at all three schools reinforces the equal opportunity image. Staff Involvement - Summary Involvement appears to be greater because of positive teacher leadership. Staffs that are small enough to require at least some participation seem to develop greater involvement, perhaps because a greater percentage are part of the process. Staffs that choose target goal strategies that extend throughout the building also seem to develop ownership in the program. Somewhat surprisingly, staff members with age and length of experience are highly involved in CA; in fact, because of the demographics, the program depends on involving highly experienced staffs. STAFF TRAINING AND COLLABORATION The second and third research questions posed in Chapter 1 are ”How and to what extent does the training of staff vary in successful 0A schools?” and ”How and to what extent does teacher-teacher collaboration vary in schools successfully using 0A?” These two questions are considered together because of the implications of Fullan’s (1991) perspective. He calls for staff development as a strategy for specific, instructional change and a strategy for basic organizational change in the way teachers work and learn together. The nature of the 0A model does this because of its focus on both the process of change and on developing strategies for implementing the target goals. Since the nature of developing and implementing the goals forces teachers to work together, the two research questions are considered together. Common elements exist in the staff training and collaboration at all three schools. 127 Focus on Process and Target Goals W. The topics of the inservice tend to be organized around the skills needed to work in the building process. West strongly believes, for example, that the process is the most important element and, at the beginning of the project, included training about skills needed for the process. All three schools, in fact, included training on the mission statement and communication for all teachers early-on. Teacher leaders in these schools, recognized for their expertise, continue to present inservices on the process for other schools as well. Some inservices to bring new teachers on line with existing staff are scheduled in each of the buildings. The use of target goals also serves to focus the type of training received. For example, Central and North emphasize reality therapy because it relates to one of their target goals. All three schools train teachers in teaching and using writing in their classrooms in order to implement their target goal related to writing. The extent of the training varies among the three, but all use some training in writing skills. Similarly, the teaching of reading is part of the target goals at two of the schools. The use of training about the process and about the focus of specific target goals, then, is a characteristic of training in successful OA schools. The blending appears to be important to the success of the project. Teacher Input T a her have a sa in e r aniza 'on and the elive of e trainin . At all three schools, teacher leaders determine the topics and agendas at inservices, although Central is facing some conflicts as administrative personnel changes. At North, in particular, teachers give much of the training to each other. The fact that those in the building have the skills to present training, also 128 means that they are on hand to answer questions later and give more follow-up than is the case when outside experts present inservice training and then leave. North and Central, for example, make sure that new teachers on the staff are brought up—to-date on CA in general, and on specific target goal skills they need to have, in particular. The use of new techniques in the classroom and of follow-up support encourages teachers to modify and adjust the skills to their particular situations. Because the OA schools need to show improvement on goals they have chosen, the incentive for continuing to apply the skills is greater. In response to the question ” I received adequate training...” 49% responded positively (To a great or very great extent.) The mean response is 3.402 with a variance of .909 and a SD of .953 (n = 169). The question, then, is whether the training makes a difference in the classroom. As indicated above (p.121), many teachers (49%) respond that they use the skills in the classroom. The structure of the study does not provide a way to quantitatively analyze the significance of these numbers. Qualitative data, exploring the reasons for the greater use at North and West, indicates that teachers feel that the training and its impact on their classroom is greater in OA than before, although they recognize that some teachers have not changed in their classrooms. Teachers at all three buildings offer proof. At North: ”As teachers learn how to improve their skills, this is passed on to the students. The more that is learned about outcomes, the better the instruction.” In addition, ”Although the students aren’t aware of it, their skills are improving in response to what staff has learned about strategies. Reading scores are up. Drop out rates are down. Sophistication of writing is increasing.” At West: ”It sure appears that things are getting better - not only shown by data but also by kids’ awareness and attitudes.” And, ”They [students] are learning more about how to manage their challenges.” Even at Central: 129 ”Students have a better idea of where they are going.” As suggested earlier, it appears that choosing target goals that require all teachers to use the skills has a greater impact on the use of the skills throughout the building. In senior high schools, where subject area disciplines have traditionally isolated themselves and where each discipline ignores responsibility for teaching skills assumed to have been taught by others, choosing ”universal” target goals may not come easily. Collaboration The QA model encourages training mat reaches across deparmental lines and encourages collaboration. ‘ Fullan (1991) cites the connection among teachers and departments as necessary in order for teachers to cope with the streams of innovations and reforms they face (p. 326). North incorporates more inter-departmental collaboration than the other two schools. Since all teachers are part of the weekly sessions in math and reading and all must incorporate writing into their daily lessons, departments cannot stay isolated. West also trained all teachers in teaching writing and requires at least three writing assignments per marking period. Central recognizes the importance of this, as well. Its writing committee is now extending its work into the science department, although it originally worked only with the English department. Most teachers at all three schools see themselves working collaboratively with other individuals; nearly 58% respond positively to the question ”Our staff works collaboratively as equals to improve teaching and learning...” with a mean response of 3.573 with a SD of 1.076 and a variance of .834. In addition, 58% respond positively to the question ”Different teachers plan together and coordinate their efforts for their classrooms” with a mean response of 3.318 with a SD of 1.046 and a variance of 1.094. Still, formal connections among departments are not as common. Only 28% respond positively to the question 130 ”Different departments plan together and coordinate their efforts” with a mean response of 2.773, a SD of 1.190 and a variance of 1.416. Central is more negative than the other two schools, with a mean of 2.100 in comparison to means of 3.324 (Central) and 3.458 (North). The three factors cited here appear to be determining factors in the success of the training and collaboration in OA schools. Teachers need to have a voice in the target goals and the training required and need to develop the skills for the OA process, particularly communication and problem solving. In addition, by choosing target goals that require implementation throughout the building, collaboration is encouraged. The collaboration observed in the three buildings in this study can serve as a foundation for more extensive departmental collaboration proposed in more extensive, systemic change. Problems Relative to Training Two problems concerning staff development seem common in all three buildings. First, some teachers often feel overwhelmed by the breadth of change and the time demands connected with it. Since none of the schools extended the day or the school year, time for training, as well as planning and implementing, has to be carved out of already busy schedules, although some training takes place during the summer on a voluntary basis. As indicated above, most teachers take the additional obligation on. The question is how long this level of intensity can be sustained. Since 80% of staff members already work on education-related activities beyond the school day, 0A runs the danger of becoming one more ”add-on” activity as it is institutionalized in the second cycle of CA in a building. The second problem is related to the time issue and lies in the nature of the change. Several people sense that more extensive restructuring of time, assignments, and change of roles may be necessary in order to continue to move f. 131 significantly ahead of where they are now. They seem unsure whether that will happen. Training and Collaboration - Summary All three schools have extensive training components that are designed and often delivered by their own staff members. Training focuses on both the process of OA and the skills needed to implement target goals and requires the two to proceed in tandem. Staffs see an increase in teacher-teacher collaboration but not as great a change in collaboration between departments. Few formal processes appear to be in place to measure the continued use of skills learned in the training over a period of time. The problems of overload and lack of time must be solved. DECISION MAKING The fourth research question posed in Chapter 1 is ”How and to what extent does the decision making process vary in successful OA schools?” Response to this is divided into sections based on the three players in the decision making process: building organization and management; central office; and teachers’ union. Each will be dealt with separately. Internal - Building Organization and Management Several items on the survey explore various aspects of information sharing and decision making within the buildings. Variations in the length of time the principals have been in their positions, however, makes conclusions difficult to draw. Somewhat more negative responses at Central may be attributable to the lack of knowledge of the new principal, rather than to the characteristics discussed in the survey and interview. As both teachers and administrators respond to the process, though, some common characteristics surface. Administrators opened up some of the control that they held and tried to get more staff members involved in some of the 132 decisions. However, most staff members do not seem to want to take on all decisions. All recognize that OA, with its participative focus, is more time consuming than the traditional accreditation process and the traditional top- down decision making process. Part of the continued success of OA depends upon successfully analyzing the nature of decisions for teachers to be involved with and the time required for the involvement. The success and continued use of OA depends on defining the balance between time demands and teacher involvement in decision making. The nature of the teacher leadership demanded by the OA process (teacher chair(s) of the Steering Committee and the target goal committees, for example) tends to change some of the dynamics of the decision making process. At both North and West the more participative style has begun to impact the way other decisions in the building are made. As indicated earlier in Chapter 4, teachers in both schools now want to use the model as a way of making other program and policy decisions. At North, in fact, teachers are now part of the hiring process for both teachers and administrators. The subjects that teachers have a voice in have increased in all the schools. T-tests run on the ”Before OA” and ”Now” questions (17-27) indicate evidence of a significant difference at the .05 level on four topics: Developing rnission/ goals for the building; Curriculum development (within department, building, or K- 12); Helping to develop school-wide policies (e.g. attendance, discipline); and Developing school wide programs (e. g. reward systems, honors, student assistance groups) . This does not necessarily mean, though, that teachers are not involved in the other types of decisions listed in questions 17 - 27. They continue to be involved in matters closest to the classroom. Both ”Choosing material for use by 133 the department” and ”Choosing textbooks” had high involvement both before and after OA. On the other hand, they are involved very little in several decisions that are typically negotiated in a contract such as ”Developing school hours/ calendar”; ”Developing teacher schedules / placement” ; and ”Evaluating teacher.” Qualitative data also show teachers feel that they have been somewhat involved in the decision making process within the building. Many reflect a greater sense of team effort and recognize that the process helped to bring about the change, despite the greater effort required. Many, though, point to the great time and energy demands of the process. Future study needs to explore the ”cost-effectiveness” in terms of allocation of time and energy resources. Overall, teachers also trust their administrators fairly highly. The mean response is 3.452 with a SD of 1.227 and a variance of 1.507, although once again North and West respond more positively than Central (means of 3.957, 4.099, and 2.677 respectively.) As might be predicted, those most involved in the process, seem to trust their administrators more than those who are less involved. Teachers also feel they have more influence than they did before OA began. Overall the mean is 3.045 with a SD of 1.197 and a variance of 1.433. Again, North and West are more positive than Central (means of 3.333, 3.532, and 2.542 respectively.) This seems to indicate that there has been an attempt to move toward a more participative style of operation, at least as far as 0A is concerned. Again, as with involvement in general, most realize that the time needed to open up decision making is considerable, and some question exists whether the commitment is so great that it cannot be maintained as part of the regular operations. The presence of North Central Accreditation behind OA, though, 134 establishes more of an incentive to keep the program than would exist if the open decision making were completely voluntary because of the public relations within the community to create pressure to keep schools accredited. Qualitative data support the conclusion that the decision making within OA buildings has begun to change, but that a revolution has not yet occurred. More topics are considered by staff. The more participative OA model has extended into decisions that are not a part of OA itself. Teachers feel part of a team that is working toward a common goal. Many decisions, though, are still handled in the more traditional directive manner and the work day has not changed to make time for greater use of participative decision making. Contracts, a major determiner in the work rules, have changed slightly in some cases and not in others. External Decision Making - Central Office In general, staffs seem to realize that the district has been giving them time and resources in order to work on OA. The mean response to ”Central office has given the time and resources (money, support personnel) to develop and implement programs developed through OA” is 3.486 with a SD of 1.043 and a variance of 1.087. West appears to feel more positively about the amount of resources than North or Central (means of 4.000, 3.708 and 2.974 respectively.) More money for schools in general (approximately $2,000 in per pupil expenditures) may partially explain a more positive attitude toward the financial support from the central office at West. Resources have also extended to support for the training and, at West, for planning. The use of the Academies to provide common training for staff at North and the extensive use of training at Central helps to provide a training base for the schools that otherwise would need to be built into building OA 135 training. Personnel from central office at West also provided perspective and help to the leadership team in planning the target goals and strategies. None of the buildings, though, feels very positively about how decision making has changed at central office. The question ”Central office gives adequate information so that building staff can do the best possible job” has a mean response of 2.781 with a SD of 1.020 and a variance of 1.041. Only one district, West, has a mean score for that question higher than 3.0 Similarly, staffs seem to feel that the decision making process has not been moved to the appropriate level. The mean response to that question is 2.844 with a SD of 1.043 and a variance of 1.089. Perhaps this pattern is predictable since OA focuses directly on the building, rather than beginning with the district, although both the district administration and the Board of Education need to approve the building’s use of OA. This may point toward a potential conflict as schools begin projects like OA that use components of site-based decision making. An interesting comparison might be made between the 0A process that begins with and focuses on the building and Lezotte’s effective schools training that begins with a district team and moves into the buildings later. External Decision Making - Union All three schools feel that the union supports building level decision making for CA recommendations. The overall mean of 3.578 with a SD of 1.020 and a variance of 1.040 is very consistent among the three districts (means of 3.618, 3.517, and 3.632 at Central, West, and North respectively.) What is more they feel that the union encourages their participation in school improvement with a mean response of 3.538 with a SD of .971 and a variance of .942. Qualitative data show that the support is more informal than formal. At this point, relatively little has been changed in contractual language or in formal 136 changes to a site-based decision making model. The fact that the OA leadership, as chairpeople and committee members, is composed of teachers recognized as active union members and strong ”teacher advocates” has given an informal validity to the viability of the process, though. Future study is needed to explore whether the informal recognition is followed by changes in the formal process. Interviews show that the unions, particularly at Central and North recognize the implications of 0A for the contract and are in the discussion stage of developing contract language to set the stage for trying to address the time issue, as well as the decision making process. In summary, the support of the teacher union for CA and for implied changes in decision making have been largely informal to date. All three districts, though, appear to feel that the union supports the process even though major formal changes have not yet taken place. As more schools are involved in OA, a comparative study of schools in which the unions support it and those in which unions do not support it would provide an opportunity to explore in greater depth the impact of unions on the process. D Q'sion making - Summary Decision making appears to have changed to some extent within the buildings to a more participative mode. The time constraint required for participative decision making poses a considerable problem to be solved before more change can happen. Central offices seem to have been supportive but have not moved to site-based decision making. More extensive change in decision making may require more action at the district level before buildings can change more substantially. Union support appears to be more informal than formal. Again, more extensive changes in contracts may be necessary in order to support further movement in building level decision making to a more participative model. 137 SUMMARY Chapter 4 presented data in two parts. Part I described the situation as each school implemented Outcomes Accreditation. It blended information gathered from interviews, print materials, and survey data to tell how OA works. The story of each school gave a general background, the data collection procedures, description of the parental support, student body, principal, teaching staff, and district resources. Then the story of outcomes accreditation showed how the schools began, how the teacher and administrative leadership worked, and how target goal committees worked. Finally staff and organizational outcomes were described. Part II presented qualitative and quantitative data directed toward the research questions posed in Chapter 1. It looked at the financial resources available to implement OA. It explored the involvement of the staff, the training received, and the impact on the classroom. It explored the extent of changes in the decision making process, internally within the buildings and externally from both the central office and the union. Chapter 5 will summarize major findings, conclusions, and recommendations for further research. CHAPTER 5 Chapter 4 presented the data gathered during the study. The first part told the stories of how each school began and experienced Outcomes Accreditation. The second part presented data from all three schools directed toward the research questions asked in Chapter 1. In particular, it explored the involvement of the staff, the training received, and the impact on the classroom. It also looked at the extent of changes in the decision making process both within the building and with the external organizations (central office and unions) that impact the process for the building staffs. Chapter 5 presents a summary of major findings, reflections, and recommendations for further research. SUMMARY This study of the implementation of North Central Association’s Outcomes Accreditation in three high schools explores the effect of the process on the staff and the organization. Although North Central judges the schools solely on the basis of student outcomes, both decision making and staff efforts are needed to achieve the increased student achievement. The events in the schools during the four or five years of their involvement help to show the way for others who want to try. Chapter 1 presents a model (Figure 1, p. 5) that places the process in a larger context that contains staff and organizational influences and outcomes as well as student ones. The study, using both quantitative and qualitative data, presents exploratory research that describes the nature of the changes in staff and organization. The literature on organizational change helps to interpret the experiences at the schools. 138 139 Two of the three schools completed the process and received full Outcomes Accreditation in April, 1993. The real impact of their adventures on the staff and organization, though, is just beginning. FINDINGS ”The Vision Thing” Chapter 2 reviewed both business and education literature describing the importance of vision, mission, and goals in changing the direction and operation of any organization. The CA process forces attention to this as schools begin their work. In reality, though, the importance of vision and goals in these schools seems to extend far beyond the early experience in setting the goals. First of all, setting the target goals provides a basic opportunity to involve the staff in a collaborative way and to set the tone for the nature of how OA works. All of the schools illustrate a marriage of process and target goals in their structure. This marriage seems to be important to the success of the program, reinforcing the work of Fullan (1991) referred to in Chapter 4, in which he calls for staff development as a way of merging basic classroom and organizational change. By developing some strategies fairly quickly, all of the OA schools showed some quick successes that encouraged staff to continue its efforts. More important, though, is the fact that using cognitive target goals with strategies that require implementation by all or most of the staff appears to increase the sense of involvement of the staff in OA and in personal change of classroom behaviors. The greater use of the skills built into to the target goal strategies at North may have been one of the factors in its greater involvement of the staff in the program. At Central, as well, more positive comments about the Time Out Room and Reality Therapy seem to indicate that this is a goal that affected many teachers since anyone who wants to refer a student there has to 140 use Reality Therapy before referral, even though the overall involvement of the staff is not as great as it is in the other buildings. Summary. So, the ”vision thing” is important for setting the tone, for providing the basis for a marriage between process and classroom change, and for involving more of the staff. Staff and Training Staffs at all three schools have extensive experience and education. As indicated in Chapter 4, some research today predicts that individuals at that stage of their career begin a winding down process. The experience in CA at these three schools does not support this; in fact, significant numbers (although not a majority) appear to have begun a change in their approach in the classroom. The use of both reading and writing goals across the curriculum appear to have had an impact on teachers in most disciplines at North and West, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, at Central. Gender, also, appears to make no difference in attitude or behavior in OA. Nor does it make a difference in those who assume teacher leadership roles. The quality of teacher leadership seems more important than experience, education, or gender. Other teachers view the teacher leadership as critical to the success of the program. The teacher leaders, themselves, perceive that they are filling a different kind of role, even though most of them had previous experience in more traditional leadership roles within the teacher bargaining unit, or within the building as department heads or members of curriculum projects. Summary. In general, age, experience, and gender make no difference in who became involved in 0A or in who saw it as a success. Significant numbers of teachers began to change in their classrooms, incorporating new approaches into their established way of doing things. Teacher leadership plays an important role in getting others to buy in. 141 Trainin an lla oration Those who view CA as a success generally seem to have made a connection between the training that they received through inservice and collaboration with other individual teachers on committees and, in some instances, in their classrooms. This may be the first step toward a more collaborative school culture, such as the one called for by Fullan (1991) or it may dissipate as teachers draw back from the extensive time commitment of OA. Although inservice training still does not receive extremely high accolades, staff members in general appear to feel more positive about it for two reasons. First, it was organized around topics (strategies for target goals) that they had chosen, not around a topic imposed top down. Second, fellow teachers had, at the least, organized the inservice, and, in many cases, actually led it. At Central, where a new administrator attempted to change the pattern, frustration set in. An important factor is that the training merges both the skills to work with the process required for change and the skills needed to implement target goals in the classroom. In general, a greater number of teachers appear to feel ownership. Still, 0A is not a vial of a magical dust that automatically changes the perception of teachers. Teachers in leadership roles recognize their precarious role and attempt to organize activities to overcome perceived problems of other teachers. Most of the inservices appear to have been organized around fairly concrete skill development for teachers, such as using writing as a tool of metacognition in a variety of disciplines. More teachers feel that they are working collaboratively with others on their staff. While collaboration among individual teachers appears to have increased, collaboration between departments has not. One possible explanation is that cooperation between departments requires a more formal organizational change, 142 and that has not occurred. Another is that by using inservice time for target goal work, little time is left for departmental meetings. Summary. Training plays an important part in increasing collaboration among teachers. None of the schools, though, has achieved very much departmental collaboration. Inservice training includes both the skills needed to use the process and the skills needed to implement target goals in the classroom. Building Level Decision Making Process Two of the schools are clearly moving toward a more participative style. In both cases the principals have begun using the participative mode required for CA for other types of decisions. Even in the third school, teachers feel that they have more voice in the leadership of their school than they did before OA began. Teachers point to the nature of the OA process as being very much directed toward participative management and feel that buildings move toward that model by the intrinsic nature of OA. Teacher leadership appears to have changed the dynamics within the building. In most cases, other teachers appear to trust the OA team more than they do the administrators in their building. Teachers in leadership roles in the buildings, including those who assumed the role part of the way through the process, seem to have a broader picture of the building than most teachers, recognize the varying skills of other staff members, and recognize their need to work one on one with others as part of their job. Principals in all three buildings recognize the importance of letting the teachers take the lead and appear to be at different stages in the extent to which they can let go of a more directive leadership style. In none of the schools, however, has a complete participative model taken hold. In fact, none of the buildings seems to want to move toward a more completely participative model. The principals who had worked through the process from the beginning see their 143 role as one of enabling, encouraging, and running interference rather than one of imposing top down decisions, dictating, and setting unilateral goals. One major factor inhibiting expansion of participative decision making is the time required. Many teachers and administrators point to the enormous time investment necessary to make OA work and wonder whether it can be maintained over a longer period of time. Summary. The use of the OA process has brought about some change in the decision making process within the buildings. The more participative process built into CA has been used in other kinds of decisions as well. None of the buildings seems to want to change completely. The greater amount of time required may be a major inhibiting factor. Cengal Office Decision Making All of the districts see central office as supportive financially and rhetorically. Without this amount of support from central office, the schools probably could not have been as successful in using OA. However, all also feel frustrated because central office wants to pursue its own agenda in addition to OA. Staff members in the building seem to feel that there was not enough time and energy to do both. None of the districts has significantly changed to site-based management because of OA. Eventually this may serve as a source of conflict. Teachers, even now, chafe at the frustration of trying to keep up with the agenda being pushed by central office when they want to work more on the OA agenda within the building. As 0A becomes institutionalized into the ”way we do business around here,” the buildings may make the same demands on central office that principals feel from teaching staff now. Whether the decision making structure can change from the bottom up remains to be seen. 144 Summary. Central office support appears critical to the success of OA because of the time and money needed. None of the districts has moved to site- based decision making. Further change may make this a critical issue. Qnion Impact on Decision Making Unions in the three districts appear to support OA and the nature of its decision making, at least informally. Part of this may be because some of the teacher leadership in OA had also held leadership roles in the union organizations. None of the districts had a major conflict with the union over OA, although this may be because both teachers and administrators work within the contractual guidelines rather than because the union really supported OA. Two of the unions see the importance of contractual changes accommodating and supporting 0A in future contracts. Summary. Unions do not seem to play as important a role as had been projected. This may be because of the nature of the schools who chose to be in the early rounds of OA. Perhaps schools with district-union conflicts would not have made the decision to become a ”pioneering” OA school. CONCLUSIONS Two conceptual insights came to light in the examination of the OA process. The nature of the goals and the way that they are framed seems to help drive involvement of the staff. Schools that developed strategies requiring every staff member to use the techniques in the classroom seem to have increased staff involvement in the OA process in general. It also seems to increase collaboration among staff members, perhaps because they have an ”excuse” to participate. Their required actions in the classroom appear to have begun a change in attitudes and beliefs as well. Further exploration of this connection is required. 145 Secondly, the melding of process skills and classroom skills in the training provides a different model for staff development. Many teachers seem to feel that the focus on both types of skills lets them see change in a more comprehensive (and perhaps comprehensible) light than they had previously. It also helps to avoid two concerns often cited by teachers receiving training. One is that training seems too theoretical and not related to the ”real” world. The second is that a particular isolated classroom skill or behavior seems unrelated to the total teaching experience and thus not important enough to try to master. By using the two approaches together, more teachers appear to buy in to real change. REFLECTIONS CA is not a panacea. It requires significant time and effort. Both administrators and teachers have to be ready to change their roles and their desire to do things the way they have always been done. It requires a melding of ‘ process and goals that has often been missing in organizational and instructional changes in the past The question, then, is whether ”things” change as a result of using the OA process. A significant number of staff members appear to have changed how they operate. Those in leadership roles have a real belief in the effectiveness of the program, although almost all feel drained by the time commitment it required. The changes in the classroom appear to be smaller changes that have been incorporated by teachers into their own style. Using reality therapy techniques for classroom management, using writing as a metacognitive tool for understanding in all subject areas, using reading techniques from the ”new definition of reading,” or taking time out in all classrooms for a Math Moment are examples of how teachers have approached their classrooms differently. The faces of the organizations have begun to change as well. The change 146 is shown in different organizational structures and roles rather than by a transformational ”miracle.” The nature of the teacher leadership roles, if used effectively as they were in these schools, forces a greater voice and responsibility on teachers for what happens in their classrooms. Principals find their roles changed as well. Their active involvement, in both the training and organization, makes a significant difference in the perception of the importance, particularly in the beginning of the process. All of them note the effort it takes to become one vote on a committee rather than ”the” voice of decision making. Both teachers and principals talk about the task of sorting out decisions that are most appropriate for the participative model. At the present time central office organizations and unions appear to be supportive on-lookers rather than active participants. Whether this is the nature of the beast as change begins from bottom up or whether it is indicative of future problems when buildings want to change in ways that central office or the union does not approve of remains to be seen. CA is not a miracle for changing the face of public education as we know it now. Those who believe that only this kind of miraculous facelift can change schools cannot simply ”dial-a-program” and find their answer. Instead OA attempts to begin a change in the beliefs of the individuals — the belief that they can change their behaviors and can collaborate with others to begin to make a difference in what happens in their schools. However, OA and the findings of this study do present some significant findings. OA, in addition to providing a measurable way to improve student outcomes, provides a way to change the staff within the building and the way the organization works. For those connected with the reality of everyday schooling, these are important contributions that can be achieved when educators decide to work together and to risk changing the established way of doing things. 147 Further exploration of schools which decided not to even try to use the OA process and those which began it but abandoned the process could help to delineate in more detail the nature of the success stories of these three buildings. LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS The study is limited in several ways. The study is based on individual perception, several years after the beginning of the project. Thus, impressions may have changed with the passing of time. In addition, as with any collection of data, participants may choose to tell the researcher something other than what actually happened. The study has delimitations as well. First of all, only those schools in the early rounds of change in the Outcomes Accreditation process were examined. They may have been more receptive to change in the first place than other schools which did not choose to participate. In addition, they may have had greater enthusiasm because of their experimental role than those schools choosing to use OA today in a much different state context. Further, the study examines only schools in Michigan. The possibility exists that the schools are not representative of the country as a whole. An additional problem is caused by the very scope of the 0A process and the model proposed (Figure 1, p. 5). The study is limited only to a study of the staff and organizational influences and changes. The effect of context and ethos was not examined. In addition, the process, which is carefully laid out by North Central, was not examined. Nor was any attempt to compare student outcomes from one building to those from another attempted. Questions in the interviews described how the process worked and how it was influenced by context and ethos, but no attempt was made to evaluate any of those components. 148 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH As indicated in Chapter 1, the purpose of this study is to describe and explain the efforts of three of the first schools to use OA. The description of the non-linear nature of OA raises many issues that require additional research. 1. The relationship of financial resources to the nature of the program. The importance of resources to implement OA cannot be discounted. All of these districts gave the buildings money to organize and train their staffs. Two of the three gave released time to the teacher chairpersons. Future study needs to explore whether and to what extent the financial support makes a difference. 2. A longitudinal study of a staff as it implements OA. Because this study was completed during a few month period near the end of the OA cycle, participants may have forgotten or changed beliefs and behaviors. Study of some of these same staff and decision making issues in a longitudinal study should provide interesting insights into the nature of the process. 3. The connection between the nature of the target goals and the success of the program. Collaboration appears to be very important in bringing about real implementation. Target goals, particularly cognitive ones, that require implementation throughout the building appear to make a difference in the involvement and buy-in by the staff. Further study could explore the connection. 4. The nature of the teacher leadership used in OA. The large number of people who attributed the success to the efforts of the teacher leaders reflects the importance of the issue. How their role in DA is different from other leadership roles they have held could provide guidelines for schools beginning the process. 149 5. Similar studies of schools now beginning the process. Because all three schools began OA early and provided leadership to others, the results of these findings could easily reflect a Hawthorne effect. Many staff members noted how excited they were to be leaders in the movement. That enthusiasm may mean that other schools following may not be able to replicate the same involvement and change. In addition, the impact of PA-25 (the 1990 act forcing school improvement and accreditation on every school in Michigan) means that schools now may use CA as a line of least resistance rather than as a major avenue of change. The impact of that possibility needs exploration. 6. A study of school administrators involved in OA. Although administrators were involved in this study as one part of the group, several issues relating to their changed roles and the nature of their involvement bear exploring in further detail. 7. A later study of these schools to explore whether the changes stay in place. Institutionalizing change tells the real story about the effectiveness of OA. The activities of these schools in the second round of OA should provide additional insights into the real change that took place. 8. Further study into the effect of merging staff development for instructional change and organizational change. Working On both target goals and the OA process appears to have helped these schools, but this study was not designed to explore the connection. Further study could explore and expand the knowledge about this connection. 150 9. Further study into the nature of the collaboratiOn used in OA. Collaboration appears to be an important by-product of the staff development and implementation of the target goals. Additional study could explore the relationship between the three areas. 10. The nature of the ”time” problem and solutions used in other buildings. The problem of the time crunch is cited by those in all three buildings. A few buildings have begun to experiment with ways to solve the problem. Exploration of the success of these experiments could further delineate the nature of the problem. 11. The story of CA at a school that is less successful. By comparing these findings to those at a school that experienced problems, research could explore the validity of these findings. 12. A study of elementary and middle schools using OA. By focusing only on secondary schools in this study, many of the factors identified may be idiosyncratic to senior high schools rather than to OA. Study at other levels could help to identify whether the factors are attributable to CA or rather to the nature of change in senior high schools. 13. The impact of context and culture on OA. As indicated in Chapter 1, the scope of the study did not allow time to consider these very important aspects of implementing OA. The issues need exploration. 14. An ethnographic study of a school using OA. The possibility exists that individuals did not accurately report their attitudes and behaviors during the five year period. A longitudinal study that included more extensive observations could add important insights. 151 SUMNIARY Studying the three schools provided interesting insight into the nature of how a senior high school approaches major change. The CA process appears to incorporate several findings from recent research that help to contribute to its success. Although OA offers no magic potion for beleaguered public schools, it appears to begin a systemic change that provides hope for the future. It does this in several ways: By changing the nature of teacher leadership; By focusing on a more open decision making process; By merging staff development on process and target goals; By encouraging more collaboration and involvement among teachers; By focusing attention of staff on only five target goals for five years rather than on new ideas every year; By providing a basis for merging various efforts that may be in place in a senior high into a single, more unified one. The future holds the key to both public education, particularly at the high school level, and the success of OA, as a way of bringing together various change ideas in a building into a single effort that involves everyone on the staff. That kind of systemic change can carry schools into the twenty-first century. APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPROVAL FROM THE UNIVERSITY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OI VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 488244046 AND DEAN Of THE GRADUATE SCHOOL September 10, 1992 Ju lia K. Brunn 34356 Burton Lane Livonia, MI 48154 RE: HIGH SCHOOLS USING NORTH CENTRAL OUTCOMES ACCREDITATION: A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCES AND OUTCOMES ON THE STAFF AND ORGANIZATION, IRB #92-389 Dear Ms. Brunn: The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed research protocol has been reviewed by a member of the UCRII-IS committee. The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate‘UCRIHS approval one month pr ior to September 10, 1993. Any changes.in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed bY UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of Sincerely, avid E. Wright, University Commi any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. .402. -e on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) DEW/pjm CC: Dr. Samuel A. Moore II 152 APPENDIX B MAILING TO SCHOOLS 34356 Burton Lane Livonia, Michigan 48154 September 11, 1992 XXXXX High School )ooooc xxxn, MI Dear XXXXX, As principal of one of the first high schools in Michigan to use the North Central Outcomes Accreditation process, you are in a unique position to be able to share your experiences with other schools interested in school improvement through OA. I hope you will help in a collaborative effort to add to the information about the nature and the extent of changes in a school staff and building organization as it works on OA. I have begun a research study , the details of which are explained in the summary enclosed in this letter. The study will be used by me in a doctoral dissertation at Michigan State University. Although I am contacting all the schools that began at least three years ago, I will focus on only three. The study involves three data gathering techniques: 1. Data which you have compiled during your OA study including the original school study, the original plan, updated reports used for site visitation teams. A copy of the negotiated contract with the teachers’ unron. 2. A survey of the entire staff which takes less than 30 minutes to complete. This will be scheduled coooperatively with you and your Study Committee, preferably during the regular work time. 3. Interviews completed during an on-site visitation of up to a week. Interviews will be approximately one hour each and will be scheduled individually, hOpefully during plan periods or other time available during the work day. The survey and interviews are not tests and have no right or wrong answers. Rather they help to describe what happened during the use of the OA process. The building and the district will be held in strictest confidence, not identified 153 154 in the report, and known only to me, as the Principal Investigator, and a research advisory committee. No one will be able to associate responses or other data on the survey with individuals completing the form. Anonymity and confidentiality are assured. Identities of responses during the interviews will be known only to me and will be held in confidence. Reports of research findings will not permit associating subjects with specific responses or findings. I currently teach at Garden City High School, co—chair an N CA Outcomes Accreditation Visitation team with Gerri Kiessel, and have extensive experience in staff and curriculum development. I have attended several North Central Outcomes Accreditation training sessions and presented at the NCA conference at Chicago in March, 1992. I will call you within the next week, give you more information about the study, and ask for the name of the teacher co-chair(s) of your study. If your school decides to become involved in the study, you and the superintendent need to sign a consent form before the process begins. Individuals who are interviewed will also sign a consent form. I will share conclusions with you before I finalize the report, but you will not be able to identify groups or sub- groups. Times and dates of the survey and the visitation are negotiable, but I hope to complete both during the fall of 1992. As part of the benefit to you, I will be glad to share your building’s findings with you and the staff, in whatever form you and your building committee feel would be most helpful. I urge you to grant this important research a portion of your school’s time. If you have any questions, feel free to call me either at home (313)591-2339 or work (313)421-8220. Sincerely, Julia Brunn 155 Summary for Schools North Central Outcomes Accreditation A Study of the Staff and the Organization Outcomes Purpose The purpose of the study is to describe and explain the events at senior high schools as they use the North Central Outcomes Accreditation (OA) option for school improvement. The events will provide a base for examining what happens to the staff and the organization of a school as it uses the OA process. The study focuses on schools that are almost ready for the final visit and centers on the nature and extent of staff training, staff involvement, staff collaboration, and the decision making process. Although OA itself looks solely at student outcomes, the study describes the organization experiences of successful staffs during all the years of the project. The study of the decision making process includes the impact of the district, the union, and the building administrative structure on staff and decisions. Specific factors include the district resources committed to the project, union support, and the building administrative structure. The study will use three kinds of information: data from the reports in the OA process that will provide a context for the change; a survey given to the entire staff to identify attitudes about the process; and interviews and observations with various people involved in the process. I' .1 The researcher will survey the entire staff. The survey takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. After the results have been compiled, the researcher will spend several days on site to talk to various staff members and other involved or affected by the study. Interviews will include at least the following individuals: principal, teacher co-chair(s), building leaders, at least one teacher not in a leadership role, and a teacher involved in the union governance. Others will be included as indicated in each situation. Each interview will not take more than one hour. Datamniresl Background data to help outline the events during 0A for the researcher include copies of the original school study, the original plan, the updated reports used for site visitation teams, any evaluative data gathered up to this point, and a copy of the negotiated contract between the union and the district. 156 C ['1 I' l'l Before beginning the process, the district needs to sign a consent form that assures anonymity on the survey and confidentiality on the entire study. No school will be cited by name in the final study, although data describing the circumstances will be used to tell the story. No individual will be indicated in the documentation, and responses to the survey are anonymous and will be reported only in group data. No names are used anywhere on the survey. Individuals indicate their voluntary agreement to participate by completing the questionnaire. Information from the interviews will be used to tell the story of your school’s experience with Outcomes Accreditation, but no individual will be identified. Reporting will not permit associating subjects with specific responses or findings. Individuals who are interviewed will sign a consent form. W In addition to the general contribution that this makes to the study of school improvement in general and Outcomes Accreditation in particular, the researcher will be glad to share the summary of the findings after completion of the study. This may be in writing or in person, based on what the school feels would be most helpful. This will aid in the planning the school makes for follow-up to your final Outcomes Accreditation report and may give data that is useful for district and/ or community awareness and planning. 157 LEI'I'ER OF SUPPORT, WILLIAM BUSI-IAW mom. women Thoma“!!! WWII UM mam «mm Can-IMAM mm,wu100-1250 :11 mm: Tel-phone: (313) 747-2001 It. PM m use FAX: (313) 747-2004 7”” 917) 776-70.. “MW me (511) 775-4314 dome-l“ mum mama-nu— August 27, I992 ”ct-.“I-nu. 6.1““..— mm DwHigh School Principal: ”thumb” uni-Ruben.— Imeyoutojoininacoflabonfiveeffmtomdymm 2"““m Accreditation (a description tnd guru-ll invitation isenclooed in this mun-u “New.” law) I hi it?! [If I ‘itiiiiij iiifi‘iii H I ”may. i I I I I 'i i; ‘1 Hf} I it” i . I Cancun-rm.“ m Yourrich expaimoedmingthehsrmenlyarshupavedtbemyfor many schools that arenow beginning the 0A process. The information from this study will describe your experiences for other: and provide them witharoadmapuvelluspodigtnposn'blepitfalls. Themdywillbe naedbyJuliaBnmnasadoctor-aldimrion. I'mmdmnmmofmemymnbwdinghuhadin uingOA. Ihopeyoumhelp. Callmcifyouhaveanyquurionsmd besrwishesforyomcominuedmccess! Sincerely, @2422. William J. Bushaw, PILD. State Director 9. APPENDIX C PHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Questions for the principal and teacher chair . Would you briefly describe your school and student body? (e.g. 9-12 or 10- 12, blue collar, percentage of college attendance, etc.) When did you decide to use OA? When do you expect to have your last visit? Why do you think the staff and the district decided to use the OA process? Follow-up focus: Context - district management - parents - students - previous experience in change - status of staff and leadership prior to CA What are your target goals? What is the status of each? Follow-up focus: Types of measurement used - changes to original goals - performance of quality with equity group How much staff training did you use? Everyone or selective? Was there follow-up to staff development? Did the training make a difference? Follow-up focus: Internal or external planning, presenters - timing - subject matter How much involvement was there? Did different people from the usual group get involved? How did you sustain this over the time of the process? Follow-up focus: Reach the middle 60% - change way people operate Did teachers begin working together more? How? To what extent? Why do you think this happened? Follow-up focus: Collaboration within and between departments - focus on broader issues, not just subject matter - focus on learning, not just management Did the decision making process change? Follow-up focus: Administrator-teacher collaboration - teacher leadership roles - changed administrator role - district impact - union impact Has OA changed the way your school operates? 10. How would you rank the success of the OA program in your school? 158 APPENDIX D CONSENT FORMS School District and Building Consent Form North Central Outcomes Accreditation Study To whom it may concern: This grants permission to conduct research pursuant to a study entitled North Central Outcomes Accreditation - A Study of the Staff and the Organization Outcomes at High School. The research includes a survey which will be given to the staff of the high school. We have been assured that it takes no more than a half hour to complete. The survey data collected with be treated as group data and responses of individuals have been assured strictest anonymity and confidentiality. The research also includes interviews with individuals and several days of visitation in the building by the Researcher. Individuals interviewed have been assured confidentiality. Reports of the research findings will not permit associating subjects with specific responses or findings. Neither the school nor the district will be identified by name. Date Principal or designee Superintendent or designee Name of school district 159 160 Individual Interview Consent Form North Central Outcomes Accreditation Study To whom it may concern: I consent to be interviewed for the research for North Central Outcomes Accreditation: A Study of the Staff and the Organization Outcomes. I understand that the information I share may be used in the report, following rules of strictest confidentiality. N 0 one aside from the researcher will know the identity of the subject and reports of research findings will not permit associating subjects with specific responses or findings. Date Signature of person interviewed APPENDIX E NCA STANDARDS FOR SCHOOLS E STANDARDS POR SCHOOLS W Below are the standards the Commission has established for CA schools. The Commission’s expectation is that the school will be able to provide evidence of its compliance with these standards. The Resource Team reports will provide the Commission with verification of that compliance. OA.1 OA.2 OA.3 OA.4 0A5 To verify the availabili of resources required of all NCA schools, the school shal meet the standards of the Commission detailed in the set of standards most appropriate for the kind of school (such as elementary, middle school/junior high, secondary, or unit school). . . The school shall use the findings of research (formal and informal, local and national) in assessing the efl'ectiveness with which its students are attaining the skills and understandings targeted as the oals selected or school study within the current OA e. In ailcfioal areas selected for study within the current OA cycle, the 001 shall include assessments which refer to equity aspects of education. 'Equity' is defined by the Commission as meaning “fairness, justice, im artiality.’ To address equi aspects of its program, the sc ool would study ways in which the teaching and earning process are affected by decisions made on such bases as gender, racial heritage, cultural heritage. socioeconomic class, or previous academic performance. The school shall document, within the documentation cycle established for CA schools, the progress made in enhancing the success of all students in attaining the skills and understandings desired in the goal areas targeted for study in that cycle. ' In each dommentation cycle, the school shall host periodic visits by a resource team of educators re resenting the Commrssion. As a minimum schedule, members of the resource team shall: ‘Validate the :Epropriateness and com rehensiveness of the target go selected for study by e school. ‘Validate the appropriateness of the strategies proposed by the school to reduce the discrepancies between current and desired student outcomes. 'Verify that the school's 0A activities have addressed equity aspects of education. ‘Verify that the modifications made within the school as a result of its 0A activities have resulted in positive changes affecting student success. 161 162 COMMISSION ON SCHOOLS: E-STANDARDS The E-Standards developed by the Commission provide an exam le of the kinds of questions that may be posed by the team as it drafts its report. e , comprehensiveness of the standards statements helps remind the team and the school staff that the entire school staff makes contributions to the uality of its teaching/learning activities-regardless of the specificity of any of e target goals. The lettered statements given below are the Commission’s E-Standards; the statements accompanyin each describe ways in which a school may evidence its efforts in the E-Standar areas: A. The written statement of philosophy and goals is the governing document for the school and its program. 1. 999’!" All facets of the program and operations are based upon the hilosophy and goals. e statement is discussed by the total stafi' at least once a year. The statement is included in a school publication at least once each ear. The statement is reviewed by the governing board at least once each ear. Parents, community representatives, students, and staff members are involved in appropriate ways in the development and revision of the statement. B. Quali . programs are accessible for all students, regardless of the student’s me 399' PS” te or long-range goals. The curriculum is broad in scope and provides for a wide range of student rate, readiness, and potential or learning. All students are provided opportunities to develop skills in the affective, psychomotor, an Interpersonal areas, as well as in cognitive areas. The faculty has high calipectations for all students; All stafl members in sigments of the school program are ropriately trained for eir responsibilities. ocations of time and resources are suficient in all areas. The curriculum design emphasizes the interrelationships among various areas of le ' Procedures have been established to enhance horizontal and vertical articulation. 163 Students and parents are informed of the objectives of each component of the student’s pro am and about the activities to be undertaken to help the student achieve ese objectives. 1. 2 3. The learning activities for all students are derived from the curriculum objectives of the school. The school communicates to students and parents the objectives of the student’s current class work. The students and / or arents can describe the minimal learner outgomes developed the school for the age and grade level of the stu ent. - Teachers use classroom practices which make the most productive use of classroom time. , 1 2 3. 4 Classroom interruptions are kept to a mininmm. Routine school activities are organized so as to minimize the time needed for their completion. The school’s administration enforces procedures and regulations which protect student learning time. The master schedule is designed to eliminate to the greatest extent possible, the need for students to leave their regular classes for other activities. All activities within the classroom are related to curriculum objectives. ‘ Students receive regular and frequent assessment of their progress. 1. i" PP!" Student assessments are used by the teacher to alter teaching strategies as the need for that arises. Teachers view assessment as a means of fostering student success. Students are assessed in ' t of their individual characteristics. Testing data are used by teachers as indicators of the effectiveness of instruction. Other- measures such as an assessment of student attitudes, an evaluation of school climate, and delineations of parent expectancies are used the school to determine the effectiveness of instruction. The schoo provides for the inventory and diagnosis of students who have physical, social, emotional, mental, and academic characteristics requiring specialized educational programs. Services are available to students whose exceptional abilities, talents, or handicaps present unique needs and opportunities. 164 The results of the school’s student assessment program are used to modify curriculum and instructional methodology. .U'PPNr Individual test scores are used by teachers to identify students who need additional or different instruction. The school uses test scores to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum design and to make a propriate modifications. Both norm-referenced and criterion-re erenced tests are used to make 'udgments about curriculum modifications. e purposes and mechanics of the testing program are described in school-to-home communications. The school conducts a periodic survey of former students to obtain their views about the school program. Students have responsibilities in the development and implementation of the school’s rules of conduct and scholarship standards. 1. 2. 3. Student involvement in the development of rules of conduct is sought through formal means. Student organizations such as a student council have meaningful responsibilities and are an of the governance of the school. The student handbook escribes the various leadership opportunities available to students. The school climate is conducive to learning. 9%"? S” .Nt“ Expectations regarding conduct are clearly stated. - Disruptive students are not permitted to interfere with the learning activities of others. Student infractions of the conduct code are dealt with promptly and consistently by the faculty and administration. The physical environment is clean, pleasant and safe. The school rovide's adequate health services. The school acilities are adequate to accommodate an effective instructional program. The professional staff improvement program includes documented diagnosis - of teacher performance and specific processes and resources for improvement. 1 2 3. 4 For each teacher, there is on file a current record of performance evaluations, including plans designed to strengthen instructional skills. The teacher evaluation process is described in an appropriate school ublication. e faculty indicates satisfaction with the evaluation plan and with options available to teachers who wish to strengthen performance. Information about the preparation of professional staff members, as recorded on official transcripts, is used as a source of data for developing improvement programs for the staff as a whole and for individual teachers. 165 In-service programs are developed through needs assessments, faculty involvement, and faculty evaluations of each in-service program. PP’NE‘ A program of in-service education is maintained to stimulate the continued improvement of teaching and the curriculum. The relationshi between the in-service activity and the objectives of the school are etermined prior to the activity. Teachers are involved in the planning and evaluation of all in-service %ograms. e objectives for each in—service activity are known to all participants. Instructional leadership is the chief function of the school’s administrator. 1. go The administrator’s daily, weekly and monthly schedules indicate that a majority of the administrator’s time is devoted to activities which are designed to enhance student learning and effective teaching. The administrator participates in courses, workshops, and seminars to enhance her/his leadership skills and to learn newer understandings of the elements of effective teachin . Individual and group conferences 0 the administrator with members of the staff focus pnmarily on aspects of good teaching, curriculum evaluation, and other facets of the teaching/ learning process. Provisions are made in the school to perrmt the princrpal to function effectively in discharging leadership responsibilities. The relationship between the superintendent and the principal ensures cooperative and effective administration of the school. The relationship between the. principal and the staff is such as to facilitate effective administration and operation of the educational program. Teachers are involved in assessing the effectiveness of the program and in planning for its improvement. - 1. 2. The school calendar includes time reserved for individual teachers and the total stafi to review the effectiveness of the school program. Individual teachers, groups of teachers at the various grade levels, and the total staff establish improvement objectives each year and annually assess progress toward those objectives. The school has specific, written procedures for curriculum revision. The school conducts a planned and continuous evaluation of the effectiveness of its program. APPENDIX F STAFF SURVEY I Changes in Involvement, Training, Collaboration, & Decision Making during North Central Outcomes Accreditation This survey is gathering data for use in a dissertation at Michigan State University concerning North Central Outcomes Accreditation (OA) at the senior high level. The purpose is to analyze the changes in involvement, training, collaboration, and decision making as a result of using the OA process in senior highs. Although several questions ask for basic employee information, such as assignment and length of time in the school, your responses will not be used to identify you. Rather, they will be used to study how different groups of people respond to the questions. To ensure confidentiality, please do not write your name anywhere on the survey. Neither school names nor individual names will be used in any discussion of the results. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. School Basilica 1. E] Administrator Teachers, please indicate urinary teaching area D Counselor D English/Speech Business/Computers CI librarian/Media Specialist CI Social Studies E] Home Ec/IndArts D Teacher (check subject in next column) B Foreign Language D Art/Music CI Department Head CI Mathematics CI Physical Ed. D Other D Science D Special Ed. D Other MW 2. Sex B Male B Female 3. Undergraduate major(s) (Check as many as apply) [:1 English, Speech CI Science CI Industrial Arts Cl Social Studies [3 Business CI Art D Foreign Language D Computers D Music G Mathematics D Home Economics D Physical Education C] Other CI Special Education 4. Length of time in education 5. Length of time in this building CI LessthanSyears DLessthanSyears 5-9 years B 5-9 years El 1014 years 1:] 10.14 years I] 15-19 years CI 15-19 years D morethan20years morethanZOyearS 6. School-related activities outside your regular assignment (check as many as apply) supervise extracurricular group (e.g. coach, class or club Sponsor, plays, newspaper, etc.) district wide committees (curriculum, task force, staff development, school improvement, etc..) negotiating team union/ association building representative, committee member, officer teach outside the regular school day (community ed, community college, etc.) DD DUE] 166 167 WW 7. Indicate the extent to which you feel/have felt involved in DA on an average dining all the years of the £101ch U Not involved at all D Involved as much as time permits El Involved as little as possible D Highly involved Somewhat involved 8. Estimate the time you spent on all the work connected with OA. The time varied from as little as horns per month to as much as horns per month. Add any comment that explains how or why the time varied 9. Estimate where the time came from that you spent on OA. Use the following categories: the time spent during regular work horns with time allocated by the school( e.g. release time, student release); the time spent during regular work hours that you normally spend on other duties (e.g. planning period); and the time spent in addition to regular work hours (summer, weekends, after or before school). 80 - 100% 60 - 79% 40 - 59% 20 - 39% 0 - 19% Regular work hours with time allocated by the school (release time, student release) D U U U D Regular work hours that you normally spend on other duties (e.g. planning period) D D D U D Hours in addition to regular work hours (summer weekends, before or after school) B D D D D 10. Indicate how long you have put in extra hours beyond normal work load for 0A B none Dlessthanlyear Ulyear D 2years D3ormoreyears 11. If you are involved, how long do you expect to continue your current level of involvement? D thisyear D lmoreyear Dupto2years D anotherOAcycle D notsm'e 12. Compare the time you spend now to the time you spent on school wide issues (e.g. curriculum, staff development, school wide decision making) before OA. D much less now D less now D about the same D more now D much more now 168 13. Indicate the kinds of activities you have participated in as you worked on OA. (check all that apply) Receive staff development training, hear presentations, etc. Serve on building/district planning team Serve on problem solving teams, target goal committees Gather data Write reports. guidelines, curriculum Strategies, recommendations, programs Use new techniques/approaches in your classroom Implement new programs and strategies Vote to adopt new programs Work collaboratively with other teachers to share and develop programs and strategies Provide follow-up and support after staff uaining Others (Specify) DDDDDDDDDDD l4. Indicate the number of staff members you feel are actively involved in Outcomes Accreditation and who work to implement the strategies. D very few D few D some D many D very many 15. If you are not involved beyond required activities, check the statements that best express the renson(s) you have for not being involved. (Skip this question if you feel you are involved) D my effort doesn’t matter D family obligations are too great El other teachers willcarry the load D takingclassesfor advanced degrees D building administration doesn’t care U need to work second job U central office administration doesn’tcare CI already tooinvolvedin otherschool activities D Other (e.g. coaching, committees, extracurricular) SI n n I I I I . . 16. Check the topics in which you have had inservice training and/or graduate course work (check as many as apply). Indicate whether the training was before 0A or during it. Check both if applicable. Before During 0A 0A Cl C] team building D D consensus building in decision making D D participative management U E] effective schools/school improvement D D conflict resolution D D communication skills U D decision making D D developing a mission D D organization of staff development D D effective teaching (e.g. Madeline Hunter) D D cooperative learning D D cuniculum planning D D specific subject staff development (e.g. writing, reading, math manipulatives etc.) 169 I! . . I . Indicate the extent of your involvement in decisions in your building about the following subjects both now and before OA. Use the following scale to indicate how often you deal with these topics Always Often. . Selscib‘i‘nefimes Never 17. Developing a mission and/or goals for the building ............ now D D D D D ....... before 0A B D D D 18. Developing/administering department budget issues ............ now D D D [I D ....... before CA U U Cl Cl U 19. Curriculum development (within department, building, or K-l2) . .now D D D D D ....... before CA U U D D [I 20. Developing/organizing staff development .................. now D D D D D ....... before CA I] El E] [3 El 21. Choosing materials for use by department ................ now D D D U D ....... before CA I] U D U U 22. Choosing textbooks ................................ now D D D D D ....... before CA E! Cl E] El CI 23. Develop school-wide policies (e.g. attendance, discipline) ....... now D U U D D 24 De 1 . hool 'd ....... before 0A B D D D D ' V2353? issue: $37783“: T7”??? .‘iii'f‘i’ffi'f’fsi. . a... [3 El D D El ....... before CA U D D D D 25. Developing school hours] calendar ...................... now D D D D D ....... before CA G U D D D 26. Developing teacher schedules/placement .................. now D D D D D ....... before CA E] [3 El E! E] 27 . Evaluating teachers ................................ now D U D D D ....... before 0A B D D D D 170 Outcomes Accreditation may have changed practices in your building. Answer the following questions based on current practice. Rate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. If you have no opinion about a statement, skip the item. To a very great extent To a great extent. To a little extent To a very little extent Not at all 28. The building administration gives the staff adequate information so it can do the best possible job ................. El 29. My administrator seeks and uses my ideas about non academic matters ................................. 30. I view communications from my administrator(s) with trust and confidence ............................... 31. I have been involved in the decision making process within my building . ................................. 32. The decision making process involves the majority of the staff rather than a small part of the staff ................. 33. Administrators, staff, and students work together as a team ......................................... 34. Administrators in the building are more influenced by teacher opinion than before Outcomes Accreditation began ...... 35. Central office gives adequate information so that building staff can do the best possible job ................... 36. Central office has moved decisions to the appropriate level for effective performance ......................... 37. Central office administrators are more influenced by teacher opinion titan before Outcomes Accreditation began ...... DDDCIEJDEIDD UDDDDDDUDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDUDDUDD 38. Central office has given the time and resources (money, support personnel) to develop and implement programs developed through 0A ....................................... 39. My union encourages participation in school improvement ........ 40. My union supports building level decision making for CA recommendations ................................ 41. The relationship between the building and the union improved as a result of the OA process ................... DUDE] ClDCIEI DUDE! DUDE] [—1 r1 l—I flfifl 42. 43. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 171 Money and time has been shared equitably within the building during Outcomes Accreditation ............... The building committee encourages the staff to work together as a team ........................... I view communications from building committees with confidence and trust ............................... When conflicts arise between parties (groups or persons), mutually acceptable solutions are sought. ............... Different departments plan together and coordinate their efforts. . . . Different teachers plan together and coordinate their efforts for their classrooms .......................... Our staff works collaboratively as equals to improve the teaching and learning in our building ........... Implementing the various target goals and Strategies has affected how I work with and view other staff members ............. Implementing the target goals and strategies has affected what I do in my classroom ................................ Ireceivedadequatetrainingintheskillslneeded to be involved in the process and to implement programs ...... The staff training changed my skills, behaviors, and attitudes .................................... There was adequate follow-up and support of the staff training. ...................................... The staff training changed the skills, behaviors, and attitudes of most teachers on the staff .................... The target goals and strategies improved the attitudes of students toward teaching and learning ........... The roles of teachers and administrators changed as a result of using the 0A process ................... O 0 To a very great extent DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD l—If—ll—Ifif-lfiflfifil—lr‘lfll—I H 172 To a very great extent To a great extent To a little extent To a very little extent Not at all 57. I feel more positive about my role as an educator as a result of my involvement in OA ............. D D U D I: 58. Outcomes Accreditation is successful in this building ............ D D D D E 59. I expect the building Staff to continue using the processes developed during OA ....................... D D D D E 60. Share your feelings about the usefulness and effectiveness of the process of Outcomes Accreditation - developing a mission, deciding on five target goals developing and implementing strategies. 61. Share your feelings about whether Outcomes Accreditation process helps to inprove student outcomes based on the experience in your building. 62. What circumstances or practices during OA worked as an impediment to change? Thank you very much for the time you took to complete this survey. Please add any comments raised by any of the questions or any comments about Outcomes Accreditation in general. APPENDIX G INTERVIEW QUESTIONS SCHOOL STAFF Background Position, assignment, length in position and district, education, role in OA Staff Training What training, if any, did everyone receive? Training in decision making and process of change? Did staff members have opportunities for specific training? Who made the choice about their involvement? Was there training in skills needed to develop target goal strategies? Examples? Work time or own time? Inservice or outside building? Cost? Extra dollars for training? Was there an ongoing support system? How did it work? What training did you personally receive? Why did you get the training? Did the training change classroom performance? Examples? Did the training change the way people worked together? Examples? Did training help change attitudes of staff? Examples? How central was the training to the success of the program? Decision making Did the central administration support 0A? How? Dollars? Support? Did you have trouble finding time? How did you resolve this? Did you have any personnel time allocated specifically to 0A? Was there a change in decision making process between central office and the building? Any problems in that change? How were they solved? Did the union support CA? What process do you have if changes desired in the building include hours or working conditions? Does this work well? Why or why not? Who chooses teachers for the team? Did the attitude of the union make any difference in the success or failure of 0A? 173 174 How did the principal and the building team get started? What did or didn’t work at the beginning? Did staff members feel they had enough information? How did the target goal committees work? What problems came up? How were they solved? Did the roles of teachers and administrators change? How? Why? Do you think this change will continue? Does the staff have good team spirit? What contributed to it? Involvement How many people were involved in the real work of 0A? Was it the same group who always works on extra projects? How did you get others involved? Did involvement vary over the life of the project? Some have described ”hitting a wall” where the easy changes had been made and they have to decide whether to go beyond that? Did this happen? If so, why? Did you get beyond it? How? Does the staff feel that OA belongs to them? What did you do to achieve this? Do you feel more connected to the school organization than you did before? Collaboration Did teachers work together more often? Within department? Cross departments? Did the amount of collaboration vary by department? Have you collaborated with another teacher beyond the committee work? Describe the experience. Initiated by whom? Target goal? Problems? Would you do it again? Describe some collaborative experiences that happened through OA. These questions cover the whole study. Questions will be used from this list that match the role of the person being interviewed. Phrasing may vary based on the person being interviewed. APPENDIX H STAFF TRAINING AND EXPERIENCES BY SCHOOL BEFORE OA AND DURING OA N = 178 Central. N = 80 North. N = 24 West. N = 74 Topic Central North West Number of staff trained... Pre-OA During Pre OA During Pre OA During Team Building 5 15 3 10 4 20 Consensus in Decision Making 8 9 4 10 10 26 Participative Management 12 11 7 6 16 16 Effective schools / improvement 15 4O 4 19 19 36 Conflict Resolution 10 15 8 3 13 17 Communication Skills 35 18 9 16 28 29 Decision Making 21 13 9 13 24 22 Developing a Mission 15 31 6 9 14 40 Organization Of Staff Dev. 11 11 4 13 11 12 Effective Teaching 27 19 6 21 16 20 Cooperative Learning 34 24 7 23 19 46 Curriculum Planning 38 28 17 15 23 19 Specific Subject Staff Training 21 24 13 21 21 24 175 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Asher, J.W. (1976). Educational research and evaluation methods. Boston: Little Brown. Banach, W. (1992). Into the let century. At Strategic Planning Conference. Garden City, MI. Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Barth, R. S. (1992). Improving the schools from within. At Sixth Annual School Improvement Conference. Lansing, MI. Bennis, W. 8r Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper and Row. Bidwell, C. E. 8: Kasarda, J. D. (1980). Conceptualizing and measuring the effects Of school and schooling. American Journal of Education 88. 401- 430. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bliss, 1., Firestone, W., and Richards, C. (Eds) (1991). Rethinking effective schools: Research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bolrnan, L. G. 8: Deal, TE (1991). Reframing organizations. Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chubb, J. 8: Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Instutituion. Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington DC: US. Government Printing Office. Conley, S. C. 81.- Bacharach, S. B. (1990, March). From school-site management to participatory school-site management. Phi Delta Kappan 7. 539-544. 176 177 Cusick, P. A. (1983) The egalitarian ideal and the American high school. New York: Longran. DePree, M. (1989) Leadership is an art. New York: Dell Trade. Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-27. Elwell, P. T. (1992). Outcomes assessment, institutional effectiveness, and accreditation: A conceptual exploration. In Accreditation, Assessment, and Institutional Effectiveness. Washington, DC, Council on Postsecondary Accreditation. Fetterman, D. M. (Ed.) (1989) Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education. New York: Praeger. Fullan, M. G. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. G. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. The Elementary Schools Journal 85. 391-421. Fullan, M. G. with Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. G. (1992). Managing change successfully. At Sixth Annual School Improvement Conference. Lansing, MI. Fullan, M. G. 8: Hargreaves, A. (1991) What’s worth fighting for. Andover, Mass: Regional Laboratory Of Educational Improvement Of the Northeast and Islands. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill. Hall, G. 8: Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools -Facilitating the process. Albany: State University Of New York Press. Hord, S. (1987). Evaluating educational innovation. New York: Croom Helm. Huberman, M. (1988). Teacher careers and school improvement. Journal of Curriculum Studies 20 (2), 119-32. Huberman, M. 8: Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close. New York: Plenum. 178 Imber, M. N eidt, W. A., 8: Reyes, P. (1990 Summer). Factors contributing to teacher satisfaction with participative decision making. Journal of Research and Development in Education 23. 216-225. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Ackland, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., 8: Michoson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books. Johnson, N. B. (1985). Westhaven: Classroom, culture, and society in a rural elementary School. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Kanter, R. M. ( 1983).The change master: Innovations for productivity in the American corporation. New York: Simon 8: Schuster. Kanter, R. M. 8: Brinkerhoff, D. (1981). Organizational performance: Recent developments in measurement. Annual Review of Sociology 7, 321- 349. Lawler, E. E. III. (1988). High involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Levine. M. (1985. January). Excellent companies and exemplary schools: Common goals and characteristics. NASSP Bulletin. 56-59. Lezotte, L. (1990). Strategic assumptions for school improvement based on effective schools research. Presented at Leadership for School Improvement training. Troy, MI. Lezotte, L. 8: Jacoby, B. (1990). A guide to the school improvement process based on effective schools research. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products. Lieberman, A. (Ed.) (1990). Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now. New York: Falmer Press. Lieberman, A. 8: Miller, L. (1990). Restructuring schools: What matters and what works. Phi Delta Kappan, 759-764. ' Likert, Rensis. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw Hill. Lipham, J. 8: Ranking, R. (1982). Change, leadership, and decision making in improving seconday schools. Madison, WI: Center for Education Research. Louis, K. S. 8: Miles, M. B. (1990) Improving the urban high school - What works and why. New York: Teachers College. 179 Louis, K. S. 8: Miles, M. B. (1991). Managing reform: Lessons from urban high schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2 (2), 75-96. Louis, M. R. (1985). An investigator’ s guide to workplace culture. In Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., 8: Martin, J. (Eds.) Organizational culture. Beverly Hills: Sage. National Commission on Excellece. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Michigan Committee. (1991).Outcomes accreditation handbook. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. Olson, L. (1991 October 30). Study highlights the ups, downs of shared decisionmaking. Education Week. p. 8. O’Toole, J. (1981). Making America work. New York: Continuum. Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: Random House. Peters, T. J., 8: Waterman, R. H.,Jr. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper Row. Powell, A., Cohen D., 8: Farrar, E. (1985). The shopping mall high school. New York: Houghton-Mifflin. Pugh, W. C. (1988). Ethnography and teacher efficacy: The base of collaborative teacher involvement in school effectiveness classroom research. Paper presented at Ethnography in Education Research Forum, Ninth Annual Conference. Philadelphia. Purkey, S. C. 8: Smith, M. C. (1983) . Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal. 83 , 427-452. Purkey, S. C. 8: Smith, M. C. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. The Elementary School Journal. 85, 353-390. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989).Teachers’ workplace. New York: Longman. 180 Rosenholtz, S. J. 8: Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers’ commitment. Sociology of Education 63. 241-257. Rosow, J. M. 8: Zager, R. (1989). Allies in educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Rossman, G., Corbett, H. D., and Firestone, W. (1988). Change and effectiveness in schools. Albany: State University of New York Press. Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. Review of Research in Education 16. 353-389. Schlectly, P. C. (1990). Schools for the let century. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. ‘ Sedlak, M. W., Wheeler, C. W., Pullen, D. C., 8: Cusick, P. A. (1986). Selling students short. New York: Teachers College Press. Simon, H. A. (1991, Feb.). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organizational Learning 2. 1. Watts, G. D. 8: McClure, R. M. (1990, June). Expanding the contract to revolutionize school renewal. Phi Delta Kappan 7. 765-774. Wayson, W. W. with Mitchell, 8., Pinnell, G. S., 8: Landes, D. (1989). Up from excellence: The impact of the excellence movement on schools. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Foundation. Wilson, B. 8: Concoran, T. (1988). Successful secondary schools: Visions of excellence in American public education. Phildelphia: Falmer Press. Wood, C. (1989). Challenging the assumptions underlying the use of participatory decision making strategies. Small Group Behavior 20. 428-448. ' ST nrcnrcaN 9 3"2 925 TE UNIV. LIBRRRIES WWW“llllllllllllllml 009049473