..z. ..(Eé:
..wvw‘.+V\,.».K.,§ l
w 6.4. 1.4L»;
r“ iii... ) 73.1.;
we. ﬁx.
4t“...
11: . (

....

Iv. . . ~
.4? 9 7 .V ..ﬁ 32qu
.... 3a.. ‘ hxﬂfsu
wwwmn.» . i._.u.m.IL.
u . :5 .. . I)
"Rsﬁuraw 3..
.34 :20. I
... . a...
pit.
,3 :3“.

..mmm...

av. an”?

. .

...... u
v ‘52. I I

\. in “Quamméuw ‘ :22.

a, 3.... ...; ....

5.: a .5. .

.v :
‘Iriu J.)
. ...r’ .....l
‘ u: x
...:whngat

:1‘.‘..O3~l~

t. maadsn
aﬁaﬁn.)l . a... .
_ Vol" 7.. . 8.7 . u I. ‘ s.
a! ....» ...}. ..Qwﬁv: 5L. itchy.
..I‘-.4.ra) , . 111.213.... 2.135
. .321 ugmn ...I- 3.5:

It‘ll-...
a C .

Q

0
In}... .38
25.23.:

.....Iusvxnx."-I..Lbs|\.
i it 1:}; till:
... 9&1. 115.33%
’3 9D

 

 

. iii?!" . ‘ .
.7. I. r: 1.3!-
.: ...-‘3‘! y

1 A
: 5.71.5.6: y ixtVu‘Cunnvtulv \
1. {31... , iv \ tr... 5 x. ..
... )1

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
What's In It For Me? An Information-
Technology Case Study Involving a Rural
Public School District

presented by
Jan C. Amsterburg

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Phd degree in Educational Administration

WUm/ﬁzxﬂm)

Major professor

Date May 81 2002

MS U i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

E9... {2.0.44

1' 4 Lou

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DaieDue.p65-p.15

 

WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME? AN INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY
INVOLVING A RURAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

By

Jan C. Amsterburg

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2002

ABSTRACT

WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME? AN INF ORMATION-TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY
NVOLVING A RURAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

By

Jan C. Amsterburg

The primary purpose of this study was to examine and describe the institutional
support and resistance encountered during the implementation of a computer-technology
innovation in a midwestem rural public school district. In June 1998, nine midwestem
school districts were awarded a let Century Learning Center grant through the United
States government. Each district was able, at no cost, to establish a completely equipped,
state-of-the-art middle school computer clubhouse. This new computer consortium was
called SATURN! or Students Achieving Technology Understanding Right Now! (a
pseudonym) and included ﬁnancial support for a computer lab, a full-time site
coordinator, student transportation, and technical and administrative assistance from
Southwestern University (a pseudonym). Despite more than adequate ﬁnancial support,
successful implementation was not immediate. This phenomenon was due to factors both
supporting and resisting the process of school change at this rural middle school site.
Knowledge gained from examining the innovation of the SATURN! project will provide
practical and useful information to any school district interested in pursuing similar
technology programs.

The methodology employed was a single case-based study and used single-case

analysis. This study examined how the participants interacted with other school district

individuals and with the university as an organization, and investigated how technology
was used to implement the change process. Also explored were the formal and informal
networks within and external to the school district and community. The data-collection
strategies included the gathering of descriptive data through site visitations and
examining individuals’ attitudes toward the change event through rich narratives. The
data analysis identiﬁed patterns along with consistencies and inconsistencies.

The exploratory question posed was: How has one rural school district
implemented a computer-technology innovation (i.e., SATURNl), and what does an
analysis of this innovation reveal about the process of school change? At the conclusion
of this study, four themes emerged: (a) the formation of complex relationships across
differing institutions as they established partnerships and how those partnerships affected
innovations and change processes; (b) the possibility of creating new organizational
structures that value empowerment, participation, and collaboration, and how these
values might drive innovation/change; (c) the development of usable, applied
communication skills for change agents that assist them in addressing the human side of
change, as well as the political and economic frames of the change event; and (d) the
need to better understand how an information-technology innovation affects, or not,

second-order change and actual learning.

Copyright by
Jan C. Amsterburg
2002

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Maenette Benham, and guidance committee
members, Dr. David Plank, Dr. Punyashloke Mishra, and Dr. Yong Zhao. Special thanks
to Mac, Jack, and Dave from “the north”; Lisa Roy and Blaine Morrow from “SATURN!
Central”; editor Sue Miller; my parents, Robert and Jillonne Amsterburg; and most of all,

my lovely wife, Carol.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................... ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ............................ 1
Introduction ................................................ 1
Problem Statement ........................................... 6
Purpose and Objectives ....................................... 8
Research Question .......................................... 10
Need for and Importance of the Study ........................... 10
Setting for the Study ........................................ 11
Assumptions ............................................... 12
Delimitations .............................................. 13
Theoretical Framework of the Study ............................ 13
Deﬁnitions of Terms ........................................ 18
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................. 19
Introduction ............................................... 19
School Change and Culture ................................... l9
Force Field Analysis ........................................ 29
Communication and Diffusion-of-Infonnation Theory .............. 30
Technology Implementation and School Change .................. 33
3. METHODOLOGY ......................................... 37
Introduction ............................................... 37
Methodological Approach .................................... 37
The Population and Sample ................................... 41
Data-Collection Methods ..................................... 42
On-Site Interviews ....................................... 42
Document Analysis ....................................... 43
Data-Analysis Techniques ............................ ‘ ........ 44
Validity .................................................. 45
Limitations ................................................ 45

vi

SCHOOL CHANGE: A CASE STUDY OF SATURN!

APPENDICES

AT WINBALD AREA SCHOOLS ............................. 46
Introduction ................................................ 46
The SATURN! Project ....................................... 46
The Project Grant ........................................ 46
Project Personnel ........................................ 50
Organizational Structures .................................. 55
The People: Champions at Winbald ............................ 55
SATURN! at Winbald ....................................... 63
Conﬂicting/Complicating Issues of Communication at Winbald ...... 83
Current Status of SATURN! at Winbald ......................... 88
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........................ 93
Introduction ............................................... 93
Conclusions ............................................... 93
Introduction ............................................. 7 l
The Meaning of Change to People or “What’s in It for Me?” ...... 96
Managing Change: Conﬂict in Collaboration ................. 102
Theory Building ........................................... 107
Introduction ............................................ 107
Model for Change: For School Administrators ................ 110
Implications for Further Research ............................. 118
A Scholar-Practitioner’s Reﬂections ........................... 119
Context of the School District and the Community ................ 122

Introductory Letters, Consent Forms, and Approval Letters From
the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects . . . 146

REFERENCES ....................................................... 1 5 3

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Al. Enrollment, Financial, Dropout/Completion, and MEAP/HST Statistics
for Winbald Area Schools, 1996-97, 1997-78, and 1998-99 ............... 137

viii

1.1

1.2

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

5.1

A1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Themes of School Change—A Cultural Web ............................ 15
The Diffusion “S” Curve ........................................... 17
Formal Organizational Chart That Was Submitted With the Original

SATURN! Grant ................................................. 56
Southwestern University SATURN! Organizational Chart ................. 5 7
Organizational Chart for Southwestern University and District

Superintendents .................................................. 58
Financial Organizational Chart for SATURN! .......................... 59
Informal Organizational Chart Used By Individual Site Coordinators ........ 6O

Force Field Analysis (Lewin, 1951) of Supporting and Restraining Forces at
Work in the Implementation of the SATURN! Project .................... 64

Winbald Klubhouse Road Map Constructed by Larry Evans, a Local
Business Owner .................................................. 89

Winbald Klubhouse Road Map Constructed by Donnie Stefanski, Community

Agency Person ................................................... 91
Winds of Change: How a School Administrator Should View School

Change ........................................................ 109
Map of the Winbald Area ......................................... 125
Administrative Structure of Winbald High School and Middle School ...... 136

ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

Computers in schools! Anyone even remotely connected with the ﬁeld of
education today cannot help but be caught up in this electronic phenomenon! The
buzzwords of computers and technology permeate the halls of every school building and
school board meeting across the United States and, indeed, throughout most of the world.
As computer technology continues to expand and computers become faster and more user
friendly, educators and students are becoming increasingly more proﬁcient in applying
this innovation to the educational process. Research has indicated that use of computers
in schools is a means, and not an end in itself, in the educational process (Dede, 1998).

More nontraditional applications for computers are surfacing as well. For
example, another use of technology is growing in popularity and changing the
educational landscape: parents using computers to track their children’s progress and
stay up-to-date on the school and district. The beneﬁt is that people with busy schedules
appreciate being able to gain access to information about their children or school any
time of the day or night. With more than 90% of schools now being wired for the
Internet, there has also been a huge push on the part of federal, state, and local
governments, school districts, and parents to improve communication. Various
companies are offering for-proﬁt services to school districts that allow the districts to put
password-protected school information onto web sites that parents can view (Branch,

2000).

The infusion of technology into education is also gaining attention at both the
state and national levels. In what could be the largest move in the nation’s history, in
2000 the state of Michigan was planning to spend $110 million to buy 91,000 personal
computers for public school classroom teachers, which were to be delivered by the end of
the year (Branch, 2000). Other states are sure to be watching Michigan closely to see
how this initiative develops. One thing is certain: The digital age has arrived in the
public school setting.

Although funding computer purchases will remain a challenge for many school
districts, the real obstacle for many districts is to understand the process by which new
technology is introduced or adopted. A better understanding of this process can assist in
determining how the change process inﬂuences the innovation and sustainability of a
computer-technology innovation.

In 1991, most school districts in the United States had a few computers, minimal
Internet addresses, and an occasional modem to connect their computers to the Internet.
Yet, even then, it was clear to futuristic-thinking and -practicing educators such as
California teacher Virginia Streeter that the “technology train had indeed left the station.”
Streeter, who was featured in the ﬁrst issue of Cable in the Classroom magazine in 1991,
presciently stated, “The question is no longer whether the train is going to go, but where
is the train going to stop” (Race, 2001).

Since 1991, students have beneﬁted from technology in ways that only a few of
the most visionary dreamers could imagine. Students both in and out of the classroom
communicate regularly with other students, as well as with learned experts across the

country and around the world. They are learning how to research and analyze

information that is available from literally millions of primary and secondary sources;
they are able to see phenomena as images on the screen instead of as words on a page;
and they are able to create and publish their own creative art and scholarly work for
friends, family, and the community, which all the world has the option and capability to
see. In one decade, educators have not only hopped aboard the technology train, they are
stoking the engine.

Today, 95% of schools in the United States have some form of Internet access,
and many have cable modems that allow users to surf the Internet at 500k or faster (early
computers’ rate of data transfer was much slower). Partly as a result of these increases in
connectivity and speed, teaching is undergoing equally dramatic changes. There are still
numerous deﬁciencies to deal with, from insufﬁcient hardware and technical support to
inadequate professional development in the needed technology skills, but the digital age
has fully arrived in the schools. Today’s teachers are deﬁnitely using more computer
technologies, along with video, than they did in the past.

According to a survey conducted in 2001 by CW 93% of the
educators who responded to the magazine’s study said they used the Internet to conduct
research, communicate with colleagues, seek new ideas and lesson plans, and work on
student projects. Technology, then, is being used not only to gather information, but as
an active tool to teach critical thinking and media literacy skills that will help students
survive in the information age (Race, 2001). Technology also is being used in addressing
the needs of classrooms that have moved from teacher-led to student-initiated exercises,
from individual to cooperative learning, and from strict grade and subject boundaries to

interdisciplinary work that might involve children of various ages and abilities. And

technology is not used merely to respond to changes in education; it creates changes of
its own, inﬂuencing, for example, the roles of teachers and the scheduling and make-up
of classes (Axelson & Hardy, 1999).

School districts are ﬁnding new and better ways to reform and enrich education
through technology. Students and staff alike are daily employing technology as a tool to
access, analyze, use, and communicate information. The vision is that all students can
learn, and that the use of technology will enhance the learning experience of each
student. If indeed this is the case, then why have not computers and technology been
adopted as a standardized, nationwide school reform effort? And when computers have
been adopted into an individual school’s culture, what happens to that culture and to the
curriculum? What does this change look like?

As Stanford University professor Larry Cuban (2001) asked, “How can it be that
so much school reform has taken place over the last century, yet schooling appears pretty
much the same as it’s always been?” Real change requires attention to many
organizational issues that rarely are addressed by those installing networks and
computers. Effecting authentic change in a school’s learning culture demands a
comprehensive effort. Taken separately, various individual efforts might make important
contributions, but the best approach is to blend many strategies so that they create a
compound, lasting effect on the learning culture (McKenzie, 2001).

It is important for members of the school community to understand the change
process in order to sustain an innovation. Understanding the orientations and. working

conditions of the main actors in schools and school systems is a prerequisite for planning

and coping with educational change (Fullan, 1991). A strong change philosophy is also
needed for a proposed innovation to succeed. Meijer (1995) speciﬁed,

For the kinds of changes necessary to transform America’s education, the work

force of teachers must do three tough things more or less at once: change how

they view learning itself, develop new habits of mind to go with their new
cognitive understanding, and simultaneously develop new habits of work—habits
that are collegial and public in nature, not solo and private as has been the custom

in teaching. (p. 140)

Changing the attitudes and practices of school personnel, then, is as difﬁcult as it
is necessary (Sarason, 1993). School practitioners’ vision to embrace a concept is critical
if program implementation is to succeed. Virtually everyone who works in a school for
any length of time develops vast practical knowledge in areas such as curriculum, child
development, discipline, leadership, desegregation, and parent involvement. These rich
insights provide credibility to the visions school people have about good education.

The visions of school reform are the prescriptions that have the best chance to be
taken seriously, enacted, and sustained by teachers, principals, and ultimately the school
district. Many researchers have found a relationship between the presence of teachers’
and principals’ visions and the effectiveness of their schools. There are many
complexities and formidable obstacles to developing a school-based vision of and plan
for improvement. Thus, for a program to have a chance for successful implementation,
school personnel will need to think through for themselves what they want their school to
become and their places in the process, and then set out with conviction to make their
vision a reality (Barth, 1990).

As an innovation is implemented in a school or organization, a number of

tensions are likely to arise. These tensions may include issues of governance, resource

allocation, human relations, and integration of the innovation into the academic program.
Perceived unfairness is another important source of resistance to change as a new
innovation is introduced. This perception may be the cause of teacher resistance to

change, manifesting itself as resentment of the innovation (F olger & Skarlicki, 1999).

Problem Statement

1 am interested in the many elements inherent in the process of school change and
the resulting districtwide ramiﬁcations that the implementation of a new program is
bound to have. These changes can be as subtle as revising the name of a particular
course offering or, at the other end of the change spectrum, as obtrusive as eliminating a
program and then implementing a new one. In addition, for the past 10 years I have been
concerned about the complexities of implementing computer technology in public
schools.

I am now a public school superintendent in a class-B Michigan school district
(2,100 students in grades K through 12), and before this I was the superintendent of a
class-D school district (255 students in grades K through 12) for four years. Before
holding these superintendencies, I served as an assistant high school principal and
community education director in another class-B district. Throughout my 24 years as an
administrator in three different public school districts, 1 have witnessed countless
proposed educational innovations and many mandates of change. All were well
intentioned and, for the most part, carefully thought out, with what I considered to be
acceptable plans for successful implementation. Success should have been guaranteed

for these program innovations, but it seldom was. For years, I have been curious about

why some programs have been implemented successfully in the mainstream of a public
school system, whereas others have failed.

There are several reasons for my interest in why educational program initiatives
succeed or fail. First, in my position as a school superintendent, if I support and direct a
failed initiative, it might represent a career-ending mistake, just as a successful
innovation could provide a lucrative career opportunity at another, more afﬂuent school
district. Likewise, but more altruistically, a successful innovation has the potential to be
of great educational beneﬁt to the students, and to have a powerful positive effect on the
surrounding community.

Second, most school districts do not have money to waste on impractical or
unnecessary innovations. A failed innovation may use up the majority of precious
“extra” ﬁnancial resources. Should these funds be expended in vain, there will be little
support for future initiatives. Should the initiative succeed, the district will, in all
likelihood, support future program innovations. In addition, outside sources of income
from federal grants, private foundations, and local stakeholders often hinge on how
successful a district has been at implementing new innovations.

The last and perhaps most signiﬁcant reason I am interested in the success or
failure of educational program initiatives is the human or emotional cost involved. This
concern is probably the most complex because it involves a combination of
administrators, teachers, other staff members, and often board members and other
community stakeholders, who have personal agendas and their own views and beliefs
concerning the proposed innovation. As a reﬂective practitioner, I am aware that the

emotional costs involved in program innovation embrace the domains of school change,

communication, loss, and the concept of fair social change and justice. All of these
emotional costs contribute to and ultimately affect the rate of adoption and the fate of a
program innovation.

The most signiﬁcant piece of any school improvement venture is the success
(adoption in some form) or failure (discontinuance) of a new initiative? Ultimately, the
innovation’s rate of adoption will determine its success or failure (Rogers, 1983, 1995).
The problem, then, is understanding the nature of school change, which begins in an
isolated setting. In particular, what is the nature of school change at the local level?
How is an innovation diffused in a local school setting, and how do the players involved
make sense of the change?

There is a dearth of research speciﬁcally related to the topics of concern in this
research. Searches of ERIC documents revealed only scant information concerning the
variables of interest in this study. Further, using the electronic resources of a university
library, I located few studies resembling this one, although several dissertations have
been written on support of and impediments to diffusion of innovation in schools.
Through e-mail, I also contacted Everett Rogers, noted pioneer in research on diffusion
of innovation, regarding this study. He replied that he knew of “no other project like it,
. . . which could be both good and bad for the researcher!” (personal communication,

October 21, 1998).

Purpose and Objectives

My primary purpose in this study was to examine and describe the institutional

support and resistance encountered during the implementation of a computer-technology

innovation (SATURN!) in a midwestem rural public school district (Winbald Area
Schools, a pseudonym). A secondary purpose was to put forward an emergent theory
regarding a computer-technology innovation process in a rural school setting by
employing theories and concepts of school change and communication.

The SATURN! (Students Achieving Technology Understanding Now!) project
was sponsored by a federal government let Century Learning Center grant administered
by Southwestern University (also a pseudonym). This innovation involved the
implementation of a computer klubhouse (klubhouse with a “k” was a registered
trademark of Southwestern University) at Winbald Middle School. The SATURN!
project is described in detail in Chapter 4. To better understand and explain the program-
implementation process, I explored the events and features of the change process to
discover the extent to which this particular innovation became integrated into daily
practice, as a result of institutional support and despite resistance.

Many change initiatives have been launched with the best of intentions, only to
eventually fail (Cuban, 1990). Meanwhile, other innovations ultimately have been
sustained and woven into the regular K-12 educational programs and become
successfully institutionalized. Thus, an objective in this study was to investigate the
reasons an innovation succeeds or fails. Another objective was to identify what ﬁnancial
and educational supports were in place, what the major barriers to program

implementation were and what barriers remained, and where the most support originated.

Research Question

To guide the collection of data with which to fulﬁll the purpose of this study (to
examine and describe the institutional support and resistance encountered during the
implementation of a computer-technology innovation [SATURNl] in a midwestern rural
public school district), I posed the following overarching research question:

How has one rural school district implemented a computer-technology

innovation (i.e., SATURN l), and what does an analysis of this innovation
reveal about the process of school change?

Need for and Importance of the Study

This case-based research study has the potential to make signiﬁcant contributions
to the educational ﬁeld in the areas of practice and research. Of particular interest to
researchers will be the examination of an innovative computer-technology program at the
middle school level, evaluating the successes and failures of this program and identifying
the institutional factors supporting or impeding the innovation’s adoption.

Current research indicates that there is educational value in teaching with
technology and providing after-school programs for middle school students (University
of North Carolina, 1998). Researchers have stressed the expanding role that technology
must play in educating at-risk and rural students. New practice in instruction can provide
meaningful learning experiences for all children, especially those who are at risk for
educational failure (Hixson & Tinzrnann, 1990). However, most rural school districts
possess few additional resources, and therefore are especially limited in exposure to

technological opportunities (Lee, 1997).

10

Smaller rural schools also face social, economic, and recreational limitations that
are not as apparent in suburban school systems (Schmuck & Schmuck, 1992). Therefore,
a computer-technology initiative such as SATURN! can provide students cutting-edge
technology, as well as a social gathering place. This setting provided a rich and diverse
domain in which to study the innovation.

Moreover, because little research is available on similar projects, the study
ﬁndings will advance this ﬁeld of research. The knowledge gained from this research
will be of value to many other school districts that are contemplating the adoption and
innovation of new programs in their schools. The fate of new programs seldom is
deﬁnite or predictable, yet one certainty that exists is that, even under the best of
conditions, there will be myriad impediments to any innovation process. Thus, it is
critical for school personnel to understand the ramiﬁcations of the innovation process.
With this understanding, school districts will be more capable of implementing and

sustaining program innovations.

Setting for the Study

The setting for this study was the Winbald Area School District, one of nine
districts participating in the SATURN! initiative. Winbald is a small, isolated, rural
community that is located far from the university, library, and museum resources
associated with life in large, urban cities in this midwestern state. The Winbald
community is low in population and income, and high in the percentage of children who

are being reared in poverty. The community has a median household income well below

11

the state average and a percentage of children living in poverty that is signiﬁcantly above
the state average (Garner, 1991).

The school district covers approximately 120 square miles and consists of 935
students and 40 teachers. The middle/high school, where the SATURN! klubhouse is
located, has approximately 400 students, 15 teachers, 2 principals, and 2 secretaries. The
context of the school district and the community is discussed in greater detail in

Appendix A.

Assumptions

In conducting this study, I made the following assumptions concerning
institutional support for and resistance to implementing the SATURN! project in the
Winbald school district:

1. The project would have little effect on teaching and learning because only a
limited number of teachers were involved in the project.

2. Although teachers may have resisted it, the initiative would be instituted
because of the rapid inﬂux of advancing technology, and students would spend more time
on the computers and in the computer lab than before the initiative.

3. The early adopters of the initiative would become more computer literate than
other participants or nonparticipants.

4. If a majority of staff did not support the innovation, problems would arise in
implementing it.

5. The degree to which the computer initiative was adopted would depend on

administrative and staff support, and time of implementation.

12

Delimitations

This is not an impact study, and no hypothesis was tested. Further, I did not
evaluate classroom teachers’ use of computers, computer hardware or software, funding
Options and sources, state or federal education policy, or teaching styles. Neither did I
evaluate any portion of the SATURN! project.

Rather, I used case-based analysis to examine the extent of institutional support
for and resistance to the implementation of a SATURN! middle school computer
klubhouse. This study was limited to one rural public school district that was a
participant in the Southwestern University-directed let Century Learning Center grant.

Hence, the initiative was backed by considerable funding.

Theoretical F rmework of the Study

The framework of this study comprised change and communication theories.
This section provides a brief introduction to each theory. Chapter 2 contains an in-depth
review of writings on each of the theories.

The ﬁrst theory of interest is change theory, particularly as it relates to
organizational (school) change. Field theory and force ﬁeld analysis (Lewin, 1952) offer
ﬁindamental descriptions of change that many organizations have used in an attempt to
both direct and understand the systemic change process. Force ﬁeld analysis is used to
gain perspective on all the forces in favor of or against a particular plan so that a decision
can be made that takes into account all interests. As a tool for managing change, force
ﬁeld analysis is an excellent diagnostic tool for assessing the forces supporting and

resisting a change effort (Hoekstra, Vink, & A Fa, 1998).

13

The analytical lens used in this study was grounded in the study of school change.
During the past three decades, schools have experienced rapid and rampant change.
These changes have appeared as mandates for reform from state and federal authorities,
as well as local reform efforts. Reforms pose certain technical demands on individuals’
knowledge, skill, judgment, and imagination. In that sense, the implementation problem
at the classroom level is real. But reforms also convey certain values and worldviews.

Reforms communicate a vision of what it means to learn and what it means to be
educated. They communicate a vision of schools and teaching, of students and teachers.
They are, to some degree, compatible with the organizational structures and cultures in
which people work. In these crucial ways, powerful reform ideas engage teachers in a
broad consideration of the educational enterprise, both in and beyond the classroom.

To make sensible critiques of proposed reforms requires studying their underlying
assumptions; their social and historical context; the degree to which they are congruent
with teachers’ existing beliefs, commitments, and practices; their probable consequences
for students; and the ways in which they vary or converge across communities (Little,
1994). These aspects of change are exempliﬁed by the cultural-web model of school
change (Bolman & Deal, 1997) depicted in Figure 1.1. This model suggests the
interrelationships between the change event of SATURN! and the following themes of
school change: grassroots involvement, top-level support (power and authority),
informal/outside support, perceived fairness, communication processes, shared beliefs
and values, human-people orientation, and meaning/value added. According to the
model, these themes directly inﬂuence the extent to which a school change initiative such

as SATURN! is implemented.

14

   

  
    
  

GRASSROOTS
INVOLVEMENT

MEANING/V ALUE
ADDED

HUMAN/PEOPLE
ORIENTATION

 
 
  

 
  
    
 
 
 
 

TOP LEVEL
SUPPORT

SHARED BELIEFS
AND
VALUES

 
   
     
     
    

INFORMAL/
OUTSIDE
SUPPORT

  

 
   

COMMUNICATION
PROCESS

 

PERCEIVED
F AIRNESS

Figure 1.1: Themes of school change-a cultural web. (From Reframing Organizations
(2nd ed.), by L. G. Bolman and T. C. Deal, 1997, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.)

15

Fair social change and justice (Habermas, 1984/87) concerns the need to focus
thinking about organizational change from the broader aspects that affect the
organization as a whole, to the psychological adjustments that individuals in the
organization must make during the actual implementation process (Siegal et al., 1996).
Perceptions of fairness are tied to trust in and commitment to the organization and its
leaders. When individuals believe they are being treated fairly, they are likely to accept
the changes that are presented to them.

The other theory of interest in this study was communication theory. Rogers’s
(1995) diffusion-of-innovation theory was used as a framework for understanding the
communication process. Rogers’s book Diffusion of Innovation provided the basis for
understanding how an innovation, such as the creation of the middle school SATURN!
computer klubhouse, was implemented or diffused from a state university to a rural
public middle school setting. School change and communication theories provided
insight into the problems of resistance and failure that historically have accompanied the
implementation of new educational ideas.

The main aspects of the diffusion process as they relate to this study are shown in
Figure 1.2. A communication channel is the means by which messages get from one
individual to another. The effectiveness of the communication channel determines the
extent of an innovation’s adoption. The social system constitutes the boundaries within
which an innovation is diffused; this system is composed of individuals, groups, and
organizations. The innovation-diffusion process leaves visible traces that affect the
social (school) system, either by embracing or rejecting the innovation, and these traces

can then be measured for any effect on the social system (Rogers, 1995).

16

  

LaterAdopters

    

Innovation Ill

//
Ill
9—9

lm

Innovation II

T

  

 

 

\
\ _
\
\
...\ .—
: -+
‘2‘
if:
J I I II I I J l r
§§§§§§§§§§§

uondopvjoiuemad -

Figure 1.2: The diffusion “S” curve. (From Diffusion of Innovation (3rd ed.), by
E. Rogers, New York, Free Press, 1995.)

17

Deﬁnitions of Terms

The following terms are deﬁned in the context in which they are used in this
dissertation:

Diffusion of innovation. The change aspect of communication theory, which
concerns the means by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels
over time among the members of a social system (Rogers, 1983).

Institutional personnel. Both the administrators and teaching staff of the Winbald
public school district, as well as SATURN! project personnel from Southwestern
University.

SATURN! klubhpuse. A computer lab located at Winbald Middle School that

was used for instruction during the school day and for after-school enrichment.

18

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

My purpose in this study was to examine and describe the effect of institutional
support and resistance encountered during the implementation of a computer-technology
innovation in a rural public school district. Using change and communication theories as
lenses, I examined the factors that enhanced and impeded the implementation process.
This chapter contains a review of literature on the overarching concepts constituting the
theoretical framework for the study. First, writings on school change and culture are
discussed. Next is a review of literature and research on force ﬁeld analysis. The third
section is a discussion of writings on diffusion of innovation. Technology

implementation as it relates to school change is the focus of the fourth section.

School Change and Culture

Rapid change has been forced on modern society by unprecedented technological
advancements. The computer is now a pervasive part of our lives, affecting us both as
human beings and as educators. As early as 1974, curriculum author James Macdonald,
believing we had entered a new hierarchical level with the electronic world, predicted the
massive impact that technology would have on society. The institutionalization of
nuclear and electronic technology, although dependent on what industrial predecessors

have contributed, is an operating pattern, a cultural milieu that has never existed before.

19

The sense of powerlessness and impotence that people may feel is not a sign of
alienation in the traditional Marxian sense. Rather, it is a reﬂection of the state of human
beings to the extent that we transfer psychological states grounded in a premodem
society. From an industrial-psychological perspective, people are indeed powerless when
one considers destructive nuclear capacity and people’s dependence on computers and
power sources simply to maintain their existence. No longer are we dominated by the
owners of the tools of work; rather, we are dominated by the need for survival and power
sources. We have, in effect, created the ﬁrst man-made gods in material form. We have
created a human condition that, should it collapse through disaster or human direction,
would destroy rich and poor alike. Now all people must serve the technical “gods” in
some nonthreatening way in order to ensure social and perhaps personal survival (Gress
& Purpel, 1988). In late fall 1999, concern about the possible global catastrophe
resulting from the Y2K (year 2000) problem only served to highlight Macdonald’s
prediction. This dramatic shift toward technology has caused organizations such as
schools to address the change process and understand the effects of technology on the
institutions’ social structure.

Therefore, it is no surprise that dramatic change is also a fact of life in human
systems (Siegal et al., 1996). Humans are rapidly moving toward a world in which the
geopolitical boundaries that have been the hallmarks of civilization are fading (Tofﬂer,
1980). Yet, unlike other areas, this social and technological change has hardly affected
or altered the “power relationships” in schools (Sarason, 1996). However, these power

relationships are now changing rapidly as teachers and administrators who are

20

comfortable with technology and proﬁcient in its use are becoming the “new leaders” in
many schools.

Tensions are bound to arise during the implementation of new programs. From a
human resource perspective, people have good reason to resist change. No one likes
feeling anxious and incompetent. Changes in routine practices and procedures undercut
peeple’s ability to perform with conﬁdence and success. When told to do something they
do not understand or do not believe in, people feel puzzled, anxious, and insecure.
Lacking the skills and conﬁdence to implement the new ways, they resist or even
sabotage them, awaiting the return of the good old days (Bolman & Deal, 1997).

Contemporary organizations are immersed in a virtual cyclone of change as they
strive to adapt to the ever-increasing demands of their domestic and global markets.
School districts are no different as they attempt to embrace change and adapt to new
innovations such as computer technology within the reality of the traditional school
structure.

Unfortunately, many change initiatives undertaken by organizations with even the
best of intentions are often destined for failure at some point during their implementation.
In most cases, failure can be attributed to a number of factors, including inappropriately
conceived future states, resistance by organization members, faulty implementation
strategies during transition periods, or simply a lack of knowledge regarding important
aspects of change management on the part of managers (Siegal et al., 1996).

Planned change activities should be precipitated by gathering information about
the organizational features that can be changed, such as identifying who in the school

district delivers what in the way of new technology. Also to be considered should be the

21

intended outcomes of changes that affect teaching and learning, the causal mechanism by
which those changes are to be achieved, and the contingencies on which successful
change depends, such as staff morale and the perception of justice among staff members
(Folger & Skarlicki, 1999).

Lewin (1958) described three basic steps that are inherent in any change process.
The ﬁrst step involves “unfreezing” the present level of behavior. Unfreezing as a
concept entered the change literature early to highlight the observation that human
behavior was based on “quasi-stationary equilibria” supported by a large force ﬁeld of
driving and restraining forces. For change to occur, this force ﬁeld had to be altered
under complex psychological conditions because just adding a driving force toward
change often produced an immediate counterforce to maintain the equilibrium. This
observation led to the important insight that the equilibrium could be moved more easily
if one could remove restraining forces because there were usually already driving forces
in the system. Unfortunately, restraining forces were harder to get at because they were
often personal psychological defenses or group norms embedded in the organization or
community culture. The full ramiﬁcations of such restraining forces were understood
only after decades of frustrating encounters with resistance to change.

The second step inherent in the change process is called movement and involves
taking action to change the organization’s social system from its original level of
behavior or operation to a new level. The third step, called refreezing, involves
establishing a process to ensure that the new types of behavior will be relatively secure

against reverting to previous modes of operation (Lewin, 1958).

22

Schein (1992) provided an example of organizational (school) change that
develops from Lewin’s three-step process. According to Schein, unfreezing is the
process of creating motivation and readiness for change. There are three ways to
accomplish this. The ﬁrst is disconﬁrrnation, when members of the organization
experience a need for change, which, in turn, motivates them to embrace change. The
second is the introduction of guilt or anxiety involving the establishment of a perceived
gap between what is not currently working well and a desired future state. The third is
the creation of psychological safety, providing an environment in which people feel safe
enough to experience disconﬁrmation and induction (Siegal et al., 1996).

Schein (1992) also linked styles of leadership to the cultures and subcultures that
exist within organizations, and traced them back to their very foundations. Such different
leadership practices result in varying abilities of organization members to problem solve
and survive. As organizations grow, they may create increasing numbers of subcultures
with conﬂicting values and beliefs, thereby adding to the tension involved in program
innovation.

According to Bolman and Deal (1997), there are four frames that should be
critically examined and understood, in order for leaders to guide organizations
successfully. These are (a) the political frame, which focuses on power, conﬂict; and
coalitions; (b) the structural frame, which encompasses goals, roles, coordination, and
control; (c) the human resource frame, which looks at individuals’ skills and needs; and
(d) the symbolic frame, which emphasizes the importance of culture, meaning or

symbols, rituals, and stories within an organization. Bolman and Deal wrote,

23

As ambiguity increases, the political and symbolic frames become more relevant.

The political frame expects people to be rational in pursuing self-interests, but

contests among individuals and interest groups often become confused and

chaotic. The symbolic frame sees symbols as a way of ﬁnding order, meaning,
and truth in situations too complex, uncertain, or mysterious for rational or

political analysis. (p. 272)

The urge and the ability involved in the change process are two different things.
Any kind of change is an organic process composed of many competing elements, an
inevitable force with a life of its own. Change is shaped by external forces—
technological, competitive, and regulatory innovation or the decline and rise of whole
industries and regional economies that engineer a break with the past. There are
psychosocial elements of change to be considered, as well as the discontinuities in power
that change provokes. The stages that companies (schools) go through are rational
resistance to change; the search for people to blame; increased informal communication,
i.e., “hall chat,” and concomitantly, lower productivity; faction formation; the emergence
of informal leadership; and realignment of relationships. Change may seem chaotic, but
it follows similar patterns, no matter what the context.

Bringing about real change is difﬁcult because transforming the culture of an
organization means changing the values and worldviews of its people. Pe0ple do not
come by their values lightly, and they do not check those values at the schoolhouse door,
so they surely do not easily relinquish their values (Zuccherrnaglio, Bagnara, & Stucky,
1995). People experience change as loss, even if they accept the need for or inevitability

of change. Change, like loss, requires time to repair (Marris, 1975). School ‘

administrators, as well as project personnel, loom large as change agents in directing a

24

change initiative. As such, they must be aware of the implications of the loss factor that
change might represent for the school culture.

It is important to recognize that real change, whether desired or not, represents a
serious personal and collective experience characterized by ambivalence and uncertainty.
If the change works out, it can result in a sense of mastery, accomplishment, and
professional growth. The anxieties of uncertainty and the joys of mastery are central to
the subjective meaning of educational change, and to its success or failure, a fact that has
not been recognized or appreciated in many attempts at educational reform (F ullan,
1991). For an innovation to take place, then, it is critical to be cognizant of the emotional
side of this process.

All real change involves loss, anxiety, and struggle. Because they fail to
recognize this phenomenon as natural and inevitable, people tend to ignore important
aspects of change and misinterpret others. Change may come about because of natural
events, because deliberate reform is imposed upon us, or because we voluntarily
participate in or initiate change when the current situation is dissatisfying, inconsistent,
or intolerable. In any of these cases, the meaning of change will rarely be clear at the
outset, and ambivalence will pervade the transition. Innovation cannot be assimilated
unless its meaning is shared (Marris, 1975).

Deep changes are at stake when people’s basic conceptions of education and
skills are involved—that is, their occupational identity, their sense of competence, and
their self-concept. The need and difﬁculty for an individual to develop a sense of
meaning about change is manifest. Further, change consists of a sophisticated and none-

too-clear dynamic interrelationship among the various dimensions of change. Beliefs

25

guide and are informed by teaching strategies and activities; the effective use of materials
depends on their articulation with beliefs and teaching approaches. Many innovations
entail changes in some aspects of educational beliefs, teaching behavior, use of materials,
and more. Whether or not people develop meaning in relation to all aspects is the
fundamental problem (Fullan, 1991).

The emotional side of change has been either ignored or miscast (Fullan, 1991).
Jealousy is an additional facet of the change process that researchers have largely
ignored. Yet it is a prevalent force involved in all aspects of the implementation of
program innovations. Jealousy can be a mask for individuals’ fear that they will not be
able to get what they want, or frustration that someone seems to be getting what is
rightfully theirs, even if they are too frightened to reach for it (Cameron, 1992).

Habermas (1984/87) contended that the goal of both social science and
philosophy is fair social change and justice. Because change creates adversity, issues of
fairness are salient to those who bear the hardships of organizational change. The
concept of fair social change and justice addresses the need to focus thinking about
organizational change from the broader, general patterns of change that affect the
organization as a whole, down to the difﬁcult psychological adjustment that individual
members of the organization must make during the actual implementation process (Siegal
et al., 1996).

Only recently has the ﬁeld of school change begun to develop a technical
orientation to justice—how to address issues of justice directly with speciﬁcally designed
intervention strategies. The original impetus to study issues of justice was that

individuals would have a wide range of cognitive and behavioral reactions to treatment or

26

conditions they perceived as fair or unfair. More recently, the study of organizational
justice has focused on how the agents of the organization, primarily leaders, treat those
subject to their authority (Tyler & Bies, 1990).

Perceptions of fairness are tied to trust in, and commitment to, one’s leaders and
one’s organization. When individuals see themselves as treated fairly, they are more
likely to accept the changes presented to them. They are also more likely to engage in
“organizational citizenship” behaviors. Such outcomes as these provide strong support
for the idea that change seen as basically fair and just will have a greater chance of
success than change not seen as such (Stephens & Cobb, 1999).

Even though there have been many reform efforts, schools function much the
same as they did 100 years ago. Computer-technology innovations are now forcing
change and restructuring. Successful restructuring (school reform) will come about
through second—order changes, such as altering the culture and structure of schools, and
not ﬁrst-order changes, which only change and improve current practice (Fullan, 1991).
The potential for change is represented by the difference between current practice and the
future state to which a change may take them. Change needs to be authentic, or the
veteran teachers will too quickly say, “Here we go again!” and impede the change
process (Sergiovanni, 1996).

Through the trial and error of constantly experiencing attempts at school reform,
the educational community has learned that the process of planned educational change
usually is much more complex than anticipated. The process of educational change in
modern society is so complex that the greatest initial need is to understand its dynamics

(Fullan, 1991). The main purpose of educational change is to help schools accomplish

27

their goals more effectively by replacing some structures, programs, and/or practices with
better ones. There is a need to move away from an organizational basis for
understanding education to an understanding of education as an individual-driven,
learner-centered activity (Stiegelbower, 1994).

Changing the culture of the institution may be the real agenda in implementing a
program such as SATURN! The new perspectives on change differ from the earlier,
technologically based frameworks. According to these new ideas on change, this is an
issue of constant learning for all, not a one-shot implementation effort. These ideas on
change also take into account the value of collaborative work in the process of change,
work that institutionalizes the interactions among different levels and participants in the
system, that addresses both global and speciﬁc concerns, and that respects all elements of
the system for what they can contribute, not for what they conventionally are
(Stiegelbauer, 1994). Thus, the culture of the traditional K-12 district must be considered
in its entirety, and not strictly by component (such as a grade level or department) when
considering a program implementation such as SATURN!

Several ﬂaws currently exist in the majority of school-restructuring processes.
One such ﬂaw is ignoring the effect of history on the school culture and setting. It is also
important to look at the break in the change process—exactly why did the initiative fail?
(Popkewitz, 1991). Historically, change initiatives have experienced a high rate of
failure. Change is now necessary because our current culture is different from the
previous one. With the advent of computer technology and program innovation, there is
mounting pressure from state and local politician to increase the use of technology in

public schools. However, many politicians involved with using technology as a school

28

improvement panacea cannot agree on the best technology-implementation process.
Even the best technological planning and political pressure have not always worked to

effect change (Fullan, 1991).

Force Field Analysis

In any change initiative, there are forces working for and against the
implementation process. One approach that is used to identify the positive and negative
factors affecting implementation is ﬁeld theory (Lewin, 1951), also known as force ﬁeld
analysis. According to ﬁeld theory, any event is a result of a multitude of factors.
Recognizing the necessity of fairly representing these interdependent factors is one
aspect of ﬁeld theory. A change in any of the factors might alter the result or inﬂuence
the change.

Force ﬁeld analysis is a technique for formally specifying and analyzing the
various forces acting in a given situation or affecting a given problem. It is a way to
obtain a view of all the forces in favor of or against a plan (making possible or
obstructing a change) so that a decision can be made that takes into account all interests.
The forces that help achieve the change are called driving forces, and those that work
against the change are called restraining forces. In effect, force ﬁeld analysis is a
specialized method of weighing pros and cons. Such analysis helps generate options by
examining the forces (groups, personnel, resources, relationships) that can help achieve
or work against a project’s objectives. The process involves using surveys, ‘
brainstorming, task groups, and other sensing tools to gain insight into the causes,

perceptions, and ideas related to these forces. It is more effective to weaken the

29

restraining forces than to increase the strength of the driving forces. Simply pushing
harder against the restraint is likely to increase the strength of the resistance (Hoekstra et

al., 1998). Force ﬁeld analysis was used to help guide this study.

Communication and Difﬁrsion-of—Information Theog

In 1943, Thomas Watson, the founder of International Business Machines (IBM),
thought that the world market could accommodate about ﬁve computers! In 1967, an
IBM computer costing $167,500 could hold only 13 pages of text. How times have
changed as we enter the new millennium! Computer power has increased dramatically,
in accord with a principle known as Moore’s law after Gordon Moore, co-founder of
Intel, now the world’s leading maker of electronic chips. Moore forecasted that
computing power would double every 18 to 24 months. So it has done for decades, and
Moore’s law continues to apply. By 2006, according to Intel forecasts, chips will be
1,000 times as powerful and will cost one-tenth as much as they did in 1996.

These rapid technological transformations have had three major consequences.
The ﬁrst is a vast increase in the world’s computing power. The Internet has the
potential to multiply computing power immensely, simply by linking many computers.
Next, the Internet has emerged as the ﬁrst working model of the global information
superhighway, which has become not only a means of communicating globally, but also
a new source of information on a world scale. Third, the Internet has created a new
industry dedicated to developing ways to use it and services to sell across it. In 1994, the

number of commercial computers connected to the Internet overtook the number of

30

academic computers. Never before had so many entrepreneurs attempted, in so short a
time, to develop uses for an innovation (Caimcross, 1997).

Diffusion of innovation represents the change aspect of communication theory
(Rogers, 1995). This research approach is used to measure how an innovation is adopted
among a population. The diffusion process has four main elements. That is, (a) an
innovation is (b) communicated through certain (c) channels over (d) time among the
members of a social system. Diffusion as a process leaves visible traces that affect the
social system, either through people’s embracing or rejecting an innovation. These traces
can then be measured for any effect they have had on the social system. For example, the
diffusion of the World Wide Web alone has left visible traces on society. An analysis of
advertising bears witness to this fact as uniform resource locators (URLs) or Internet
addresses now appear in most television print advertisements. Rogers’s diffusion model
provides a way to document and make clear those implications.

Rogers (1995) attributed the immense popularity of diffusion studies, in general,
to the ways in which they provide an understanding of social change. Diffusion of
innovation actually comprises four closely related theories that Rogers developed. They
are (a) rate-of-adoption theory, (b) innovation decision-process theory, (c) individual
innovativeness theory, and (d) perceived attributes theory. The most prominent of these
is rate-of-adoption theory.

According to the rate-of-adoption theory, after an innovation is introduced, it is
adopted by a somewhat eccentric or entrepreneurial group called innovators. ’However,
this group, being slightly outside the norm, does not possess the credibility or inﬂuence

necessary to drive adoption. Change agents or opinion leaders in the social system will

31

step in next, thereby legitimizing the innovation and opening the potential for adoption to
all members of the system, much as in follow-the-leader. The next stage in the adoption
of an innovation is characterized by widespread adoption until such point that the
innovation has saturated the social system and grth tapers off.

Next is the innovation decision-process theory, which states that diffusion is a
process that occurs over time. The innovation decision process has ﬁve distinct stages:
knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and conﬁrmation. According to this
theory, potential adopters of an innovation must learn about the innovation, be persuaded
as to its merits, decide to adopt, implement the innovation, and conﬁrm (reafﬁrm or
reject) the decision to adopt the innovation (Regan & Athenia Associates, 1996).

The individual innovativeness theory (Rogers, 1995) states that individuals who
are predisposed to being innovative will adopt an innovation earlier than those who are
less predisposed. At one extreme of the distribution continuum are innovators; they are
the risk takers and pioneers who adopt an innovation early in the diffusion process. At
the other extreme are laggards, who resist adopting an innovation until late in the
diffusion process, if ever.

Rogers’s fourth theory, perceived attributes, states that potential adopters judge
an innovation based on their perceptions regarding ﬁve attributes of the innovation:
trialability, observability, relative advantage, complexity, and compatibility. The theory
holds that an innovation will experience an increased rate of diffusion if potential
adopters perceive that the innovation (a) can be tried on a limited basis before adoption,

(b) offers observable results, (c) has an advantage relative to other innovations (or the

32

status quo), (d) is not overly complex, and (e) is compatible with existing practices and

values (Surry & Farquhar, 1997).

Technology Implementation and School Change

Research has indicated that the process involved in implementing computer
technology within a school district is a combination of psychological, organizational,
political, and cultural factors, not just technical or economic factors, although these are
signiﬁcant obstacles and often are at the forefront of discussions regarding school
technology innovation (Dede, 1998). Most of the current technology still is used simply
to do the old job better. The challenge remains to do something innovative because
technology now has the capabilities to empower students in different ways, depending on
their learning styles. If educators allow technology to be the engine driving change while
disregarding the social factors involved in the educational change process,
disappointment will abound (Betts, 1994).

In this context, two main content areas within the realm of organizational (school)
change and communication theory were particularly relevant to this study. The ﬁrst is
the fundamental aspect of change, which includes the general nature of change and
individual responses to change dimensions. The second is the human aspects of the
change process, which include managing the people side of the change process (Siegal et
al., 1996). In this study, the implementation of a new computer innovation in one rural
school district was viewed through these two lenses.

To begin the techno]ogy-implementation process, dialogue among all

stakeholders in education is necessary to reﬁne the vision of learning environments for

33

the knowledge-based society of the let century. Chris Dede (1998), a technology
professor and frequent contributor to the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, commented that “for politicians, the Internet in every classroom has

”9

become the ‘chicken in every pot. He went on to state that educational policy should
promote systemic reform for technology innovation. This involves moving from using
special external resources to reconﬁguring existing budgets to free-up money for
innovation.

Unless systemic reform in education is conducted with one boundary of the
system around the school and another boundary around the society, affordability and
sustainability are doubtful. With distributed learning and reconﬁgured budgets, school
districts can transform technological innovations into universal improvements in
education in a way that is both affordable and sustainable. Technology is not a “silver
bullet” that can solve all the problems of schools. Politicians assume that teachers and
administrators who use the new technology are automatically more effective than those
who do not use it. That deﬁnitely is not the case (Dede, 1998). Program implementation
and innovation can be measured by assessing the new technology’s evolving social
meaning and deep integration into social life. Although these social meanings cannot be
engineered, it must be understood that social effects are important aspects of social
change. Thus, it is not enough to speculate about the gadgets solely in terms of the
exciting functions they will perform (Nardi & O’Day, 1999).

Other factors that may affect technology implementation include bias and

prejudice, which must be addressed throughout the implementation process. The use of

computer technology is associated with various forms of gender, racial, class, and age

34

bias (Garson, 1997). Research has indicated that, in each of the four major institutional
arenas (leisure industry, media, education, and the family), males receive greater support
and encouragement to be computer users. However, when women do enroll in computer-
programming courses, they perform, on average, as well as or better than men. Further,
women are more likely to be concerned about the social effect of computers (Garson,
1997)

Wealthier school districts, which usually serve families of higher socioeconomic
status, routinely provide greater computer access than poorer districts (Larsen &
McGuire, 1998). Hence, school personnel must consider these factors when
implementing new technology. Possession of power from any source enhances one’s
ability to adOpt or reﬂect, board or diffuse, a new technology. Lack of power or a
perceived lack of power limits choices but may increase the motivation to make changes.
This factor could affect the rate of adoption of an innovation.

Planned change activities should be guided by information about the
organizational features that can be changed, the intended outcomes of those changes, the
causal mechanism by which the changes are achieved, and the contingencies on which
successful change depends. All voices involved in the innovation process must have a
part in making decisions about school change. The voices of the least powerful need to
be brought into the discourse and assured of a respectful hearing. Members representing
disparate constituencies must arrive at mutually beneﬁcial understandings that do not
trample the interests of minorities and less powerful constituencies. Organizational

(school) change and justice are of paramount importance. A central dilemma is how

35

organizational (school) change can be rendered both fair and effective (Stephens & Cobb,
1999).

Organizations such as schools are a community, and each has an individually
established identity based on a unique set of values. These organizations need to make
sense of themselves, and this is done through arguing, expecting, committing, and
manipulating events during times of ambiguity and uncertainty (Weick, 1995).
According to Meijer (1995), the current state of anger about public schools stems from
loss of control over the local communities. The issue is not whether technologies will be
used, but which will be chosen and how well they will be used. The challenge now is to
introduce critical sensibility into the evaluation and use of technology and, beyond that,
to make a real impact on the kinds of technology that will be available in the future
(Nardi & O’Day, 1999).

To take a holistic approach to the change process, the issues of loss of control,
loss, fair change, and jealousy must be considered as signiﬁcant human aspects of the
change process involved in technology implementation. In this study, I used the lenses
of school change and communication to explore and put into context the tensions that
surfaced during the implementation of the SATURN! project in Winbald Area Schools, a

rural public school district.

36

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

In the ﬁrst two chapters, I described the nature of this research and discussed the
theoretical underpinnings of the study. My purpose in this study was to examine and
describe the effect of institutional support and resistance encountered during
implementation of a computer-technology innovation (SATURN!) in a rural public
school district. In this chapter, I describe the methodology used in studying this program
implementation, which was case-based research. Also described in this chapter are the
population and sample, data-collection tools, the data-analysis method, validity, and the

limitations of the study.

Methodological Approach

A qualitative approach was appropriate for this study because “protocols such as
unstructured interviews and notes from observations tend to be less easily summarized in
numerical [quantitative] form” (Rossi & Freeman, 1993, p. 254). Qualitative data are
also useful in monitoring ongoing programs such as the SATURN! project. “Qualitative
research designs are typically not intended to prove or test theory, and it is more likely
that the theory will emerge once the data are collected (an inductive approach rather than
a deductive approach)” (Rudenstam & Newton, 1992, p. 37). Although selected theories
of change, such as force ﬁeld analysis, provided a framework for describing the

institutional support of and resistance to the SATURN! project, the logic of the design

37

was an inductive pattern developing from detailed stories or themes. The methodological
design, then, was emergent rather than static. That is, the theory was developed during
the study, rather than being determined before the study began (Creswell, 1994).

The speciﬁc qualitative approach used in this study was case-based research, in
this instance a single-case analysis. This was an instrumental case study, which focused
on a speciﬁc issue rather than on the case itself. The focus in this study was the issue of
school change—in particular, support for and resistance to such change. The case studied
was thus a vehicle to better understand the issue of school change. The type of analysis
used in this research was within-case analysis, in which themes were identiﬁed within
this single case (Creswell, 1994).

In a single-case study, the researcher explores a single phenomenon (the case)
bounded by time and activity (the SATURN! program). The investigator then collects
detailed information using a variety of procedures over a sustained period (Merriam,
1988; Yin, 1993, 1994). A “case” is identiﬁed as a “single unit, a bounded system”
(Meniam, 1998, p. 65), in which a phenomenon occurs. In this case, the bounded
context or system was the examination of the effect of institutional support and resistance
encountered during the implementation of the SATURN! project. Whereas the setting
may be broadly or narrowly conceptualized depending on the context of the study, in this
particular single-case study the setting was narrowly conceptualized. The period under
study extended from program implementation at Winbald in September 1998 through
April 12, 2000, when the on-site interviews were concluded.

Researchers employ a case-study design to gain an in-depth understanding of a

particular situation and its meaning to those involved. The researcher’s interests lie in

38

the process rather than outcomes, in context rather than a speciﬁc variable, and in
discovery rather than conﬁrmation. Insights gleaned from case studies can directly
inﬂuence policy, practice, and future research. Case studies differ from other types of
qualitative research in that they are intensive descriptions and analyses of a single unit or
bounded system, such as an individual, a program, an event, a group intervention, or a
community. The use of a case-study design to describe and explain the phenomena
involved in the implementation of the SATURN! project illustrates this differentiation.

Qualitative case studies in education are often framed with concepts, models, and
theories from anthropology, history, sociology, psychology, and educational psychology.
For example, because the present case study involves a description and analysis over
time, it would be labeled a historical case study. Other concepts, models, and theories
from sociology and educational psychology also are incorporated. Case studies, then,
accommodate a variety of disciplinary perspectives (Merriam, 1998).

I determined that a single-case study would provide the most in-depth and
accurate portrayal of how an individual school district engaged in the adoption of a new
innovation. There were three rationales for using a single-case study. One rationale for
using a single-case study is that a critical case, such as SATURN!, is represented. The
second rationale is that the single case represents a unique case. This holds true for
SATURN! because no similar project or program is known to exist in the United States at
this time. The third rationale for using a single-case study is the revelatory case. The
problems associated with new-program implementation are common in the ﬁeld of
education, and opportunities to investigate these problems through a project such as the

implementation of SATURN! are rare. These three rationales were valid reasons for

39

conducting a single-case study on the SATURN! project. As this innovation was
diffused throughout the school district, tensions were bound to arise in areas such as
governance, communication, professional insecurity, and fear of loss or, perhaps more
accurately, “turf protection” or social justice.

The single-case study is a powerful vehicle for giving voice to those most closely
involved in the change process: the site coordinator, the community agency person,
teachers, administrators, and SATURN! personnel at Southwestern University. Indeed,
the voice provided in the single-case study can prove invaluable in helping researchers
and ultimately school administrators gain a better understanding of organizational
(school district) successes and failures. Studying what people do in a school setting helps
in understanding how they interact with each other. In conducting such a study, the
researcher must fundamentally respect the unplanned nature of their behavior, the
informal network in the community and school, and the novel local contributions to
standard school procedures. Through such research, an investigator can collect new
information about improvements, but especially about the climate of collaboration and
exploration that allows new contributions and innovations such as SATURN! to take hold
and spread (Zuccherrnaglio et al., 1995).

Perhaps the greatest strength in using a case-based approach is that such research
is well suited to topics that are not easily quantiﬁed, such as thoughts and other nuances
of behavior that might escape researchers using other methodologies (Fraenkel &
Wallen, 1996). The implementation of a computer-technology innovation in a rural
school district makes for a unique study, one that is indeed inﬂuenced by “thoughts and

other nuances of behavior” and ultimately best described using the single-case approach.

40

The Population and Sample

In 1998, Winbald Area Schools, along with Southwestern University and eight
other public school districts, was successful in securing a let Century Learning Center
grant for technology. The purpose of this grant was to create, under the direction of
Southwestern University, middle school computer klubhouses in each of the nine school
districts. These districts represented 10 middle school sites that were divided equally
between rural and urban communities. No suburban districts were chosen for this grant
project. Because the grant was written in conjunction with Southwestern University, the
university and the nine districts were, in effect, partners in this project, with the
university assuming the leadership role. The purpose was to give at-risk middle school
students a safe, staffed, and technologically rich location to attend after school during the
week and on Saturdays. Another intended outcome was for the school districts and
communities to use the students’ technological expertise in addressing and solving
community problems through technology.

Purposeful or nonprobabilistic sampling was used in this study. Purposeful
sampling is based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand,
and gain insight into a particular phenomenon and therefore must select a sample from
whom he or she can learn the most (Merriam, 1998). The Winbald site was
recommended for study, and I then chose it as the research setting because of the
demographics of the district. The Winbald district was the second smallest and most
rural and ethnically diverse of the 10 middle school sites. The teaching staff,‘
administrators, and school board members in the Winbald district were similar to the

student body in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The remaining nine sites

41

were either urban or rural, and all but one had much larger student bodies and more
afﬂuent populations than the Winbald district.

The study sample at the Winbald site comprised all of those who were involved in
the SATURN! project. These people included the site coordinator, teachers,
administrators, and selected school board members. Each individual who agreed to
participate in the study signed a letter of consent (see Appendix B). Participants were
assured that their anonymity would be protected and their identities would not be
revealed during any phase of the research or in the dissertation. Pseudonyms are used
throughout the dissertation when referring to both people and places (and the project

itself), in a further attempt to maintain anonymity.

Data-Collection Methods
Two sources of data were employed in this study: on-site interviews and

document analysis. Each of these sources is described in the following paragraphs.

n-Site Interviews

A primary source of data for the study was on-site, personal interviews with
individuals closely involved with the SATURN! project. “The purpose of interviewing is
to ﬁnd out what is in and on someone else’s mind. Qualitative interviewing begins with
the assumption that the perspective of others is meaningﬁrl, knowable, and able to be
made explicit” (Patton, 1990, p. 278). According to Patton, “the quality of the
information obtained during an interview is largely dependent on the intervievVer”

(p. 279). Thus, it was important to devise substantive questions for the interviews.

Patton cautioned that immersion in the interview process provides the interviewer with a

42

better chance of receiving additional information, and detachment helps keep the
researcher’s personal biases at a minimum.

I interviewed the Winbald district superintendent and the high school and middle
school principals, all of whom offered unique viewpoints on and valuable insights into
the SATURN! project and the dynamics of school change in general. I also interviewed
middle school staff members who were involved in implementing the SATURN!
initiative; these included the site coordinator, community agency representative, and
three teachers, all of whom worked at or were housed in Winbald Middle School. Their
stories provided the necessary introspective look into all phases of the SATURN! project
as it became integrated into the mainstream of the curriculum and the middle school
culture. I also sought out community and local business members to gain their unique
perspectives on the role they played in the implementation of SATURN!

The information I sought from the interviewees concerned what they thought
were the most helpful (supportive) and the most unhelpful (resistant) characteristics of
the middle school klubhouse site. These and other questions were provided to the
interviewees before the actual interviews so that they could think about their responses
beforehand. With respondents’ permission, to ensure accuracy I tape-recorded the

interviews.

was

The second source of data was document analysis. Some documents that I
reviewed were e-mail messages that had been sent from SATURN! Central

(Southwestern University) to Winbald Middle School and the weekly e-mailed

43

“Password Express,” the ofﬁcial electronic SATURN! newsletter. I also reviewed
minutes from all local meetings related to the project, conference and meeting minutes
and notes, evaluative correspondence from the funding agency, the year-end report from
SATURN! to the federal government, and e-mail from the funding agency’s listserve
pertaining to the implementation of new 2 lst Century Learning Center grant programs.
Program records and documents served a dual purpose: They were a basic source of
information about program background, decisions, activities, and processes, and they

also gave me ideas about important questions to pursue in the interviews.

Data-Analysis Techniques

Before data analysis began, I transcribed the interview tapes and coded them
according to the respondents’ position in the school district or at Southwestern
University, their role in the SATURN! project, gender, and number of years employed by
the school district or the university. I assigned each participant a pseudonym, which I
used in reporting the ﬁndings, in order to maintain participants’ anonymity.

Triangulation provides a way to corroborate the information that is collected
throughout a study and thus to increase the validity of the ﬁndings (Yin, 1994). This
technique involves “comparing and cross-checking the consistency of the information
derived at different times and by different means” (Patton, 1990, p. 467). Speciﬁcally, I
compared the interview data with observational data; compared what people said in
public to what they said in private; checked what people said over time to make sure it
was the same as their initial statements or thoughts; and compared people’s perspectives

from different points of view (Patton, 1990). The data from the two sources described in

44

the preceding section were compared to identify themes and patterns and hence to

explain the study ﬁndings.

ﬂuid—it);

Of concern in any research is the issue of validity (Yin, 1993, 1994). In this
study, construct validity pertained to the measures used to gather the data, speciﬁcally the
interview questions. A common strategy to ensure construct validity is to use several
sources of evidence to ensure the consistency of the results. Internal validity refers to the
“accuracy of the information and whether it matches reality” (Creswell, 1994, p. 159).
Triangulation was employed to enhance internal validity. That is, the researcher should

arrive at the same meaning using each source of data (Shadish, Cook, & Leviton, 1995).

Limitations

One limitation of the study is the fact that I am a public school superintendent,
and my school district is one of the nine districts actively involved in the SATURN!
project. I am associated with SATURN! as an administrator and a community agency
representative with a constituent SATURN! school district; in addition, I am a SATURN!
executive board member. Therefore, bias may exist in my role as a researcher who is
also a SATURN! board member and community agency representative. Another
limitation is the transient nature of the graduate students who were part of the
institutional support/resistance. Some graduate students who started with the SATURN!
project did not continue with it, so it was not possible to survey all nine of them who

began the project.

45

CHAPTER 4

SCHOOL CHANGE: A CASE STUDY OF SATURN!
AT WINBALD AREA SCHOOLS
Introduction
My primary purpose in this study was to examine and describe the institutional

support and resistance encountered during the implementation of a computer-technology
innovation in one rural public school district. The case study of the SATURN! project at
Winbald Area Schools is presented in this chapter. Background information on the
project is given ﬁrst, followed by a description of the people at Winbald who were
involved with the project. Implementation of SATURN! at Winbald is discussed, and the

current status of the project at Winbald is addressed.

The SATURN! Project

The Pro'ect Grant

In June 1998, Winbald Area Schools and eight other school districts were
awarded a let Century Learning Center grant under the auspices of Southwestern
University. The purpose of this grant was to implement a middle school computer
klubhouse in each of the nine districts. The goal was to give at-risk middle school
students a safe, technologically rich place to go after school, and to use the expertise they
gained there in addressing and solving community problems through technology. Project
implementation consisted of operating a computer lab that was used for instruction
during the school day and for after-school enrichment, for a minimum of two hours a

day, three days a week (Zhao & Conway, 1998).

46

The philosophy guiding the SATURN! project was simple yet complex. The
project goals were to design and implement a technology-rich learning environment for
middle school students (simple), while at the same time making technology “disappear”
or become an integral and supportive part of the learning process and not the focal point
(complex). While many researchers have been busy inventing “proper” ways to improve
technology, educators such as those at the Winbald SATURN! site had been seeking
appropriate uses of technology and had been advising students of correct behavior with
and around technology. The belief was that if technology was to have an impact on the
educational process, educators needed to shift their attention from the mechanics of
technology to the teaching and learning that could be done with it. Technology needed to
be placed in the background so that the focus could be on effective teaching and learning.
In essence, technology had to be made to disappear (Zhao & Conway, 1998).

At the Winbald Middle School klubhouse as well as the other klubhouses
associated with the grant, middle school students were to be engaged in authentic and
project-based learning activities. These activities were to take place in a safe, productive,
and positive learning environment after school, over the weekend, and during summer
vacation. Through the klubhouses, the school districts were to increase community
support and involvement in the schools as families (parents and siblings), senior citizens,
and other community members, particularly volunteers from Makinauk Tech Corps,
worked with the klubhouses. Given the constraints of their environment, particularly the
distances in rural communities and safety issues in urban locales, students were to be

transported to and from the klubhouses.

47

The nine school districts and 10 middle schools (the largest urban site had two
middle school klubhouses) represented the demographic and geographic diversity of the
state. Of the 10 middle schools selected, four were from three of the largest urban school
districts in the state, and the remaining six were from smaller rural districts. The student
populations of these schools ranged in size from 75 to 300. All schools shared certain
characteristics: large percentages of students at risk of failure, limited opportunities for
middle school students to engage in productive after-school enrichment, increased
incidence of violence and drug abuse, and declining community support.

By establishing a virtual network of middle school computer klubhouses as
community learning centers, the SATURN! project was a powerful intervention strategy
for solving the pressing problems of the nine school districts. The project was intended
to achieve the following four goals:

1. Increase student engagement in learning through the use of computers and
computer-related technology in safe, positive environments.

2. Provide meaningﬁil, integrated, and authentic learning opportunities through
service learning.

3. Foster the capacity for collaboration among students, schools, and
communities among the project partners and their communities.

4. Develop an innovative model of statewide collaboration for building student
and staff capacity through the sharing of resources (Zhao & Conway, 1998).

Through the resources of Southwestern University, the klubhouses were to access,
research, use best practice, and provide on-site assistance to engage all students in

authentic learning and to teach them to help others. The klubhouses were to provide safe

48

environments, breaking down the barriers of isolation that were imposed by poverty,
distance, and age. The collaborative evaluation design included robust case studies and
descriptions for replication.

Each klubhouse was to be linked to the resources of Southwestern University’s
K-12 technology division of the College of Education. Advanced graduate students,
developing leading-edge technology applications in curriculum and professional
development, would be assigned to each of the middle schools involved in the project.
The graduate students were to work both in person and on-line to assist the school
coordinator, students, and community members with planning and implementing their
individual klubhouse goals within the parameters of the project goals. In addition, the
state program coordinator and the project directors, along with content experts in reading,
writing, mathematics, and computer-assisted instruction, supported the graduate students.
Consultants also were available to provide direct assistance in other areas, such as
helping students develop skills in service learning, teamwork, and collaboration (Zhao &
Conway, 1998).

As in the 1939 movie The Wizard of 02, when the picture changed from black
and white to color, so were the technological fortunes of Winbald Area Schools
transformed when the district received the news that they had been awarded a portion of
the ﬁrst SATURN! klubhouse grant. In this ﬁrst round of funding, a three-year grant of
more than $250,000 was bestowed on the middle school technology program; this
translated into approximately $83,000 per year—an unheard of sum of money that was
earmarked for the soon-to-be-developed SATURN! Computer klubhouse. The district

now had more than enough funding and technical support to initiate one of the premier,

49

cutting-edge middle school technology classrooms (SATURN! klubhouse) in the nation.
As they embarked on implementation of the SATURN! klubhouse, many factors and
events surfaced that both assisted and inhibited this process. It is these factors and events
that are explored in the rest of this chapter as the story of SATURN! at Winbald is

examined.

Pro'ect Personnel

SATURN! ’3 project director and chief architect, Dr. Livingston Lee, was a
youthful professor of Chinese descent who practically ran from academic task to task.

He exuded energy, conﬁdence, and a contagious zest for technology and life. For
example, his administrative assistant, Nancy Murdock, once remarked, “If it doesn’t have
a switch, Dr. Lee just isn’t interested.” He had an innate sense of humor that transcended
culture, and he was adept at public speaking. His cluttered, somewhat disorganized
ofﬁce had three computers running simultaneously, all connected to one printer. Dr. Lee
monitored all three and would switch from one computer to another while carrying on a
conversation with an ofﬁce visitor.

Dr. Lee’s youth has been marked by poverty and isolation, yet he ﬂourished with
supportive parents and a sound foundation in the basics of mathematics, language, and
literature. After graduating from college in his native China, he immigrated to the United
States to begin work on his doctorate in educational psychology, although he had an
unquenchable interest in technology. Upon completing his doctoral studies, Dr. Lee was

hired as an assistant professor at Southwestern University.

50

If Dr. Lee epitomized the brilliant, personable, yet somewhat disorganized
professorial image of the modern university educator, then ofﬁce assistant Nancy
Murdock represented the alter ego of the professor’s rapid-ﬁre administrative style.
Nancy, SATURN! ofﬁce administrator, was without a doubt the most organized
professional on the SATURN! project staff. Indeed, the position and program dictated
that organization be the top priority. With the SATURN! project now involving 20
schools, 8 graduate students, an overall budget approaching $12 million, and compliance
with all of the federal-govemment mandates, there had to be one central location and
ultimately one person who knew and anticipated every aspect required in reporting and
accounting for the SATURN! project.

Nancy graduated from a high school within 20 miles of Southwestern University
and had lived in the area her entire life. As the SATURN! project expanded, Nancy’s
role and compensation correspondingly increased. Her duties grew from receptionist/
secretary to SATURN! project assistant with her own ofﬁce. Nancy was a tireless
worker and knew that the value of SATURN! went way beyond the halls of Southwestern
University. She told me:

My fortunes have done nothing but improve by sticking with Dr. Lee. I have had

chances to transfer to other professors and departments, but I am staying here for

the duration. Look at all he has done for the schools and for me. Plus the work is
really interesting and exciting, although not real organized at times. (Personal

interview, April 11, 2000)

After numerous successes with small technology grants, Dr. Lee and several other
Department of Education faculty members painstakingly crafted the SATURN! project,

hand picking the schools to be included in the let Century Learning Center grant

application, which was submitted in March 1998. The nine school districts representing

51

the 10 middle schools chosen for inclusion in the grant application were selected for a
variety of reasons, but primarily for their socioeconomic characteristics. The three urban
districts consisted of four middle schools (one district had two middle schools in the
project) and represented larger population centers in Makinauk. The urban districts’
demographics, such as low MEAP scores and high poverty rate, met speciﬁc needs of the
project. These urban districts also had a high minority representation.

The remaining six schools in the project were more rural in character. They had
less of a minority presence but had a signiﬁcant population with a low income level.
These rural schools also shared another unique characteristic—isolation. Two of them
also had a high representation of minority students. One district had a high population of
Native American students, and the Winbald Area School District had a high p0pulation
of African American students.

The above-mentioned demographic characteristics of the 10 middle schools
exactly met the speciﬁcations set forth in the let Century Learning Center grant. Of
course, many other school districts in the state also ﬁt this demographic mold, but a
personal association with Dr. Lee, a referral from the outreach program of Southwestern
University’s education department (Southwestern’s off-campus continuing education
program), or a referral by one of the project’s member districts gave certain school
districts preference in the selection process and led to their inclusion in the project.

Dr. Lee’s professional fortunes changed quickly when the ﬁrst SATURN! grant
was awarded. He and the SATURN! project have made a huge impact on the university
as SATURN! and Dr. Lee have been featured three times in the magazine published by

Southwestern’s College of Education. SATURN! and Dr. Lee have also been highlighted

52

in other academic publications, and a book about the project and the ramiﬁcations of
technology in education is now in process. In addition to the academic acclaim that the
SATURN! project has brought the university, the ﬁnancial gain to the College of
Education has been considerable as well. The two SATURN! grants combined were
worth more than $12 million to the university and the 20 schools that were part of the
project. In both rounds of funding (June 1998 and April 2000), the SATURN! grants
were the second highest dollar amounts awarded in the United States.

In addition, Dr. Lee wrote and was awarded other grants that generated several
million more dollars for the university. These funds assisted in driving the College of
Education’s technology program by providing jobs and technological equipment directly
to the university. Grants also provided a steady ﬂow of positive publicity, which
necessitated an increase in staff to handle the communications to the general public, the
university community, and political ofﬁces of local, state, and federal ofﬁcials who were
involved with one of the many facets of the SATURN! project.

When I gathered the data for this study (April 2000), Dr. Lee directed the
SATURN! project from his ofﬁce in the College of Education building. On the ﬁrst ﬂoor
of that building, there was a computer lab that was used for teacher education classes.
Within months, this lab was rapidly turned into SATURN! headquarters as the latest
technological equipment supplied by the federal grants began to ﬁll the room. The room
resembled a cross between a Silicon Valley high-tech think tank and a pinball parlor.
Located in this room were the project coordinator, his assistant or co-director, and the six
graduate students who had been hired in various capacities to oversee the 10 middle

school sites. All of the graduate students were in various phases of completing their

53

dissertations. All of them came from the ﬁeld of education and had had previous
teaching or public school experience.

The SATURN! project’s initial coordinator was Bill Blake. Bill was working on
his Ph.D. at Southwestern and was hired by Dr. Lee as an administrator to coordinate the
original SATURN! project comprising nine schools and 10 middle school sites. Bill had
coached and taught in a middle school, and he had recently spent several years pursuing a
graduate degree. He had changed the emphasis several times, but ﬁnally decided on
technology as the focus of his research. Dr. Lee was his academic advisor. Bill served as
project coordinator from SATURNl’s inception in September 1998 through early 2000,
when he left the program to work full time on his doctorate. Bill was replaced as project
coordinator by Gary Kaminski.

Gary Kaminski formally joined the SATURN! project in early 2000. Like Bill
Blake, he had a keen interest in technology and had served as technology director at
Center City School District, a large urban district, before joining the SATURN! project.
One of Center City’s middle schools was chosen for inclusion in the original SATURN!
project.

In April 2000, the SATURN! staff included Larry Smith, Shelly Casa, Darryl
Dumont, Ned Curtis, Tony De Franco, and Terry Swither. These graduate students were
granted a stipend and tuition reimbursement for working on the SATURN! project; all of
them were associated in some academic way with Dr. Lee. Their SATURN! tasks ranged
from communications and brochure development to software and hardware technician.

Teams of these graduate students would arrange and conduct site visits throughout the

54

SATURN! consortium and assist individual sites in equipment set-up, hardware and

soﬁware installation, and klubhouse projects.

Organizational Structures

The various organizational structures of SATURN! (April 2000) are shown in
Figures 4.1. through 4.5. These organizational charts reﬂect the design of the SATURN!
project as it ﬁrst appeared to the federal government (granting agency) (Figure 4.1),
Southwestern University (Figure 4.2), the district superintendents (Figure 4.3), district
ﬁnance departments (Figure 4.4), and the site coordinators (Figure 4.5). At ﬁrst, this
model accurately represented the communication ﬂow among project participants.
However, as the project developed, variations occurred in the channels of communication
within the original design of the organizational chart. Instead of the traditional top-down
design, other conﬁgurations of the original organizational chart demonstrated the various
permutations of SATURN! ’5 power structure. These changes or alterations in the
leadership/power structure of the SATURN! project placed new demands on the
individual middle school sites, as well as on personnel from Southwestern University.

These variances in the organizational structure, which would later inﬂuence the
communication and school change process, are discussed in greater detail in the case-

analysis section, as well as in Chapter 5.

The People: Champions at Winbald
In almost every school district there is an individual, usually a teacher, who is
constantly searching for a better way to reach and teach students, to push the envelope, so

to speak. This person dares to dream and is determined to lead his or her school district

55

 

 

Federal Government/21“ Century Learning Center Granting Agency, Julie Akbar. Midwest
Regional Representative

United States Senator representing Makinauk, the Honorable Carl Levin

United States Department of Education, Washington, DC.

 

 

Southwestern University

Dr. Livingston Lee and Bill Blake

 

 

 

 

t

The Nine School Districts Representing Ten SATURN!
Middle School Sites

 

Superintendents or Designees

 

 

 

Figure 4.1: Formal organizational chart that was submitted with the original SATURN!
grant.

56

 

 

 

Southwestern University
_' .
‘ College of Education Dean

\\,/

Dr. Livingston Lee
Southwestern University
Professor

Ofﬁce of Grants and Procurements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

\ Nancy Murdock
Administrative Assistant

em Blake. Malcolm Goldman, and Gary T j

Kaminski
"— College of Education Graduate

Students Assigned to Dr. Lee and the
SATURN! Project

 

 

     
 

 

 

SATURN! Project Coordinators

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.2: Southwestern University SATURN! organizational chart.

57

 

Dr. Livingston Lee
SATURN! Project Director
Southwestern University Professor

A

 

 

 

 

 

V

 

The Nine School Districts Representing Ten SATURN! Middle School Sites

Superintendents or Designees

 

 

 

Figure 4.3: Organizational chart for Southwestern University and district
superintendents.

58

 

Federal Government/21”t Century Learning Center
Granting Agency
Julie Akabar, Midwest Contact Person

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Livingston Lee

SATURN! Project Director
Southwestern University Professor

 

 

 

 

/7

Bill Blake, Malcolm Goldman, and

 

 

 

Gary Kaminiski »

 

' . .
SATURN. PI‘OjeCt Coordinators %

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fiscal Agent, Lochmor Area Schools

Sidney Cashman, Superintendent

 

 

Figure 4.4: Financial organizational chart for SATURN!

59

 

Middle School Sites

Site Coordinators

 

 

 

Dr. Livingston Lee
SATURN! Project Director
Southwestern University Professor

// 1 iii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Blake, Malcolm Goldman, and Nancy Murdock
Gary Kaminiski Administrative Assistant
SATURN! Project Coordinators

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ t

Fiscal Agent, LochnIor Area
Schools

 

Sidney Cashman,
SI merintnrident

 

 

 

 

 

4

Ten Middle School Site Coordinators

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.5: Informal organizational chart used by individual site coordinators.

60

to the forefront of the educational process called school. At the time of the study,
Winbald Public Schools had such a dreamer, a sixth-grade teacher who may have been
near the end of his career in terms of age, but still possessed the three most sacred and
precious commodities of the teaching profession: curiosity, caring, and competence.
Mike McCartney was his name, or Mr. Mac as he was known to the students.

There was one more facet to Mike McCartney, one more “C” that was involved in
this complex equation, the “C” that started Winbald Area Schools and their technology-
teacher/leader on an eclectic electric journey toward tomorrow; that “C” was computers!
Mike loved technology and had been a pioneer with the Winbald Schools for years in
integrating computer technology into his classroom, assisting in technology
implementation in other teachers’ classrooms, and delivering technology to the
community. A bespectacled man with graying hair, a sly yet quiet wit, and a knowing
smile, Mike was quick to promote his love of the computer as an instructional tool that
could be entertaining as well as educational. Before Winbald Area Schools had such a
dreamer, there was little funding for computers at Winbald. Local, state, and foundation
funds amounted to only a few thousand dollars, with funding from the state constituting
the biggest portion. With the advent of the SATURN! project, Winbald Schools received
a federal grant of $250,000 for introducing new technology to middle school students in
the community. They were also awarded an additional $250,000 (April 2000) to
continue this project for the next three years. Thus, the district was awash in technology
funding from the federal government! It had not always been that way at Winbald

Middle School, where Mike had taught for 26 years.

61

Until the inception of the SATURN! project, Winbald was like so many other
schools in the state that were strapped for cash. Technology was a hit-or-miss
proposition, with funding coming from sources external to the district, such as grants
(state or federal), title funding (federal), and local school-based fund-raising activities.
The school district just did not have enough money to consistently upgrade school
computer labs’ hardware or software. There were too many other legitimate needs, such
as salaries, textbooks, and facility repair. What computer equipment was purchased was
outdated after several years and seldom was upgraded or replaced. This equipment was
maintained as much as possible with limited funding, but much equipment did fall into
disrepair throughout the years before SATURN! due to an inadequate repair budget.

Spending his entire career with Winbald Area Schools, Mike McCartney had
labored altruistically in this technologically deprived environment. He was not unhappy,
just slightly frustrated because he knew that opportunities existed somewhere for his
beloved students and community—opportunities that cost money that his district
ultimately did not have. According to site coordinator Mike McCartney, the concept of
SATURN! perfectly ﬁt the bill for Winbald Middle School students:

Starting with the ﬁrst meeting, here was a program that I thought would ﬁt the

kids. I mean, here was the ﬁrst program that had come along in years that had

some merit and some growth. It ﬁt the current trends and it ﬁt a niche in our
school system because of the types of kids we have. There’s not a computer on
every desk at home and in every classroom, and having that opportunity I thought
would make it work. We had something new and novel, and everybody wanted
computers. Computers are always in the news, always in the paper, so we have
something, we have a commodity. So I thought it would work. I liked the idea
that we could entice the kids to stay with the technology, but they didn’t
necessarily have to learn it. It was kind of like something they would pick up
along the way. And what we’ve done here is the ﬁrst thing; it’s an after-school

program. Then it’s a technology-training program. Some kids do both, some kids
just stay. (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

62

SATURN! gt Winbald

Winbald school administrators decided to implement and administer the grant in
accord with the grant’s literal intention. That is, the SATURN! lab was to be used only
for SATURN! klubhouse projects and functions; it would not be open to the school
population at large, whether students or staff. The lab was open for a half hour each
morning before school, opened again for a half hour at noon, and then opened again at
1:30 in the afternoon, when the site coordinator/teacher arrived to teach the sixth-grade
computer class. The lab remained open until 5:00 pm. and then closed for the day. It
was not used in the evening for enrichment activities or community education classes.
The lab was strictly for middle school SATURN! klubhouse use and was administered
and operated solely by the site coordinator and community agency/technology person in
accordance with the grant.

At the beginning of the project, differing perceptions among stakeholders in the
SATURN! project led to tensions regarding the use of technology, including the intended
purpose and outcomes. Using force ﬁeld analysis, I constructed a diagram (Figure 4.6) to
show those forces at work in the implementation of the SATURN! project that were
supportive and those that proved to be restraints. These supports and restraints are
described in the following pages.

At Winbald Middle School, superintendent John Hardy appointed teacher Mike
McCartney site coordinator and charged him with running the program. To provide
assistance with both communication and technology, the district chose Donnie Stefanski,
a Winbald resident, as the community agency staff person. In large part, this volunteer

position consisted of being an ambassador for the SATURN! project. Donnie arranged

63

Desired state: Total implementation of the SATURN! project in the curriculum at
Winbald Middle School

Restraining Forces (Resistance)

1 l 1

*Fear of losing local control
* Funding spent on the middle school klubhouse and not the high school or districtwide
*Technology did not appear to the high school staff to be curriculum based
*Lack of support from high school staff and middle school custodians
*Unclear communication process across the middle school klubhouse sites
*Lack of instruction on how to use the new technology provided by the grant to the
10 SATURN! sites

 

Current state (W inbald Middle School curriculum at the beginning of the
SATURN! project, September 1998 through April 2000)

i l 1

Driving Forces (Support)

 

*Need for new technology and lack of resources in the Winbald School District
*Adequate and substantial funding from Southwestern University

*Unlimited support from the Winbald administration and board of education
*Support from middle school staff

*Ambitious project goals from Southwestern University and cutting-edge technology

Figure 4.6: Force ﬁeld analysis (Lewin, 1951) of supporting and restraining forces at
work in the implementation of the SATURN! project.

64

meetings with the Winbald Chamber of Commerce, church groups, sportsmen’s clubs,
the senior citizens club, and any other groups who would entertain this middle school
innovation. Donnie also worked with the entire K-12 staff of the district to keep them
informed about every phase of the SATURN! project’s implementation. Donnie was the
district’s former director of maintenance and a respected member of the staff. He was
also the district’s athletic director (April 2000). His role as the agency and technology
person for SATURN! was seen as a natural “ﬁt,” considering his long-time ties to the
community, his close association with Mike, and his natural ability for engineering and
coordinating projects.

Middle school teacher Cindy Hapsburg and principal Jerry Edwards were elated
that Mike and Donnie were involved in the SATURN! project. Cindy said, “Mike and
Donnie—those two guys gave unlimited amounts of time. They’ve taken things home,
they’ve gotten whole families involved in helping out and planning. They are what made
[SATURN!] work” (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000). Jerry concurred:

Mike and Donnie are doing a good job. They [the Winbald staff] knew that Mike

and Donnie put in a lot of time, so I don’t think anyone wants to trade places with

them. Boy, they spend an awful lot of time. They spend Saturdays, and they’re
doing all those kinds of things, so they both have got the right kind of personality
for something like this. They’re both easy-going guys; they just kind of walk
around and work with the kids on a low-key level. So they ﬁt the position real

well. (Interview transcript, April 10, 2000)

The initial klubhouse enrollment numbers were overwhelming. To meet this
unanticipated response, Mike decided to share half of his salary with Donnie, who
became his co-director, although Mike was still in charge of the program. Originally, the

Winbald district set up the site coordinator position as part time, with Mike remaining as

a full-time teacher. However, with the klubhouse numbers burgeoning, the work load

65

soon became staggering. As a solution to this situation, the district decided to “split” the
position and also gave Mike the autonomy to hire other part-time staff as necessary to
meet the needs of an ever-increasing klubhouse enrollment. According to Mike, “What’s
helped to alleviate the problems is that we’ve taken our coordinator’s salary that Donnie
and I had split, and we took last summer’s money and hired two people to help just
because of numbers” (Interview transcript, April 10, 2000).

As the SATURN! project lifted off, the Winbald staff consisted of site
coordinator/teacher Mike McCartney, co-director or agency person Donnie Stefanski,
alternate program coordinator and middle school teacher Cindy Hapsburg, and local
businessperson/volunteer Larry Evans. These four individuals served as the instructional
and executive component of the Winbald SATURN! site, and they all worked directly
and indirectly in the SATURN! after-school program. Mike, Donnie, Cindy, and Larry
were the most knowledgeable about operating the hardware and software. They were the
only ones who operated the SATURN! lab, so they had the most contact with the students
and community.

School administrators were superintendent John Hardy, principals Jerry Edwards
and Philis Dundee, and the school board. The administrators provided program support
and mandated that the SATURN! computer lab be used entirely for the middle school, as
the grant intended. Winbald High School staff were concerned about this exclusivity, but
the administrators remained true to the intention of the grant, as well as consistent in their
support for Mike and Donnie. In principal Jerry Edwards’s words,

The only hang-up we’ve had from a couple of teachers is [that] . . . the grant

allows for the middle school only to be using this facility. You catch some ﬂack
now and then about the high school wanting to use it. Why shouldn’t they use it

66

now and then? Now there’s a little controversy because this facility is going to be
moved over to the elementary library. It’s just small stuff, but a little chatter,
probably more of it in the teachers’ lounge. I’m not there, but I’ve heard a little
bit about it. (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

Teachers Andrea Glen-Burnie and Alvin Ingraham, from the middle school and
high school, respectively, were associated with the SATURN! project through their
students’ using the lab for various projects. Neither was directly afﬁliated with
SATURN!, but a small school setting such as Winbald offers considerable opportunity
for academic interaction. As a teacher and site coordinator, Mike encouraged other staff
members to use the lab when possible, but he wanted to keep the lab for its intended
purpose—a middle school computer klubhouse. He said:

I know that we need the lab and it needs to be used a lot. It is used off and on
during the day—during the week I should say, on special occasions. We have the
Makinauk Occupational Information System (MOIS) put on all of them for
occupational training. And one of our teachers brings her class down for that.
Kids who need to work on different projects sometimes come down—especially
the middle school kids—because the lab that was [the] middle school/high school-
shared open lab was being used by the high school. The high school lab is under
construction, so there is no access to a lab by the middle school students. So we
have accommodated people but personally tried not to encourage it. If we keep it
the way it is, it stays intact with how it was set up and supposed to be used, and
we won’t have to reset things.

Now what they want is academic computers, so we’re unique; I know
we’re unique in the SATURN! consortium. Most of them are middle school lab
situations or media center situations. I imagine that’s what’s going to happen
here next year. Current talk is it’s [SATURN! lab] going to stay where it is and
be opened up some more during the day. Those computers [SATURN! computers
that were being replaced] are actually going to end up in what is now the open lab
down by the middle school/high school media center. Gotta address the needs.
(Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

According to Mike McCartney, there was a deﬁnite need in Winbald Middle
School for the SATURN! concept. He shared his version of the beginning of the

Winbald SATURN! project:

67

Starting with the ﬁrst meeting, here was a program that I thought would ﬁt the
kids. I mean, here was the ﬁrst program that came along in years that had some
merit and some growth. It ﬁt the current trends and it ﬁt a niche in our school
system because of the types of kids we have. There’s not a computer on every
desk at home and in every classroom, and having that opportunity I thought
would make it work because we had something new and novel and everybody
wanted computers. Computers are always in the news, always in the paper, so
hey, we have something, we have a commodity. So I thought it would work. I
liked the idea that we would entice the kids to stay with the technology, but they
didn’t necessarily have to learn it. It was kind of like something they would pick
up along the way. (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

Middle school teacher Cindy Hapsburg was also an integral part of the initial
stage of SATURN! She indicated there was a real need for the exposure to increased
computer training that the SATURN! program in their middle school would provide:

Computers and kids, they just go together naturally! It’s not a roadblock for

them. A lot of adults are [intimidated] by computers, but the kids don’t have that

fear of new things yet and they just love it! When I take a group of kids to the
computer lab, they are not afraid to turn it on and start playing with it, and start
doing things with it as long as I tell them they can’t hurt it! They just love them

[computers]. It’s a challenge; they’re hearing a lot about them, and seeing them.

So they want to do all the same stuff that we do, and they just love it! It’s very

beneﬁcial and helps the kids a lot. (Interview transcript, April 9, 2000)

The new computer equipment arrived at the Winbald Middle School site in
September 1998. At Winbald as well as each of the other eight school districts, ofﬁcials
from Southwestern University and contracted equipment vendors arrived to help set up
the technological equipment. This was truly a festive occasion! Also, each year for the
next three years, an average of $83,000 would be available for equipping and operating
each site. The grant represented a tremendous new economic treasure, and the rapidity

with which it could be infused into the school districts was amazing, especially for

districts like Winbald, with historically limited budgets.

68

As the labs were set up, a uniform ﬁnancial mechanism was developed for
payment. Each site was not just given the money, but rather a stringent process was in
place to secure the grant funds. This process consisted in making purchases in
accordance with the requirements of the grant. All purchases were subject to review by
the federal government, Dr. Lee and Nancy Murdock at Southwestern University, and the
business manager at Lochmor Area Schools, which was the ﬁscal agent. A member
district could deviate slightly from the grant mandates to make other purchases, but such
purchases ﬁrst had to go through SATURN! Central and receive approval from Dr. Lee.
Dr. Lee, business manager Peter Nickleson, and superintendent Sidney Cashman of
Lochmor Area Schools developed a standardized purchase-reimbursement form, which
had to be ﬁlled out after the particular items were purchased. The completed forrrr was
then sent to Dr. Lee and his staff for oversight and approval. When approved by Dr. Lee,
the completed and approved purchase form was sent to Lochmor School District, the
ﬁduciary agent for the 1998 SATURN! grant, for ﬁnal review and payment.

The reason that a member district such as Lochmor Area Schools and not
Southwestern University served as the ﬁscal agent was strictly ﬁnancial, involving a
signiﬁcant difference in the percentage that was charged to the project. The public
school district was paid 7% of the total project cost to carry out these ﬁnancial duties.
Had Southwestern University been the ﬁscal agent, their fee for the same service would
have been 40%, or a difference of 33%. Thus, in this $4-million project, approximately
$1.3 million would have gone to the university and not the project. By using‘a ﬁduciary
agent other than the university, these funds stayed with the SATURN! project and were

ﬁgured into the budgets of each member district and Dr. Lee’s university budget.

69

This arrangement was also lucrative for the ﬁduciary agent. For example, by
providing the ﬁnancial services for this $4-million grant, the designated ﬁduciary agent
received an additional 7% of the total grant monies for performing the accounting, check-
writing, and auditing services. In this case, it was worth an additional $280,000 over
three years to the Lochmor School District, bringing their total revenue from the
SATURN! project to approximately $530,000. The Lochmor district went on to become
the ﬁduciary agent for the next successful SATURN! project as well (June 2000). The
grant award for the next round of funding was $8 million, and the Lochmor district
realized approximately $560,000 additional for serving once again as the ﬁscal agent for
what had grown to a 20-school consortium. Interestingly, only one other district in the
initial stage of the SATURN! grant application process ever indicated an interest in
becoming the ﬁscal agent, despite the obvious monetary rewards.

Each site began with a “base lab” required by the university, featuring a minimum
of 13 computer stations, several kind of printers, all the necessary cabling, and selected
software packages that were to be distributed throughout the 10 middle school SATURN!
sites. A bid list was created, based on the grant speciﬁcation that identical technology
labs be implemented at all of the sites. The bids came in and, in accordance with the
speciﬁcations from Dr. Lee and his staff, Southwestern University contracted with a
company from Center City, Trimp Computers, to supply the necessary equipment (Bill
Blake, ﬁrst program director, SATURN! e-mail documents, 1998).

The owner of Trimp Computers was Salvatore Trimp. He was from a local,
established family who had lived all their lives in Center City and were actively involved

in Center City real estate. Salvatore had left the family real estate business several years

70

before the SATURN! project and started his own business as an OEM (original
equipment manufacturer) supplier of computers and peripheral technology equipment to
area public schools and Southwestern University. Business was good, and his company
prospered as many area school districts purchased his company’s equipment and
services. Trimp actively pursued new business contacts and particularly the SATURN!
project. Through his association with Dr. Lee, previous successful business ventures
with Southwestern University, and a majority vote from Southwestern University and the
ﬁscal agent, Lochmor Public Schools, Trimp secured the contract to supply most of the
technological equipment to the 1998 SATURN! project. SATURN! administrative
assistant Nancy Murdock had to work closely with Trimp because she was responsible
for arranging his visits at the klubhouse sites. According to Nancy,

Salvatore is all over the place. He talks a good game and usually delivers on

time, but there have been some concerns over the quality of his brands. We have

enough of them [computers] here, and there have been some problems, but he

seems to make good on everything he sells. (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

On September 7, 1999, a communique was sent to all the SATURN! site
coordinators and board members (school district superintendents), SATURN! project
director Bill Blake, and his recently hired assistant, Malcolm Goldman, requesting the
individual site coordinators’ assessments of the performance of Trimp Computers.
Malcolm Goldman, who had previous administrative experience in a K-l2 setting, was
added to the SATURN! project staff to assist Bill Blake. In a September 7, 2000, fax
from SATURN! Central, Blake and Goldman wrote:

We still wish to submit a list of concems/suggestions to Trimp Computers with

the group. Comment on the following and send to Bill Blake by September 15,
1999:

71

a. Delivery/set-up/installation of equipment;

b. Performance/reliability of hardware;

0. Quality of technical support;

(I. Purchasing/biHing/accounting experience.

Trimp Computers had recently secured a major contract with the Department of
Education at the university and had previously (September 1998) supplied many of their
computer needs. The SATURN! contract was signiﬁcant. It represented approximately
150 computers, 25 printers, 10 digital cameras, 10 projectors, about $20,000 in software,
and approximately $10,000 in maintenance fees for the ﬁrst year. The following two
years would not require the same investment in hardware, but software and specialty
purchases such as white or smart boards (interactive computer screens on wheels,
approximately 4 feet by 6 feet) and digital cameras and projectors would increase, so
purchases would still amount to about $30,000 to $60,000 per year per site. Multiplied
by 10 sites, the contract was worth approximately half a million dollars a year for three
years for Trimp Computers (SATURN! middle school site agreement, 1998).

In addition to computer hardware and software, assistance was given to provide
the capabilities to connect each of the SATURN! sites with Southwestern University. It
was up to each individual site to prepare its own SATURN! klubhouse with functioning
telephone lines and Internet capabilities. Support was then to be provided by both the
local site coordinator and graduate-student technology experts from the university.

The sites were given much ﬂexibility in both hiring staff and conﬁguring their
particular klubhouses. For example, the urban school districts chose to hire full- or part-

time site coordinators who, for the most part, had not previously been connected with

their districts. The thought behind hiring coordinators who were not currently employed

72

by the district was to keep the klubhouses separate from the realm of the district, thereby
allowing them more autonomy. Of the four urban SATURN! sites, two hired full-time
site coordinators. Their klubhou‘ses were not used during the day, and there was little
contact with the “day school” staff. The same was true of the urban agency people. In
all of the urban districts, the agency person was not a member of the school staff but was
closely tied to the community either as a business owner, a parent, or a community
advocate (Zhao, 1999).

In the smaller and more rural districts, the site coordinator was almost always an
employee of the school, generally a middle school teacher. This was the case for the
Winbald site. Five of the six rural SATURN! sites had part-time site coordinators; only
one was full time. The community agency person was also an employee of the school
district. In addition to having close proximity to school staff, the individual sites were
allowed to conﬁgure their stafﬁng to meet the unique needs of their sites (Morrow, 2000;
Zhao, 1999).

The Winbald Area Schools’ SATURN! klubhouse ofﬁcially opened in December
1998. The name klubhouse with a “k” was a registered trademark of Southwestern
University (SATURN! Handbook, 2000). The klubhouse looked like many of the
“typical” computer rooms that existed in middle schools in the state. The room was
located at the end of a long hallway, in the sixth-grade portion of the middle school. The
hall was arranged by grade, with the sixth-grade section being located directly across
from the SATURN! lab. Site coordinator Mike McCartney described the conﬁguration

of the SATURN! klubhouse:

73

The original plan when we ﬁrst started out was that SATURN! was going to be a
klubhouse and was going to be a place set aside just for the SATURN! students.
It wasn’t designed as an auxiliary lab, and I tried to hold the school to that. With
some opposition two years ago when this program started, there was only one
middle school lab. There was only one lab in the entire school district, the one
that was at the middle school. The year before that, it was out in a separate
building when the middle school wasn’t part of the high school. Then the high
school had a lab with about 20 machines that were stand-alone, 3.1 [older version
of Microsoft Windows software program] machines that were for basic ofﬁce-
type things. The old typing class, they really wanted to schedule classes in here.
[We] had several discussions with the high school administration about that.
That’s not what [SATURN!] is designed for, and that’s not the concept, and they
let it ﬂy [supported limiting the lab to the SATURN! program].

We only had one tiff, and that was we had a bunch of kids that needed e—
mail addresses because they had to get on and chat with Southwestern University.
They had to have e-mail addresses to do that. We sent six of them out of the lab
after school, and the lab teacher had a ﬁt. He told us we had our own lab, and of
course he stated his case to the principal, neglecting to say that we had sent six
kids out to a lab with 24 machines in it, of which only two were being used. But
the way it was stated, it gave the impression to the principal that we did that every
night. Once we sat down and said, “This is what happened; this is how it
worked,” everything was ﬁne. It was really a nonevent, but it did point things
out.

I know that we need the lab, and it needs to be used a lot. It is used off
and on during the day, but it’s a personal thing of mine. To have an open lab and
try to keep all the machines running is hard enough. We try to do it here with
this, and the ﬁrst thing we end up doing is, we end up putting some kind of
protection program on it. This is because people come in and out and kids’
programs are erased, and our programs have games on them. The middle school
teacher takes a class in there to work on a project, and the ﬁrst thing the kids do is
hit the games. (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

The fact that the technology room was used only by the SATURN! klubhouse

staff had not gone unnoticed by the rest of the middle and high school staff members.

This exclusivity occasionally caused increased tension between the staff and the

klubhouse site coordinator, Mike McCartney. During the interview on April 10, 2000, I

asked middle school teacher Cindy Hapsburg if she thought the rest of the staff were

jealous of the middle school for having all of the SATURN! equipment. Cindy said she

thought that was deﬁnitely the case:

74

There was a lot of resentment, and [the fact] that it was just middle school and the
high school couldn’t take it out of it, take it and control it, but they took our
computer lab [laughter]. We had a computer lab, thanks to Mike, who . . . got us
a computer lab when we were out at the elementary school. But when we had to
move to town, the high school took it. So we lost our lab, and then here we’ve
got the SATURN! lab now, and the high school teachers wanted to be able to use
it. And we said, “You know, this is for the kids!” There’s a LOT of resentment
that that “thing” sits there all day long and they can’t use it! But, you know, it’s
kind of like something special for the middle school kids. It’s a hard enough
time. We couldn’t get into our computer lab [since] we’d lost it to the high
school. And so, you know, it’s something special for our kids. I know [the high
school staff are] upset and they’re jealous, but I don’t feel sorry for them. The
whole middle school staff supports it and says that’s okay. (Interview transcript,
April 9, 2000)

If Mike and Cindy represented the middle school position on the availability of
the SATURN! lab for the elementary and high schools, the high school computer teacher
offered a divergent viewpoint on the new SATURN! lab. High school teacher Alvin
Ingraham said in the interview:

I haven’t had much dealing with it. The only thing I know the faculty is very
upset with is that we can’t use it [because it is restricted to middle school use].
None of the high school teachers and I can even go in and use it. None of the
high school kids can use it. It is strictly for the middle school. And around here,
with the enrollment and everything, we thought we could use it. Then we heard a
rumor at one of the staff meetings that they were going to do one strictly for high
school, but I guess that is out of the question now. And we were told that we
could not use it, and that upset quite a few people because we do have the most
modern ways and stuff for computers and we can’t touch it. Being a computer
teacher, I think we should at least give the kids the best possible education and
computers that are available, which we have, and we can’t do that. So I don’t
know what’s going to happen in the future, whether we can use them or not.
(Interview transcript, April 10, 2000)

On Saturdays, 3 klubhouse session met from 9 am. until noon. In addition, the
klubhouse had proven to be such a popular gathering place that it was also open during
the week, before school began and during the lunch hour. The room had been

refurbished and featured newly painted white walls and new computer tables. The

75

biggest modiﬁcation to date was the addition of an outside-access door, located in an
unoccupied corner of the classroom. Many COIOl’fUl, student-created posters graced the
walls, with the place of prominence over the teacher’s desk being reserved for the
SATURN! logo banner.

The Winbald SATURN! klubhouse formally started in grand fashion in October
1998 with a deluge of eager new middle school members. A lot more of the students
wanted to be klubhouse members than Mike had anticipated—too many at ﬁrst—but the
hiring of additional staff solved that problem. As it turned out, the high interest level
helped to establish the program almost immediately within the middle school as “the
place to be.” According to site coordinator Mike McCartney:

Because of our growth, one of the major, major stumbling blocks we had was that

our program was too successful! Numberwise, we started out with 60% of the

sixth graders the ﬁrst year, or some horrendously large number like that. And we
just weren’t expecting that. And it was just the two of us, Donnie and I, to
manage the kids. What’s also helped to alleviate the problems is that we’ve taken
our coordinator’s salary that Donnie and I had split, and we took last summer’s
money and hired two additional people to help just because of numbers. We are
open on Saturday mornings from nine to noon, and kids come down here for that,
so we’re in at lunch and we’re in at break. We’re in, in the morning during
breakfast time. But probably the biggest overall headache of the whole program
was the fact that we have these numbers of kids. There’s really not an alternative

for them, for a place to be. (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

Mike went on to express how the klubhouse quickly became the place where all
students could be accepted and successful. In fact, some of the students with behavior
problems began to act appropriately in their regular classrooms so they would not have to
go to in-school suspension (ISS) and thereby lose their SATURN! privileges. Mike

related:

It ﬁlls a bigger need, a wider spectrum. We still have our sports kids in there, but
we have the other kids that aren’t sporty in there too, and all levels, you know.

76

You play sports and you are good at it. You don’t halfway play sports. You can
halfway sit at a computer and have fun. We cover everybody. We have the
special education kids in here who ﬁt in ﬁne, as well as the gifted kids who have a
wealth of ability. We have those with very speciﬁc abilities. We’ve got kids who
know every Pokemon card that was ever produced but can hardly read. But
they’ve organized all their Pokémon stuff and scanned them in with the
(klubhouse) scanner, and they’ve got a whole list of them. I think that’s
important. Anything that keeps the kids in school; they have to have some
reason to come to school. . . . It’s important to the kids, and I think that says as
much as anything.

We had some kids who generally were getting in trouble every day. We
have an in-school suspension program, 188. You get sent there for being tardy;
you get sent there for more than your irritable classroom disruption. The irritable
stuff the teachers are supposed to take care of. And we have a policy here that the
ISS suspension means you’re not in the SATURN! program. You’re in school,
but you’re not here. So if you’re in 188, then you can’t come to the after-school
program. We initiated this half way into the school year. We have kids who quit
getting sent to 188 because they couldn’t come to SATURN!, because they
wanted to be here. They got to class on time. The teacher could say, “Look, if
you don’t quit [behaving inappropriately], I’m going to send you to 188.” Then
they quit [the negative behavior]. Our 188 person wrote me a letter just last week,
saying that SATURN! has helped reduce the number of kids in her 188 program.
(Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

In addition to the interest the klubhouse generated right after opening, there was
also a sense that something new was happening with the way middle school children
were approaching learning. Community agency person and athletic director Donnie
Stefanski thought that the program was especially important, not only to gifted students,
who were never behavior problems, but to all students, even those who regularly were a
challenge for the teachers:

SATURN! has been an almost unbelievably positive force in this district. My

part, well, I’ve been with it since the beginning in the role of co-coordinator, or

site coordinator, with Mike, and I’ve learned a ton myself. I haven’t normally
been in the classroom with kids. That’s never been my position here at the
school, so I’m having an opportunity to spend some time with these middle
school kids. Like Mike and all the other teachers have said, when you see that
light bulb come on, it’s really a fulﬁlling feeling to have that happen! And we’ve

done that with SATURN! and especially the kids we deal with. They go from the
better students in this school to problem kids. And it’s really that problem child

77

that, when you see something happen to them in a positive way, that really makes
you feel good. (Interview transcript, April 10, 2000)

Middle school principal Philis Dundee also noticed the collaborative nature of the
classroom work that was occurring with many of the students’ technology assignments as
a result of the SATURN! klubhouse projects:

I did see, when I came in for presentations, a lot of students thanking other
students for their help. Someone helped them ﬁnd the SATURN! art, and so and
so helped me ﬁgure out how to make the things like that work. One student in
particular, who I know has problems with some of his other academic subjects
and is not always comfortable asking for help, was getting help particularly from
other students. And he seems really comfortable in this context with his
knowledge in that he had had help, but he still felt good about the project and felt
ownership for the project. I thought that was interesting, and I thought that it
didn’t really change, like I didn’t see any students who are struggling in other
academic areas who really excelled here. What I saw on that particular day was
still students who have trouble being helped by other students, but it was done in
a much more positive way, less judgmental. I don’t know if that’s because they
worked together in the klubhouse environment as well, and so they see it more as
friends helping them rather than somebody who is better at something helping
them. (Interview transcript, April 10, 2000)

Site coordinator Mike McCartney also celebrated the collaborative aspect that the
SATURN! project had brought to the teaching and learning environment:

We [the SATURN! project and Southwestern University] had an awards program
last year. We had a couple kids who went down to MACUL [Makinauk
Association of Computer Understanding and Learning annual conference], and
just being there and being part of SATURN! was worth it. I mean, it was good
for me to be there, but it did more for me to watch the kids be able to be there
than anything. That’s what it’s all about. [We’ve] got a program over here and a
kid has a problem. Who can help him? Four or ﬁve kids can go and help him. I
don’t know what I’m doing? Most of the time I don’t. I don’t have to lie about it,
they know it [the program]. I don’t know how to do that, and they’ll show you.
That’s what it’s all about.

I just wish we could get some more schools close together so we could
swap [programs and ideas]. Like you’re up north, Northend is up there [referring
to Ferrisville Schools in the Upper Peninsula]. You have two or three or four
schools right near by there that you can do little ﬁeld trips to visit. Have these
kids walk in and show their projects. “Look at what we did.” “Wow, can we do

78

that?” “Yeah, it’s not hard at all, let me show ya.” (Interview transcript, April 11,
2000)

Superintendent John Hardy also thought the computer-based experiential and
cooperative learning model was exactly what the district needed to reach the most at-risk
of the Winbald students. He believed the SATURN! project was the beginning of a
curricular change using technology that would revolutionize teaching and learning in the
district. He said,

You know what SATURN! has done? The fact is, it has taken kids who normally
aren’t successful in the classroom, and it’s shown that they can be successful at
something. We have kids who are failing now designing web pages and who are
all of a sudden positive about school! It has really improved the whole middle
school feeling about instruction. That’s why we are looking at spreading the
SATURN! model to other classrooms—because it proves that if you have a kid
during the day who’s failing social studies and then, after school, moves two
doors down and is successful in designing websites and researching on the
computer, that tells you something.

That really presents a model for the rest of our teaching staff to see. This
is how your classroom can be successful because SATURN! is successful. Look
how SATURN! is successful with kids you say you can’t touch. Now it’s
SATURN! that’s touching those kids. I feel really strongly about this, [and] it’s
going to change our whole delivery system for the middle school. The problem, I
think, in middle school is that many times they are run like mini-high schools.
Kids are moving all of a sudden from ﬁfth grade to a middle school. They are
changing classes, and they are now experiencing a lecture type of class that they
are not used to. Studies have shown that kids who come from poverty learn
differently; they learn by doing. And SATURN! is the perfect model that
demonstrates that. What that does, if we can transform SATURN! to a regular
classroom setting, we are going to be a heck of a lot more successful than we are
right now. Johnny is failing in the classroom, but he never misses SATURN! and
he is succeeding. Something is not right with this picture.

I think that the whole middle school delivery system for teaching and
learning is a situation we have to look at. [We need] more demonstration or
hands-on and more interaction than what our present model is. We are not a
mini-high school, and we have to realize it. Middle schools shouldn’t be mini-
high schools. So I think SATURN! is going to create some new and innovative
ways that we teach, and I am really excited about that. Seriously, this is what we
have to do in all of our classrooms: make learning exciting, especially for kids
who come from poverty, who don’t have the background and support, who are
now all of a sudden becoming successful. That’s our goal. That’s it exactly.

79

That’s exactly the point, the cooperative learning pieces especially. If we could
move that into the regular classroom setting, we would be a heck of a lot more
successful than we are now. (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

Even Alvin Ingraham, the lone dissident who was angry because his high school
computer class could not use the SATURN! lab, acknowledged the improvements
SATURN! had brought to the district in terms of new technological opportunities for
Winbald students:

It enabled the kids to have what this district probably wouldn’t have if it hadn’t
been given to us in this grant and the money given to us. But now that it does, it
makes the rest of us look stupid, including me. I mean, I am not up to date. Yes,
I have a scanner and I have a zip drive and all this stuff, but that is good only if
you know how to use it. Taking stuff and scanning it into the computer, that’s no
problem. But take a picture with a camera and it comes on a screen and you copy
it-I have no idea how that’s done. You know, SATURN! is good to a point.
(Interview transcript, April 10, 2000)

The ﬁrst project assigned to the SATURN! klubhouses was to create community-
history pages for their local communities. Dr. Lee thought a common project would help
the klubhouses and site coordinators develop a community-based project quickly and also
develop camaraderie among the sites. In addition to the community-history project, Dr.
Lee and the graduate students at SATURN! Central developed four domains and goals
for students that revolved around service and technology and were labeled Focus on
Learning:

We want to revisit our four major domains and goals for students—Achievement,

Community, Technology, Service (ACTS). In the domain of Achievement this

fall, SATURN! klubhouses should be continually on the lookout for reactive uses

of technology within and around students’ class work. These creative uses will be
recognized and rewarded. Additionally, we will be testing out a new feature this
fall, called “Virtual Tutoring,” whereby a few students will connect with

Southwestern University teacher candidates to address speciﬁc academic needs.

In the Community domain, we hope to see further progress in the

community-history projects that were initiated last year. A starting point this fall
will be for each site to present a brief pictorial or video proﬁle of their own

80

klubhouse on a website, enhanced with digital video, digital images, and even
QuickTime VR [video software program] clips. Assistance on this project will be
offered during our training session.

In the Technology domain, we wish for the klubhouses to offer
opportunities for every member to obtain skills in the areas of video production,
web design, and 3-D animation. A cadre of local experts for each klubhouse were
trained at our Summer Leadership Institute last month. These people will be
expected to help others learn these skills. SATURN! Central will generate a list
of competencies for SATURN! certiﬁcation in these three areas.

In the domain of Service, we wish for klubhouses to continue to offer
services for teachers and other members of the school community in helping them
to integrate technology into the school curriculum.

These four major goals are not meant to be exclusive; i.e., they should not
preclude the pursuit of other challenging learning activities, and local projects.
However, most of the support from SATURN! Central this fall will revolve
around these goals. (Bill Blake and Malcolm Goldman, SATURN! Project
assistant directors, SATURN! Central fax to site coordinators and board
members, September 7, 1999)

Whereas there was no problem in attracting large numbers of eager students to the
program at the Winbald site in fall 1998, nagging problems began to develop as the year
came to a close. Most were organizational issues, such as staff and custodial complaints
about the klubhouse kids making noise and being in the school after hours. For example,
middle school principal Philis Dundee noted:

As an educator I know that learning is happening, but still they get a little loud,

they spill over to the halls sometimes, and it’s not as structured as we would like.

You know, everyone would be comfortable, the kids are comfortable there, the

people who work with them are comfortable, but sometimes the secretaries

complain about the noise, [and] parents sometimes ask about what exactly is
happening in there. But overall I think that they are doing a good job. (Interview

transcripts, April 10, 2000)

Middle school teacher Andrea Glen-Burnie also voiced minor concerns about the

perceived amount of time klubhouse members spent playing games: “They do a lot of

games. I know it teaches them some logic and things, like they try to ﬁgure out the best

81

way to “attack” things, but sometimes you get disappointed that they are doing a lot of
games” (Interview transcript, April 10, 2000).

Site coordinator Mike McCartney commented that all Winbald students who
remained in the building after school were identiﬁed as SATURN! kids, whether they
were in the school for klubhouse activities or for other purposes. As Mike indicated, the
SATURN! project proved to be a magnet, attracting students to the program but also
garnering criticism for every student who was in the building aﬁer school. He explained
the dilemma:

Kids, kid things, nothing malicious, nothing like that, just kid stuff, end-of-the-
day kid stuff, but because of where the ofﬁce was located, we were noticed.
Donnie made the comment, “What are we doing different this year?” Last year
[1999] we couldn’t do anything wrong; this year, they are fussing all the time.
Well, look where the ofﬁce is. Move the ofﬁce in the same hallway, principals in
the same hallway. Last year they were down in the other end of the school. The
teachers all leave here by 3:30. [Because the SATURN! program starts at 3:30
pm}, the teachers only have to put up with it for a half hour before they are gone.
When we had the whole wing to ourselves, who cared? (Interview transcript,
April 11, 2000)

To ascertain the origin of the complaints regarding the SATURN! program, I
asked Mike, “Were the majority of the objections to the SATURN! program from the
custodian, teachers, or administrators?” Mike shared his perspective on what proved to
be a hindrance to the program:

Probably administrative things were the most severe. Only because, as an
administrator, you notice things like kids in the hallway with nowhere to go, kids
running down the hallway, kids hanging around outside the school, swinging on
the fence, among other things. [Administrators] notice those things. Because we
are such a popular program for the kids, any kid after school is a SATURN! kid.
So anybody that’s doing anything is a SATURN! kid. It doesn’t matter if they are
or aren’t. They could have been in the academic center and not even been a part
of our program. But they are still hanging around after school, and they are one
of ours. So we get the credit for everybody. We had to explain to both the ofﬁce
and the custodians because the custodians were the guardians of the door. They

82

locked the door; the kids would bang on the door to come in. The custodians
would say, “We just let you out, you’re not supposed to be back in, you left, you
went home.” We had to explain to them that, because of our numbers, we had
kids who live in town, the “townies,” who left right after school. They went
home, they got a snack, they did things around their house, and an hour later they
came back because by then the bus [for the kids who live out of town] had left.
So we had these kids, some of them leaving, some of them coming back, all at
about the same time, so [there was] all this movement of children that, quite
honestly, our school was not used to. (Interview transcript, April 10, 2000)

ConﬂictingZComplicating Issues of Communication aLWinbald

 

More problematic issues than student noise or computer game playing surfaced at
all 10 klubhouse sites and eventually hindered the implementation of the SATURN!
program at the Winbald site. The ﬁrst major concern that site coordinators identiﬁed was
a lack of communication, which they assumed had spread from the university (SATURN!
Central) to the SATURN! sites. This tension eventually boiled over, as evidenced by
remarks ﬁrst made by a rural district’s (not Winbald’s) site coordinator in an e-mail
message to SATURN! Central headquarters and all of the site coordinators. This
coordinator, Zeke Stone, was angry that he and the other site coordinators did not have
enough information or technological substance to suit their particular needs.

Unbeknownst to Zeke Stone, the SATURN!ALL listserve was actually several
listserves that communicated not only with the site coordinators, but also with the
superintendents of each middle school site and all the other people associated with the
grant, including Southwestern University personnel and ofﬁcials from the US.
Department of Education in Washington, DC. So when Zeke took “computer pen in
hand” and sent the following e-mail to the site coordinators and SATURN! Central, it

also reached many others to whom he had not intended to send it:

83

As we look at the reason for getting the site coordinators together, I have to ask
myself was it to have some face-to-face discussions on the various directions each
of us were going. In many ways, it is a support group so that each of us does not
feel like an island aﬂoat in the ocean by ourselves. It was not a chance to see
other klubhouses in operation—yet this could be a by-product. Our meetings were
to begin in the am. and last until school adjourned—they were not to be centered
around when kids were in the klubhouse or a social dinner. I felt that we wanted
to get something accomplished. Therefore the meeting at Clarksville served to
allow Bill and Mal to “be part of the klubhouse experience” and get two goals out
of the way: Visit a klubhouse as well as meet with the site coordinators; but, in
general it was a waste of time for a three-hour drive. Only ﬁve site coordinators
were present. Does that tell you something? Yes, there was a good hour of
discussion and good points were raised, but for three hours of driving something
was missing! To my way of thinking, Southwestern University almost guaranteed
the new grant and now where are we? Now after the fact, Southwestern
University is talking about marketing the SATURN! idea. Why? Because they
lost! Where in the hell were they when it counted? Where is the budget for doing
this? And of course just about every grant’s deadline is closed, so we are like so
many football teams: “Wait until next year!” Site evaluations coming up in June
[1999]. Big deal! Unhappy about the planning. (SATURN! e-mail document,
May 27, 1999)

Zeke’s e-mail message proved to be the “shot heard ‘round the world,” or at least
around the state. It gave voice to the pent-up frustrations felt not only by the site
coordinators, but also by some of the administrative assistants at SATURN! Central.
Program director Bill Blake ﬁrst responded:

After speaking with Zeke Stone this morning, I thought I would call attention to a
few things for the good of the SATURN !ALL group. Some people who have
joined our mailing lists recently may not even be aware that we have created
several mailing lists for the SATURN! project. A complete description of each
one, including the scope of the audience for each list, is contained on our website.
Please review this information—look for the link to “mailing lists.” Zeke S. tells
me that he actually meant to send his message yesterday to the SATURN! site
coordinators and to the SATURN! Central staff ONLY, not to the much wider
SATURN!ALL audience. We should all be aware of our audience when sending
e-mail messages. (SATURN! Central e-mail document, May 28, 1999)

What ensued after the initial e-mail was a ﬂurry of electronic responses from site

coordinators, superintendents, the SATURN! project director, the SATURN!

84

administrative assistant, and the program head from Southwestern University. The e-
mail from Zeke Stone was the catalyst that engendered much discussion about the lack of
communication among SATURN! sites and with Southwestern University (SATURN!
Central). The ﬁrst to comment was Louise Kleega, the site coordinator from Clarksville:

As we look at the reason for getting the site coordinators together, I have to ask
myself, was it to have some face-to-face discussions on the various directions
each of us were going? In many ways, it is a support group so that [we] do not
feel like islands aﬂoat in the ocean by ourselves.

We have all complained at one time or another about the lack of
communication between the klubhouses. I do feel that communication coming
out of SATURN! Central needs to be a little better or more frequent. We are all
hearing different things from different people, and it’s difﬁcult to know what is
right and what isn’t. Frustration arises when communication is poor. Let us
know what is going on. If deadlines change, e-mail us. If agendas change, let us
know. (SATURN! e-mail document, May 28, 1999)

Winbald site coordinator Mike McCartney voiced the same sentiment in a
personal interview. He also said that, in addition to a need for improved communication,
Southwestern University needed to supply more program support during the early stages
of SATURN!:

Southwestern University is rolling out procedures and programs that aren’t ready.

They’ve rolled out a few things after they tell all the kids about it and it never

shows up, or it shows up months later. They came up here and did a Spin

Panorama [SATURN! klubhouse software program] workshop with the kids. I

don’t think the program [software] got here until two months later; then the

interest was gone, the knowledge base was gone, the web site design thing that

they were doing. That never did get off the ground. As the coordinator, I’m

frustrated that I don’t have the technology base to help these kids. (Interview

transcript, April 9, 2000)

Yet even though the site coordinators complained that the administrators at
SATURN! Central were not communicating enough with the sites, the site coordinators

themselves were often lax in communicating with the university and SATURN! Central.

For example, SATURN! Central administrative assistant Nancy Murdock vented her

85

frustration about the lack of communication and cooperation in one of several
communiqués to the site coordinators as she sought to arrange a site coordinator meeting
with only moderate success:

I am still trying to put together [travel/lodging/facilities] but am running into
several problems, not the least of which is I still haven’t heard from all the site
coordinators whether or not they will be there! This makes it difﬁcult to plan
anything. A message regarding lodging will follow yet today, but I need to know
who is giving you the “agenda” for a meeting when it hasn’t even been decided
yet. That puzzles me. (SATURN! documents, May 28, 1999)

Routine SATURN! group projects, such as the annual summer camps that were
held to bring students from all the sites together at one location, were difﬁcult for Nancy
to administer. Often the site coordinators failed to meet deadlines, which then created
additional work for SATURN! Central staff, such as having to repeat requests for
information. As Nancy Murdock noted in an e-mail to the site coordinators:

Folks, the due date/time has now passed for receipt of consent forrns—it was
Wednesday, July 28, 1999, at 5:00 pm. The following campers [sites] have not
returned their forms as of Thursday, July 29, 1999, at 2:30 pm: Winbald, two
campers; Kaline, one camper; Stonebrook, two campers; OND, two campers; and
Center City, two campers. All of these forms MUST be completed by the
parents, SIGNED and returned to SATURN! Central or the “camper” will have to
be returned home. They can NOT stay at SATURN! Camp without the proper
forms ﬁlled out and signed. We tried to call EACH parent in an attempt to get the
forms, and at this point we are still waiting. The status of each packet of forms is
listed after the camper’s name. If you have any questions about whether or not a
student can attend, please check with me ﬁrst! (SATURN! document, July 29,
1999)

The project director, Dr. Livingston Lee, as well as the board of directors, also
expressed concern about communication between the superintendents and the site
coordinators. He wrote:

Communication issue: There is a general concern about the response time from

sites to requests for necessary information from SATURN! Central. It was
decided that SATURN! Central will contact the Board member upon lack of

86

response from the Site Coordinator within the due date or time. (SATURN!
document, July 29, 1999)

SATURN! Central project coordinator Bill Blake also had some concerns about
communication. In an e-mail to site coordinators before the summer 1999 SATURN!
camp, Bill reminded them of the importance of getting information to the SATURN!
summer campers and their parents:

There will be one more message after this one from Nancy Murdock regarding

students’ waivers and permission forms. Please pay close attention to this

message as it is urgent. We are still missing several permission forms. . . .

PLEASE print and DISTRIBUTE this summer camp URL to EVERYONE who

may have any interest in monitoring the weekly proceedings—who you see when

you receive your students. We will be posting videos, images, and setting up a

web cam so that parents, families may “check in” on their SATURNlers during

the week. The ONLY way they would ever know about this is if the

COORDINATOR shares the URL with them. Thank you for your assistance on

this. . . . Ed Sampson reminds me that he still needs a list of core members from

site coordinators with their assessment of their usage of the klubhouses. Rate
each one as either high, medium, or low SATURN! participants, in terms of the
volume of their use (those who have already responded may ignore this request).

(SATURN! document, July 28, 1999)

Among the most aggravating concerns were recurring directives from
Southwestern University with little follow-up. What resulted was some confusion and
frustration on the part of Zeke, the site coordinator. This same frustration was felt at
other sites, and the problem ﬁnally was addressed at meetings called by the project
director and the site coordinators. The result was a change in leaders at the university
level and a realignment of goals. The new leaders recently had worked in public
education and better understood the practical side of program implementation and
evaluation. They set new and more manageable goals for the sites so that the evaluation

component could better reﬂect the status of the individual programs and be carried out

more effectively.

87

Current Status of SATURN! at Winlﬂ

The Winbald Middle School SATURN! klubhouse has been successful in meeting
the goals and objectives of the project. This site has been termed one of the most
productive and innovative in the consortium (Kaminski & Lee, 200). Success was not
immediate, as some hindrances to implementation were encountered along the way.
These hindrances were dealt with by the site coordinator, district administrators, and Dr.
Lee and his staff members.

As part of this research project, I asked selected members of the Winbald Area
Schools and community to construct “road maps” or drawings depicting their perceptions
of the implementation process. Presented in Figures 4.7 and 4.8 are the road maps
constructed by local business owner Larry Evans and community agency person Donnie
Stefanski, respectively. Both were involved with the SATURN! project from its
inception to the time of this study (April 2000). These participants’ road maps show
differences in their perspectives as they highlighted what they thought were program
supports and hindrances.

Larry Evans, a business owner in the community, constructed the road map
depicted in Figure 4.7. His perspective was that the project began as a straight line yet
quickly encountered several sources of resistance, such as problems with software,
hardware, program organization, and a lack of direction and focus. The next source of
resistance was the introduction of technology initiatives that were attempted at the
Winbald site but quickly ﬁzzled out. SATURN! Central devised other ideas for

implementation at the klubhouse, but these initiatives were also difﬁcult to grasp, and the

klubhouse staff’s response was, “Oh, well, maybe next time.” Further down the road, the

88

gecko 32.339 :82 a £53m EA .3 38.538 use 38 859526. 3353 ”5v ennui

    

gases

0 .... __ .....5 u... is. .__= 5. 3 23:: 2.32.2253

.gemuyaxis ..wz.§...._._2§§35 53322352..
8% s 32:58 AV AV

  
      

€325 so:

    

as”. 2x25 .8 z a: 2: s

322323328272"...
sees
9.25

«323225:

...Esszosssgsaw3:25
.§_a._§::§532.528

maps”.

89

map began to show sources of support as all of the technological equipment became fully
operational and software problems were addressed. This improvement in the lab’s
technological capabilities was instrumental in creating student demand for the klubhouse.
Larry ended his road map with a line that pointed up to the future and showed SATURN!
continuing with the latest technology, enhancing student and teacher training, and
increasing public awareness of the uses of the SATURN! lab (Larry Evans, SATURN!
survey/road map/individual interview document, April 2000).

Community agency person Donnie Stefanski’s road map (Figure 4.8) began with
the SATURN! project experiencing resistance early on. The ﬁrst “curve” in the road
represented confusion and a perceived lack of direction. Next, the Winbald klubhouse
began to build bridges over program obstacles, such as a lack of support for software and
hardware. During this time frame (September 1998), as the Winbald klubhouse grappled
with technological difﬁculties, its membership soared. Students participated during the
school day and after school, and interested community members attended in the evening.
As the membership began to increase, Donnie’s road map depicted a slight leveling off or
slowing of the program. At that time there were some problems concerning
miscommunication, which caused resistance to the SATURN! project. But SATURN!
Central successfully resolved these issues, and as a result, program goals were more
realistically set and communication improved between the individual klubhouses and
SATURN! Central.

The Winbald klubhouse membership doubled in size by April 2000. As a result

of the improved status of the Winbald klubhouse, Gary Kaminski, current Southwestern

90

deacon Gnome b.5888 .Emcﬂoﬁ Recon. 3 3.0.52.8 as: 38 8.5.3.6. 2.3:...» ”34 8%.".

 

.............3.3._ . 2.5.3.2:

......
s

5.252.333:
3......» ......
.maa

    
    

3:133...

8:3. ...-.233...»

 

a.
.55.

ESE-.3831:-
saggiila

r« A
. ...“ ...—......
. ..Vt: *1 .
. .....r. ..o... . .. . ..
.r.n. In use a . D .\I
. i 7.. . 1...?
m . ...: ......s......n..
. . d .5. .3" . .4 s v
.. ﬂab. .. n . ...?
t . . ... . .....u... ... .
, 4 1.; .Iﬂ! .. . . .....
.1 1 . , .. I»: ....i.. ....
,. .. ....r.utr. .... ~ .3, .1»

91

University SATURN! project coordinator, had nothing but praise for the Winbald

program:

The Winbald Middle School site is one of the deﬁnitive programs in the
consortium. The problem is very well-run, has clearly deﬁned goals, has
increased its capacity four-fold since its inception, maintained and added to all the
technological components, and addressed and expanded on all the directives from
Southwestern University. Perhaps most signiﬁcantly, the Winbald SATURN!
project is now a vital link in the district’s “regular” middle school curriculum.
That should tell you something about the job they have done there! (Interview
transcript, August 15, 2000)

John Hardy, superintendent of the district, gave this assessment of the success of the
SATURN! project:

You know what SATURN! has done? The fact is, it has taken kids who normally
aren’t successful in the classroom, and it’s shown that they can be successful at
something. We have kids who are failing now designing web pages and who are
all of a sudden positive about school! It has really improved the whole middle
school feeling about instruction. That’s why we are looking at spreading the
SATURN! model to other classrooms—because it proves that if you have a kid
during the day who’s failing social studies and then, after school, moves two
doors down and is successful in designing web sites and researching on the
computer, that tells you something.

That really presents a model for the rest of our teaching staff to see. This
is how your classroom can be successful because SATURN! is successful. Look
how SATURN! is successful with kids you say you can’t touch. Now it’s
SATURN! that’s touching those kids. I feel really strongly about this, [and] it’s
going to change our whole delivery system for the middle school.

92

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Introduction

My main purpose in this study was to examine and describe the institutional
support and resistance encountered during the implementation of a computer-technology
innovation (SATURN!) in a midwestern rural public school district (Winbald Area
Schools). A secondary purpose was to put forward an emergent theory regarding a
computer-technology innovation process in a rural school setting by employing theories
and concepts of school change and communication. In this study, I identiﬁed factors
that assisted and those that impeded the process of innovation and the degree to which
the SATURN! project at Winbald Area Schools was or was not successful. Several
theoretical lenses helped me make sense of what was going on. In particular, to
understand the relationship between the organizational culture and school leadership, I
drew on the tenets presented by Schein (1992) and Bolman and Deal (1997). Situating
this dynamic relationship in a deeper understanding of educational change brought me to
the work of Fullan (1991), Rogers’s diffusion-of-innovation theory (1995), and Lewin’s

force ﬁeld analysis (1951).

Conclusions
Introduction
The conclusions gleaned from the data supported much of what is already known

about school change, yet they also provided new insights into the change process within

93

the context of this study. Case-based analysis served as an effective vehicle for
describing the implementation of SATURN! However, before full implementation could
occur, Winbald Area Schools had to circumvent numerous roadblocks on the highway to
innovation. Roadblocks such as problems with software, hardware, program
organization, and communication all proved to be impediments to implementation.
These roadblocks on the innovation highway were set up when the culture of the school
was challenged by the introduction of SATURN! Additional tensions were created
through exclusivity as only a selected few were allowed to become part of SATURN!

The process of successfully implementing this innovation required fostering
among all stakeholders an understanding of how change occurs and how to manage it.
The trick, then, was to encourage collaboration while at the same time knowing how to
manage conﬂict. In the case of SATURN!, this process was complicated by additional
layers of administration and culture through the inclusion of Southwestern University and
nine other school districts. A model had to be developed to manage the change process,
including conﬂict, communication, and the management of partnerships. Any change or
alteration in the school culture at the local level needed to surmount those obstacles as
well as others across the gamut of the project.

As these roadblocks were encountered, the SATURN! program site coordinator
and Southwestern University professor began to build bridges over the program
obstacles. This was accomplished by increasing communication among and across the
individual sites and with the university. Discussed in the following pages of this

Conclusions section are two themes that shaped the implementation of the SATURN!

94

project. These are “The Meaning of Change to People: “What’s in It for Me?” and
“Managing Change: Conﬂict in Collaboration.”

A single-case study such as this represents just one source for data collection, yet
it generates vast amounts of data. Statistically speaking, this study of Winbald
represented an N of l. I studied only one school district, Winbald Area Schools, and a
small slice of the institution at that, a middle school computer innovation called
SATURN! This section is essentially the “story about the story,” or the presentation of
conclusions drawn from the study. Although this case was fascinating to research and
write about, the problem at this juncture was what stories I would choose to tell, in order
to portray this story accurately yet richly. How would I decide which of the varying
segments of collected data to include or exclude? How would I choose the themes that
would best represent the nuances of the case, while providing answers to the research
question? How would I rein-in this case? I acknowledge that, although this story of
SATURN! is indeed my story, there were many other ways to present this single-case
study. It is also important to mention that I was the superintendent of one of the original
nine schools that were chosen to participate in the SATURN! project from 1998 through
2001 (not Winbald Area Schools).

In the beginning, the “actors” or the members of the Winbald Area Schools and
community who were participating in SATURN! had their own reasons or incentives for
participating in this program. Everyone’s incentive was different. Some incentives were
conducive to smooth program implementation, whereas others were not. Hence,
complications and tensions arose, which I viewed under the theme of What ’3 in It for

Me? I further explored these tensions under the theme of Conﬂict in Collaboration, in

95

which I examined issues of communication, differing rates of adoption, and exclusivity
among participants. These two themes and the process of telling a story about a story
guided me in writing this chapter.

The research question posed in this study was: How has one rural school district
implemented a computer-technology innovation (i.e., SATURN !), and what does an
analysis of this innovation reveal about the process of school change? A review of the
signiﬁcant ﬁndings from this study disclosed that the Winbald Area School District did
successfully implement the SATURN! Middle School Computer Klubhouse project.
This project met the federal requirements set forth in the original grant application and
also met the criteria established by Southwestern University. Information regarding the
achievement of the project’s goals and objectives was documented in the SATURN!
report that was submitted annually to the federal government. The population that took
part in this project consisted of students, staff, and community members. The level of
participation was high, and support for SATURN! and technology at Winbald Middle
School was enthusiastic. According to Southwestern University, this site was one of the
most productive and innovative in the nine-school consortium. In addition, the
SATURN! project affected grade 7 to 12 course offerings and curriculum, and SATURN!
was to be included in the district’s annual budget when project funding expired.
WW
“What’s in It for Me?”

Why should Winbald staff members participate in SATURN!, other than the fact
that it was an administrative directive? In other words, what’s in it for me? According to

Bolman and Deal (1997), individuals have good reason to resist change. Changes in

96

routine practices and procedures undercut people’s abilities to perform with conﬁdence
and success. People initially react to new experiences in the context of some familiar,
reliable construction of reality in which they must be able to attach personal meaning to
the experiences regardless of how meaningful those experiences might be to others
(Fullan, 1991). Thus, the change process involved in implementing SATURN! was
personal and involved issues of jealousy, ambiguity, and a need for clear and respectful
communication. Understanding and managing these issues was essential in addressing
the human side of the change process. This personal dimension of change was evident at
all levels, including the classroom, within and across the middle school, across building
levels (middle and high school), between the school and the community, and between
Winbald Area Schools and Southwestern University.

At Winbald, eight key individuals were directly involved in supporting or
adopting this new innovation called SATURN! The individuals were (a) the district
superintendent, Jack Hardy; (b) the middle school principal, Philis Dundee; (c) the high
school principal, Jerry Edwards; ((1) a high school computer teacher, Alvin Ingraham;
(e) a middle school computer teacher, Cindy Hapsburg; (f) the SATURN! site
coordinator, Mike McCartney; (g) the middle school custodian, Harry Silas; and (h) a
community member, Larry Evans. According to Rogers (1995), at the onset of an
innovation, individuals want to know the innovation’s consequences, that is, what its
advantages and disadvantages will be in their personal situations.

What this meant to the SATURN! project was that, as soon as the site coordinator
(who was their fellow middle school teacher) had worked out his own personal meaning

of the innovation and it was positive, his adoption then inﬂuenced the middle school

97

teachers’ adoption of the innovation. According to Schein (1992), successful leaders
must have a high degree of objectivity about themselves and their own organizations to
effectively manage the varying personal meanings that are bound to arise.

Sarason (1993) noted that, in the process of creating a new setting, those creating
the new environment consciously seek to prevent some perceived defect or inadequacy of
existing similar settings. The new environment is viewed by its creators as superior in
some ways to the other setting (Sarason, 1993). Dr. Lee, the project director, and the
superintendent, principals, and site coordinator of Winbald Schools all visualized the
project as a new teaching and learning environment, superior to the current method of
instruction. Support from the middle school staff and administrators represented one of
the driving forces of support that occurred as the SATURN! project began to move
toward the desired state of total implementation in the Winbald curriculum.

According to Schein (1992), when individuals begin to make sense of a new
innovation, a feeling of predictablity and meaning develops. At ﬁrst, clariﬁcation was
provided through the vision of the leadership of the organization (Dr. Lee and
Superintendent Jack Hardy) and by other staff members associated with the project.
Superintendent Hardy recognized SATURN! as something new and effective for
students, especially low achievers. He also appreciated the ﬁnancial resources generated
by the federal grant and the positive attention the project brought to the district.

Two types of tensions were created by the superintendent’s meaning of
SATURN! Both tensions resulted from the superintendent’s unwavering support for
SATURN! Yet one tension was positive and the other was negative. The positive

tension was that the superintendent’s unwavering support for SATURN! ensured

98

adequate funding for the future of the project. The negative tension was that the
superintendent supported the SATURN! project exactly as it had been proposed; that is, it
was to be a middle school after-school program with no high school involvement.

The project’s exclusion of the high school computer teachers and students created
resentment between the high school and middle school teachers, and also between the
high school teachers and the high school principal and district superintendent. Because
the high school principal thought the vocational beneﬁts of SATURN! were perfect for
. the district’s underachieving students, he wanted the high school teachers to use
technology more as a teaching tool. In effect, the high school principal wanted the high
school staff to implement the delivery of a technology-based curriculum without beneﬁt
of access to the SATURN! lab.

The middle school principal valued the way the students assisted each other in the
lab and observed that SATURN! was actually breaking down student cliques. Although
she thought the students played too many computer games, she was happy that her school
had been chosen for the grant. Tension was created at the middle school level because
the SATURN! project was beginning to run autonomously, without administrative
direction from the Winbald middle school principal. The middle school SATURN! site
coordinator appeared to be creating a middle school technology-based curriculum with
more input from Southwestern University than from Winbald. As a result, the middle
school principal felt left out of the loop.

When the resources provided by SATURN!, such as expert knowledge,
equipment, physical space, and substantial funding, were introduced, they appeared to

beneﬁt only a few teachers and selected students. The high school teachers felt shut out

99

and demanded their own lab, blaming their exclusion from the SATURN! lab on the
administration’s literal interpretation of the intention of the grant. As a result, they
became jealous of the middle school staff’s access to and ownership of the new
SATURN!-based technology. This failure to communicate information created feelings
of exclusion, which led to ambiguity and ambivalence. The resulting alienation of the
high school teachers was one of the restraining forces of resistance. According to Lewin
(1951), resistance occurs throughout the implementation process and remains a force
acting to keep the project at its current state, rather than advancing to the desired state of
implementation. It was important for the leaders at the building, district, and university
levels to communicate clearly the project’s purpose and potential beneﬁts for all.

In contrast to the high school teachers, the middle school staff visualized
SATURN! as their own computer lab for a portion of their students; they viewed it as the
sole property of the middle school. Interestingly, the middle school teachers began to use
the SATURN! lab as a technological “carrot on a stick” for administering discipline in
their classrooms, telling the students, “If you don’t behave, you can’t go to SATURN!”

The site coordinator was the person in the middle, and his own meaning of
SATURN! most closely resembled the model set forth in the grant. He visualized
SATURN! as a vehicle through which to try out and evaluate technology and to
implement a middle school technology curriculum. Two tensions surfaced. One
involved the high school staffs exclusion from the SATURN! lab, which impeded the
program’s implementation. Another tension was the middle school principal"s concern
that the SATURN! lab was being used as an independent entity and not in conjunction

with the middle school curriculum.

100

The middle school custodian saw the program as a hindrance because when
SATURN! was implemented there were noisy students in the hallways after school,
whereas previously the halls had been silent. He persistently complained about this. The
site coordinator eventually remedied the problem by having a door installed that led
directly to the SATURN! lab from outdoors. The students no longer had to use the
hallways to reach the klubhouse. In this instance, the custodian’s resistance to
SATURN! at ﬁrst resembled that of the high school teaching staff. But when the site
coordinator addressed the custodian’s complaint concerning the restraining force of lack
of local control, that restraining force became a supporting one. This occurrence was in
accord with force ﬁeld analysis, which holds that an innovation such as SATURN! can
become stronger by removing a restraining force without necessarily adding supporting
forces (Lewin, 1951).

The community member who worked part time in the klubhouse saw the program
as a useful tool with which to teach technology. He also embraced the value of publicity
highlighting the school and community working together cooperatively. As a member of
the chamber of commerce, he worked diligently in getting the students into the
community to assist business and church groups with technology. The tension created as
he developed his personal meaning was positive because he strongly believed that the
required SATURN! student involvement in community service was beneﬁcial for the
students and the community.

Dr. Lee conceptualized his personal meaning of SATURN! through many lenses.
He saw the program as an innovative way to use technology as a teaching tool. He also

visualized SATURN! as a model consisting of middle school students being involved in a

101

statewide collaboration to build student and staff capacity through the sharing of
resources. This project provided Dr. Lee with a public forum for advancing his research,
and he had received various types of positive feedback, including news releases praising
SATURN! SATURN! was more than adequately funded from federal sources, which
beneﬁted Southwestern University and the individual sites.

In this section, I discussed the personal aspects involved in the process of change.
The change process in the SATURN! project was characterized by an alteration of
personal values and the demand that people work out their own meaning for the new
innovation. People do not come by their values lightly, and they do not check those
values at the schoolhouse door, nor do they easily relinquish their values (Zuccherrnaglio
et al., 1995). According to Fullan (1991), the emotional side of change is often either
ignored or miscast. Whether or not people develop meaning in relation to all aspects of
change is the fundamental problem. Individuals need to be able to predict the effect of an
innovation on their own practices in order to ensure that they enfold an innovation into
their work in a meaningful way. What an individual and an organization receive from an
innovation must add value; otherwise, it will be lost. “What’s in it for me?” was the

starting point from which the change process began at Winbald.

Managing Change: Conﬂict in Collabormn

According to Owens (1998), conﬂict in collaboration is the activity of striving for
one’s own preferred outcome, which, if attained, precludes others’ attainment of their
own preferred outcomes, thereby producing hostility. Contemporary literature on school

change ordinarily stresses such perceived virtues as empowerment, participation, and

102

collaboration, with little mention of competition and conﬂict. Yet the potential for
conﬂict can be a force for health and growth as well as destruction. If a group were
totally harmonious, it would be void of process and structure. Thus, because conﬂict is
pervasive in all human experience, it is an important aspect of behavior in educational
organizations (Owens, 1998). Often the goals of an organization are at odds with the
individual members’ goals or the meanings they must work out when taking part in a new
innovation. Such was the case with SATURN! as the participants had different
perspectives on their roles in the collaborative process.

The SATURN! project began with much publicity and substantial funding. The
focus of the funding and resources was speciﬁc, and the grant was initiated by top-down
administration at the district level. School district personnel were supportive of both the
infusion of technology funding and the partnership with Southwestern University, yet
they gave little thought to how this collaborative process would work. Different
communities were involved in driving this innovation, all of them having different needs.
There were conﬂicting meanings as to the beneﬁts and value-added elements. This
created conﬂict in the collaborative process, both within the district, between the
university and Winbald, and across program sites.

The contributing causes of conﬂict in the collaborative process were faulty
communication channels, unclear organizational goals, and jealousy arising from
differing perceptions and unresolved personal issues regarding the use of the SATURN!
lab. These conﬂicts occurred between individuals, between groups, and betvveen
Winbald and the university culture. At the onset of the project, concern was regularly

voiced about a general lack of communication and goals. Dr. Lee and his staff arranged

103

meetings with both the site coordinators and superintendents to allow them to voice their
opinions regarding policy and procedure. Through his charismatic leadership and deft
organizational skills, Dr. Lee was able to diffuse tense meetings, provide clariﬁcation and
simpliﬁed project goals, and increase the communication process throughout the entire
project.

The district superintendent was the furthest removed from the communication and
collaborative processes at Winbald. In addition to his duties as superintendent, he also
served on the SATURN! board at Southwestern University. His goal was to see the
SATURN! model of instruction become more ingrained in the daily instructional process
at Winbald and used mandates and designated funding toward that end. The high school
and middle school principals were more directly involved in this process because they
had to function as intermediaries with their own staff, each other’s staff, the site
coordinator, and the superintendent. The middle school teachers needed the highest level
of collaboration because SATURN! was in their building. They collaborated with each
other, the students, the site coordinator, and the principals. The high school teachers
were expected to be supportive, yet they were not allowed to participate in the program.
The site coordinator needed to collaborate with Southwestern University, the middle
school teachers, the principals and superintendent, and the middle school custodian.

As the project evolved, varying participants perceived certain communication
channels as being more accessible than others. Interestingly, different organizational
structures began to form around these channels as perceived needs were addressed in
slightly different ways. The diverse communication channels and how they were used to

navigate through the organizational structures of SATURN! were depicted in Figures 4.1

104

through 4.5 in Chapter 4. Conclusions drawn about the various organizational structures
of SATURN! are discussed in the following paragraphs.

The ﬁrst organizational chart (Figure 4.1) demonstrated a formal structure that
proved effective in management during the initial stages of the project. This format
worked well in writing the grant, delegating duties, and assigning projects to the
Southwestern University staff and site coordinators. Although this original structure was
to remain intact throughout the duration of the project for reporting purposes, other less
formal organizational structures were molded around communication channels. The
organizational structure that existed at the university level was shown in Figure 4.2. Dr.
Lee and his assistant, Nancy Murdock, were positioned at the center of these
communication channels or universe, whereas the rest of the university personnel and the
project coordinators operated more peripherally.

Figure 4.3 portrayed the organizational structure as it appeared to the
superintendents of the 10 middle school sites, who comprised the governing board of
SATURN! This organizational chart was uncluttered in comparison to the other four
charts and showed few participants coupled with direct lines of communication. This
chart was reﬂective of the goveming/policy meetings run by Dr. Lee and the board
members/superintendents. For the superintendents, this concise organizational structure
reﬂected their needs and support of the project. Figure 4.4 represented the conﬁguration
that existed for the ﬁnancial portion of the project. At the base of this diagram is the
ﬁscal agent for the project, Dr. Sidney Cashman, superintendent of Lochmor'Area
Schools. Dr. Cashman controlled payments to the school districts; as ﬁscal agent, he

made all ﬁnancial decisions with approval from Dr. Lee.

105

Although every aspect of this project was important to the site coordinators, none
was more important than the informational organizational structure shown in Figure 4.5,
indicating whom the individual site coordinators ultimately turned to when they needed
to get things done. As shown in this diagram, the communication channels were evenly
established among all members of the project, except for an absence of need for
communication between the SATURN! project coordinators and the ﬁscal agent.

These ﬁve organizational charts were created to address the critical need for more
effective communication processes in the SATURN! project. These varying structures
also reduced issues of ambiguity and jealousy among stakeholders. F ullan (1991) stated
that school systems are necessarily guided by multiple and sometimes competing goals.
Likewise, the SATURN! project was guided by multiple and competing goals, and the
creation of these various organizational structures addressed the need for more voices to
be heard.

During the collaboration process, as goals and expectations began to change and
drift further from the traditional curriculum, site coordinators and program personnel
became unsure about their duties, how to relate to others, and who had the authority to
decide what. Bolman and Deal (1997) stated that clarity, predictability, and rationality
often give way to confusion, loss of control, and a sense that cutthroat politics rather than
clear-cut policies now rule. To minimize such conﬂict, those guiding change efforts
must anticipate structural issues and work to realign roles and relationships (Bolman &
Deal, 1997). In the SATURN! project, ambiguity was dealt with by setting more realistic
goals and obtaining increased technological and administrative support from

Southwestern University. Also, efforts were made to mediate conﬂict in collaboration by

106

managing issues of fairness, governance, funding, communication, culture, and
organization. These efforts also proved helpful in increasing peOple’s understanding of
the project’s purpose and intended outcomes.

The conﬂict in collaboration that occurred among project partners required the
management of issues of communication, exclusivity, jealousy, and ambiguity.
Partnerships across different communities present unique challenges as “worlds collide,”
for example, when the public school district culture comes under the inﬂuence of the
university culture. According to Bolman and Deal (1997), when individuals are told to
do something they do not understand or believe in, they feel puzzled, anxious, and
insecure. Lacking the skills and conﬁdence to implement the new ways, they resist or
even sabotage them, awaiting a return to the good old days. To avoid such a situation,
participants must work out their meaning for the innovation and their place in the culture
of the new organization. Collaboration must be owned by the participants if the

innovation is to be effective, supported, and ultimately sustained.

Theory Building
Introduction
The study of SATURN! provided a unique perspective on school change as this
rural public school district grappled with a major school change initiative. According to
Yin (1994), an exploratory case study presents an opportunity to make a signiﬁcant
contribution to knowledge or practice, as well as to debate the value of further
investigating various hypotheses or propositions. Merriam (1998) stated that theorizing

is a step toward developing a theory that explains some aspect of educational practice

107

and allows a researcher to draw inferences about future activity. This theorizing
concludes with an analysis that involves drawing inferences, developing models, or
generating theory. The trick is to link the conceptual elements (two theories) in some
meaningful way (Merriam, 1998). In the case of SATURN!, two theories were combined
to illustrate the change process more thoroughly—the diffusion-of innovation theory
(Rogers, 1995) and force ﬁeld analysis (Lewin, 1951). The combination of these theories
provided the guiding force behind the conceptual framework, titled Winds of Change.

This conceptual framework or model, shown in Figure 5.1, portrays my
perception of how a school administrator should view school change. In this model, the
tenets of Rogers’s diffusion-of-innovation theory involved a new innovation such as
SATURN! being Communicated across Channels over Time. This model provides a
framework for Time, the Rate of Adoption, and Take-Off or moment of Innovation.
Lewin’s (1951) force ﬁeld analysis was added because, although Rogers’s model
indicates when an innovation was adopted, it does not illuminate the forces that support
and resist the innovation. Diffusion-of-innovation theory alone does not explain why an
adoption occurred, only when it occurred. Force ﬁeld analysis includes the additional
factors of resistance and support, as well as the variables of Loss, Change, Organizational
Theory, and Information Technology. At various times in the innovation process, all of
these factors impeded or supported the innovation of SATURN!, hence affecting the rate
ofadopﬁon.

I hope that the ﬁndings of this single-case study will help school administrators,
both as individuals and as team leaders, as they implement future change initiatives.

Administrators then will ﬁnd it beneﬁcial to think more deeply about the process of

108

WINDS OF CHANGE

INNOVATION

   
   
    
     
 

RESBTANCE

   

  

 
 

S f tiiige
- Org Theory

100% i ‘
90%
not. —W
It —COM ' UNI v «N CHANNELS
60% — CIA STEMS
50% —' , ,
W ii? p Pier»
30% -— \- Change

- Org.Theory
20% — - Information

Technifo—g\

10% F- I I

 

 

Figure 5.1: Winds of Change: How a school administrator should view school change.

109

change and how it affects leadership styles. First, administrators must have the
knowledge and skills to effectively frame processes of communication. As the results of
this study indicated, communication issues proved problematic in the early stages of the
project’s implementation. When these issues were effectively managed, the
implementation process became more successful.

It is also important that administrators possess the skills to manage conﬂict
between and among people, groups, and organizations. One of the major challenges that
faced the project director and other administrators of SATURN! was a university’s
management of multiple middle school sites. The meaning of SATURN! varied greatly
across each segment of the population. As tensions arose during the initial stage of
implementation, conﬂict management proved to be an effective tool for the successful
mediation of problematic issues.

Another challenge for practitioners is to be able to successfully apply their
administrative knowledge and skills to mediate a change event that encourages effective
partnerships focused on learning and teaching. Finally, administrators should be able to
apply the knowledge, skill, and foresight necessary to design governing structures and
funding strategies that enhance the project during all phases of implementation, including

eventual sustainability.

Model for Change: For School Administrators
The conceptual framework of Winds of Change is a useful model to assist school
administrators in confronting and managing issues of school change. Lessons learned

from the SATURN! project are highlighted using this framework. The theories of

110

diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 1995) and force ﬁeld analysis (Lewin, 1951), along with
supporting theories of organizational culture (Schein, 1992), school leadership (Bolman
& Deal, 1997), and educational change (Fullan, 1991) aid in understanding and managing
the process of change within this conceptual model.

What lessons have we learned from the SATURN! project and how a school
administrator should implement the process of change? First, what have we learned
about the importance of the communication process. A learning culture such as the
SATURN! project needs to be built on the assumption that communication and
information are central to organizational well-being; therefore, a multi-channel
communication system deeds to be developed that allows everyone to connect to
everyone else. One of the important roles for SATURN! leaders was to specify for any
given task what the minimum communication system needed to be and what kind of
information was critical to effective problem solving and learning (Schein, 1992).

According to diffusion specialist Everett Rogers (1995), the diffusion process
represents a special type of communication in which the messages are about a new idea,
such as SATURN! The newness of the idea in the message content gives diffusion its
special character. This newness also means that some degree of uncertainty is involved
in diffusion (Rogers, 1995). At the beginning of the SATURN! project, tensions were
created because there was no common set of assumptions and processes for
communication. Issues concerning communication were prevalent during the
implementation of the SATURN! project, not only at the Winbald site, but throughout all

of the consortium sites and SATURN! Central (Southwestern University). Frustration

lll

increased when the communication was poor between sites and between the sites and the
university; conversely, frustration decreased when communication improved.

What have we learned about the role of managing conﬂict in collaboration? The
theme that emerged from the collaborative process throughout the SATURN! project was
that the potential for conﬂict exists whenever incompatible activities occur, such as the
creation of an after-school computer klubhouse. According to Fullan (1991), when
initiating an innovation such as SATURN!, it is prudent to assume that conﬂict and
disagreement are not only inevitable but also fundamental to successful change. Smooth
implementation is often a sign that not much is really changing.

Conﬂict management proved to be an invaluable tool in dealing with the various
negative components of collaboration during the SATURN! project. These components
were jealous or envious high school teachers, a middle school custodian who was
inconvenienced, and personnel at Winbald and Southwestern University who had issues
involving miscommunication. Managing these elements proved critical in making the
initiative 3 success.

What have we learned about the role of partnerships? In the initial stages of the
SATURN! project, ﬁnding a satisfactory arrangement of roles and relationships was an
ongoing struggle in the partnership between the SATURN! school districts and
Southwestern University. As the SATURN! project became ingrained in the culture of
the individual school districts, it also had taken on a cultural role within Southwestern
University. The SATURN! culture presented Dr. Lee, his staff, and the individual site
coordinators with various challenges as the organizational culture began to assume a life

of its own. According to Bolman and Deal (1997), most managers confront enduring

112

structural dilemmas as tough tradeoffs with no easy answers rather than responding to
well-deﬁned problems with a clear-cut solution.

Variations in leadership styles also became problematic for the SATURN!
project. The project began with what seemed to be excessive autonomy. The site
coordinators were given virtual carte blanche to administer their programs as they saw
ﬁt, with little direction from SATURN! Central. According to Bolman and Deal (1997),
when individuals or groups have too much autonomy, people come to feel isolated and
unsupported. Feelings of isolation did indeed exist in the early stages of SATURN! but
were overcome later with improved communication channels that allowed for better
interaction among the sites as well as between the sites and SATURN! Central. We have
learned, then, from examining the role of partnerships in school change that tensions will
arise involving issues of communication, organizational goals, competing leadership
styles, and culture.

What have we learned about funding and governance? The funding designated
for the SATURN! project was speciﬁc and exclusive. Although the project was
substantially funded, the funding aspect created its own unique tensions and also brought
about unforeseen funding demands that surfaced later in the project.

We have also learned that a grant-funded project may exclude more students than
it includes, much like a categorical incentive. Further, selective funding may give rise to
issues of jealousy, which impede the rate of technology innovation, and a grant-funded
initiative may cost a school district far more than anticipated. It is impossible to discuss
funding in the case study of SATURN! without linking funding to leadership. According

to Sarason (1991), the management of resources is insolubly linked to governance and

113

leadership. In the case of SATURN !, the superintendent and the board of education of
Winbald Schools wanted SATURN! to continue after the federal funding expired, and
plans were in motion to make this happen. In this way, then, funding and leadership
were closely linked. Finally, if the superintendent and board of education back an
initiative, it will be funded and thereby bring about some form of change.

Finally, what have we learned about the role of leadership for change? The role
of leadership in the SATURN! project proved essential in supporting the change
initiative. As the originator of SATURN!, Dr. Lee was responsible for providing at-risk
middle school students a safe, technology-rich location to attend after school, and for
using their expertise in addressing and solving community problems through technology.
Beyond this edict from the grant proposal, the design of the project was open to the
interpretation of the leadership of Southwestern University and the individual sites.
There was no other model and few rules to follow.

At the outset, various tensions of hindrance and support did surface, including
issues of communication, collaboration, governance, and funding. According to Schein
(1992), during the process of change, leaders often have to absorb and contain the anxiety
that is unleashed when things do not work as they should. Superintendent Hardy
provided unwavering ﬁnancial support of SATURN !, and site coordinator Mike
McCartney provided leadership through communication and collaboration with the
middle school staff and Southwestern University. Dr. Lee provided a model of stability
during the start-up phase of the project.

What has been learned about the change process, and what are the ramiﬁcations

for leaders? First, implementing a multi-partner change initiative across sites requires a

114

thoughtful and shared understanding of what the role of partnerships entails in
“partnerships in change.” A critical structural challenge for the SATURN! leadership
was to hold their ﬂedgling organization together without holding it back. When
structures are too loose, people go their own ways or get lost, with little sense of what
others are doing. Conversely, structures that are too tight stiﬂe ﬂexibility and cause
people to spend much of their time trying to get around the system (Bolman & Deal,
1997).

Another facet of leadership is to break complex changes into components and
implement them in a divisible or incremental manner (F ullan, 1991). This was the
guiding philosophy of Dr. Lee’s leadership style as the 10 SATURN! sites were given the
autonomy to Operate their klubhouses independently of each other, as long as the goals of
the project were attained. Bolman and Deal (1997) indicated that this style of leadership
represents the paradoxical capacity to stimulate change and pursue high-risk new
ventures while maintaining commitment to core ideology and values.

It is also important to understand how differing organizational purposes and
intentions affect the meaning of an innovation and, in effect, how the innovation is
communicated (hence the importance of the communication process). According to
Schein (1992), a fully connected network can work only if high trust exists among all of
the participants, and that trust is partly a function of leaders’ assumptions that people can
be trusted and have constructive intentions.

Successful leadership requires skills to manage conﬂict in collaboration,
particularly across multi-partner sites. Administrative support proved essential in

establishing and supporting an environment in which implementation could occur.

115

District administrators and Dr. Lee supported the SATURN! project during the early
stages of growth, when most projects experience the highest rate of failure. According to
Schein (1992), the traumas exhibited during the early stages of grth of innovations
appear to be so constant and so powerful that unless a strong leader assumes the role of
anxiety and risk absorber, the group cannot progress through its early stages of growth
and thus will fail.

We has also learned that management of conﬂict may be viewed as management
of the organization’s culture. Schein (1992) considered leadership to consist of the
creation and management of culture. Culture creation, culture evolution, and culture
management are what ultimately deﬁne leadership (Schein, 1992). Dr. Lee’s actions in
establishing a personal relationship with all of the project participants were indicative of
his leadership style. We have further learned that conﬂict need not be negative if it is
managed effectively. During the implementation of SATURN!, the tensions that arose
proved to be a useful vehicle for Dr. Lee to communicate his vision for the project,
communicate with all members of the consortium, and redirect his staff in meeting the
needs of the constituent districts. As Fullan (1991) asserted, conﬂict is an inevitable yet
valuable part of the implementation process.

We have also learned that addressing jealousy and ambiguity through shared
meaning-making and clear, effective, inclusive communication is what makes
innovations work. What’s in it for me? exempliﬁes an individual working out his or her
own meaning for an innovation. According to Habermas (1984/87), it is important for
the leader to focus thinking about organizational change from the broader, general

patterns of change that affect the organization as a whole, down to the difﬁcult

116

psychological adjustment individual members of the organization must make during the
actual implementation process. F ullan (1991) stated that signiﬁcant change involves a
certain amount of ambiguity, ambivalence, and uncertainty for the individual regarding
the meaning of the change. Thus, effective implementation represents a process of
clariﬁcation.

Further, we have learned that governance and resources are not separate variables.
They are closely related and, in this case, very much determined how SATURN! was
presented and innovated. Sarason (1991) contended that, far from being an independent
variable, a program innovation such as SATURN! is enmeshed in the relationship
between governance and the deﬁnition of resources. This interdependence of leadership
and funding was illustrated by the Winbald superintendent’s pledging the support of the
board of education. This ensured the sustainability of SATURN!, allowing it to become
ingrained within the curriculum of the district through adequate funding and
administrative support.

Leadership for change requires that a successful leader understand the role of
partnerships. The leader must also understand the role of differing organizational
purposes and the innovation process. Issues of conﬂict during collaboration as well as
jealousy and ambiguity must also be understood and dealt with. Further, the roles of
funding and governance are closely linked. In the case of SATURN!, Dr. Lee’s effective
leadership was evidenced by his ability to visualize SATURN! and to integrate needs,
roles, power, and symbols to provide direction. The role of leadership also is one of
power, portrayed by Superintendent Hardy’s autocratic leadership in providing

unwavering support and ﬁmding for SATURN!

117

Implications for Further Research

Several themes emerged from this case study that will provide future researchers
with a rich data base for further investigation. The ﬁrst theme concerns the complex
relationships that develop across different institutions as they establish partnerships and
how those partnerships inﬂuence innovations and change processes. For example, is
exploitation an issue when universities form partnerships with K-12 school districts for a
speciﬁc and limited funding initiative? What happens when the funding commitment
expires? What does the organizational structure typically look like in a funding initiative
involving a university and a public school?

The next theme concerns the possibility of creating new organizational structures
that value empowerment, participation, and collaboration and how these values might
drive innovation and change. For example, would the rate of adoption be more rapid and
thorough in an organization that was guided by such principles? Would the
organizational structure of a public school district support this type of leadership for
change?

The third theme concerns the development of usable, applied communication
skills for change agents that assist them in addressing the human side of change, as well
as the politics and economics of the change event. For example, in public school
districts, will the change agents continue to be administrators? If not, what are the
implications for leaders of public schools in delegating and supporting the empowerment
of other staff members? Also, what type of training is available to provide the rich
background that a successful change agent needs to understand the politics of the change

process?

118

The last theme concerns the need to better understand whether and how
information-technology innovations inﬂuence second-order change, actual learning. For
example, Clinton High School in Michigan has established a virtual high school and is
marketing this for-credit service to other school districts. How has this new technology-
based delivery system affected the learning process and culture in the participating
school districts? Another example worthy of further study is a university/public school
research undertaking, called the Jasper Project, that is being developed by a cognition
and technology group at Vanderbilt University. The group is studying the effect of
infusion of technology in a public school district on teaching practice. What has the
Vanderbilt study added to the research in the area of second-order changes and learning?
During the Jasper Project partnership, did similar factors of support and resistance

surface as they did at Winbald? Why or why not?

A Scholar-Practitioner’s Reﬂections

1 have been employed as a school administrator for 24 years, the past six of them
as a superintendent. From this study, I have learned three things about the change
process that I can use in my practice as the superintendent of a class B school district
(2,000 students in grades K-12). The ﬁrst is that change creates adversity, yet when
individuals think they are being treated fairly during the change process, they are more
likely to accept the changes presented to them. The second is that, when a change
initiative is undertaken, conﬂict and disagreement are not only inevitable but also
fundamental to successful change. The third is that a grant-funded initiative may exclude

more students than it includes, much like a categorically funded project.

119

Further, as a new researcher in the ﬁeld of education, I have learned that it is
important to develop writing skills, interviewing skills, and a critical thought process, as
well as being able to conduct accurate evaluations of programs. In the end, my doctoral
journey and especially the dissertation process have helped me become a better and more
thorough observer, listener, and program evaluator. The writing process in particular has
enabled me to gather information from a variety of sources, then synthesize and report it
accurately and descriptively. This skill is invaluable for a school superintendent, who
must communicate effectively on a regular basis with staff, students, and community

members.

120

APPENDICES

121

APPENDIX A

CONTEXT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE COMMUNITY

122

CONTEXT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE COMMUNITY

Introduction

The unique history and demographic characteristics of the Winbald Area School
District, which includes the villages of Winbald, Eden, and Lake Township, are presented
in this appendix. Of these three villages, the village of Eden recently has been of
particular interest to educators and historians because Eden is the former black resort
retreat that was heralded as the Black Eden as recently as 35 years ago. It fell on difﬁcult
times during the late 19505, when integration and the civil rights movement forever
changed the demographics of the nation, this community, and its school district. Another
unique feature of the Winbald area is the world-class trout-ﬁshing river known as the Big
Star. The Big Star River winds throughout the Winbald Area School District and
provides anglers from all over the world an opportunity to ply their ﬁshing skills to snag
the elusive brown trout and steelhead trout in a world-acclaimed ﬁshery.

Next, characteristics of the Winbald Area School District are described in detail.
Then I present an overview of Winbald Middle School, the site of the SATURN!
klubhouse that was the focus of this study. Interviews with Winbald personnel associated
with the project provided information that was useful in understanding the development
and implementation of the SATURN! project at Winbald. The pre-SATURN!

technology capabilities of the district also are discussed.

History and Geography of the Study Setting

To appreciate fully the nuances and logistics of Winbald Area School District, it

is important to recognize the three geographic areas that comprise the district: the

123

villages of Winbald, Eden, and Lake Township, all of which are located in Eden County.
(See Figure A1 for a map of the area.) The unique features of each village are discussed
in the following pages.

Winbald is the county seat and is situated in the middle of one of the state’s top
outdoor recreation areas. The community is located on the Winbald River,
approximately three miles north of where it joins the Big Star River, one of the state’s
ﬁnest canoeing and trout-ﬁshing rivers. There are more than a dozen lakes within just
ﬁve miles of the city limits, including Round Lake, Johnson Lake, and Government
Lake. Winbald is known for the creation of specialty ﬁshing lures and for shops
featuring sports outrigging equipment, hand-crafted gifts, and lumber-era (late 18005)
antiques. Winbald is the center of activity for the many resorts and cottages in the area.
It holds a Troutarama (trout-ﬁshing festival) each summer and hosts the Blessing of the
Bikes (motorcycle jamboree/religious celebration) in May.

Winbald originated in the 18703 during the state’s grand lumber and timber era,
when wood from the area’s abundant white pine was a highly prized commodity. In
1872, the ﬁrst store was built by Jeremiah Marshall, who asked a committee of residents
to give the village an ofﬁcial name. The committee decided on Winbald City, after
Henry P. Winbald, the state’s governor; City was later dropped from its name. Winbald
was given a station or depot on the Big Star Railroad in 1873 and became the county seat
a year later. It was incorporated as a village in 1887 and remains a village today. All
villages in the state have characteristics unique to this particular form of government.

The designation of village or city is the result of history, tradition, legislation, and local

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23...?

29:3

820:

ammo

.88 23...? on. ..o 9.2 H

 

 

5!. .88.
52.2.5.

 

 

..Ew Em

 

A

.0

I

:2... 028m ...... 2.2. .2262 <.

...;E Em 9m

3. as»...

125

 

 

sages...
9.3

 

 

initiative, as opposed to being based on population. A publication by the Makinauk
Municipal League (1994) explains the difference between a city and a village:

The basic difference between a city and a village is that whenever and wherever

an area is incorporated as a village, it stays within the township. The villagers

participate in township affairs and pay township taxes in addition to having their
own village government. Incorporation as a city, however, removes an area from
township government. City dwellers participate in county elections and pay
county taxes as do villages but are removed from township units. Villages in

[Makinauk] are organized primarily to establish local regulatory ordinances and

to provide local services such as ﬁre and police protection, public works and

utilities. Certain of the local duties required by the state are not demanded of the
village but are performed by the embracing township including assessing
property; collecting taxes for counties and school districts; and administering
county, state and national elections.

A village such as Winbald, then, is not a primary unit of local government
because it does not assess or collect taxes (except its own village tax) or conduct a state
election (except its own election). Village territory remains part of a township area,
village citizens are also township voters and taxpayers, and the township government
provides for residents of the village the legally required duties imposed by the state.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the village form of government is that only in
villages are the governmental activities divided between two governments. Village
residents such as those in Winbald live under and support two local units of government,
the village and the township.

Eden County was originally named for a Potawatomi chief, but the name was
changed to Eden in 1843. The vast white pine forests brought the ﬁrst pioneers to the
area. Between 1870 and 1890, the forests were quickly lumbered due to the great

demand for the highly prized state white pine. Selected logs were sent down the Pine,

Little Bend, and Big Star rivers to the neighboring towns of Hardy and Andersenville; the

126

rest were cut in one of Eden County’s 25 sawmills. The lumbering era did not last long
because the lumber barons and lumberjacks cleared the land of the most marketable
white pine and moved on to stake new claims in Canada and the western part of the
United States. With the demise of lumbering, the remaining population of Winbald and
the surrounding area looked toward agriculture and tourism for a livelihood. Because of
the sandy nature of the soil in this area, only a small portion of land was ever cultivated.
Even today, very little commercial farming is done.

Timber and tourism are still the predominant economic activities in Winbald and
the surrounding area. Pulpwood from third-generation red and jack pine is harvested
annually, as are selected stands of hardwood trees such as oak and maple. This timber is
processed locally or shipped to one of the many sawmills in the state. Also, tourism is
rapidly gaining in importance as many of the state’s residents make the one- to three-
hour drive to the Winbald area from major metropolitan areas.

Land in the Winbald area is still affordable and is readily available. This
affordability makes the location attractive to middle- and lower-middle-class retirees
from the state’s metropolitan regions. The heavily forested, easily accessible state
(public) land offers spectacular opportunities for hunting, ﬁshing, snowmobiling, cross-
country skiing, hiking, and camping. Among all of the recreational opportunities in the
area, ﬁshing is the most notable and is almost unlimited due to the vast tracts of state
land and the three major trout streams/rivers that traverse the county. The two most
favored stream trout, which are highly sought by anglers throughout the MidWest, are the
European (German) brown trout and the steelhead trout. It is these ﬁsh that have indeed

put Winbald on the map as one of the top recreational ﬁshing locations in the world.

127

Interestingly, neither the German brown trout nor the steelhead trout is native to
the Winbald area. These trout, which are now so important to the local economy, were
introduced to the state in the late 18003 as a possible solution to the decimation of the
native brook trout. The destruction of the brook trout’s stream habitat was the result of
lumber barons’ inattention to conservation practices as they harvested the white pine.
The logged-over landscape proved fatal to the local brook trout species. As a result,
interested local anglers and business people searched for an alternative ﬁsh to the brook
trout that would thrive in the recently deforested environment. In 1880, the future of
generations of anglers was shaped by the introduction of two new trout species into the
state.

The brown trout, or German brown (Salmo trutta), is a European relative of the
Atlantic salmon and was planted in the Big Star River in Lake Township in 1884; this
was the ﬁrst brown trout stocking in the United States. These resourceful ﬁsh managed
well in the sandy, logged-over watershed areas of Makinauk, which were no longer
suitable for brook and other trout. In addition, the German brown trout could grow faster
and live longer than other kinds of trout. By the early 19208, the river had become a
magnet for Midwest anglers in pursuit of the trout. The Big Star Railroad established
access to the river, and soon many prestigious ﬁshing clubs were established, similar to
the ﬁshing clubs located in the Catskills Mountains in New York state [Online]
(Available: http://ﬂyanglersonline.com/features/ greatrivers/pm/ 1/ 17/01).

The steelhead trout is another success story from the turn of the century. In 1883,
a small planting of 25,000 McCloud River, California, strain ﬁngerlings (steelhead trout

fry) were introduced in the Winbald area’s Little South Branch River. This would signal

128

the start of a world-class steelhead ﬁshery in the Winbald area. Steelhead plantings
continued in the Winbald area between 1880 and 1893, including the Klamath and other
West Coast trout/salmonoid strains, which fused genetically with each other. In 1914,
runs of steelhead were so thick on the Big Star River that laws were being considered to
allow for spearing or netting. Good spawning gravel and holding water were found in the
entire Big Star watershed, including the many tributaries feeding into the river. The
plantings of the steelhead trout resulted in a world-class ﬁshery that is still dynamic
today.

By 1914, the county was regarded as having some of the ﬁnest trout streams in
northern Makinauk, and that tradition continues today. The Big Star River has been
designated a national scenic waterway and is enjoyed by anglers and canoeists alike.

Perhaps One of the most unique communities in the United States is the resort
community of Eden. Eden is a small village near Winbald and is also part of the school
district. This resort community was created to serve African Americans, who were
barred from the segregated white resort communities that existed during the Depression
and World War II. The community was known by the name of Black Eden during the
peak of its popularity in the early part of the 20th century and has also been called “the
luxury resort that discrimination built” (Nolan, 2000).

Eden County was created in 1840, and although the county is not on Lake
Makinauk, it does contain 156 small lakes. The geographic center of the Hardytown
National Forest, it has three famous trout streams, plentiful deer, grouse, and ‘wild turkey.
In the early years of the 20th century, a group of developers bought 2,700 acres of land in

Spring Township around Paradise Lake. The land was 70 miles north of the state’s

129

second largest urban area and 30 miles east of Lake Makinauk. Prominent investors
began to advertise the lots in black newspapers and recruited black salespeople by
offering them a lot for every one they sold.

Small lots, 25 feet x 100 feet, were sold for $35; purchasers put $6 down and paid
$1 a week. A typical ad touted high and dry building sites, beautiful lakes of pure spring
water, perfect hard sandy beaches, beautiful timber, a proﬁision of wildﬂowers and
berries, and myriad game ﬁsh and game (deer, partridge, rabbits) of all kinds.
Excursions were organized for prospective black buyers from urban areas, for groups as
large as a hundred, but usually smaller, who would arrive by bus or train. When the
visitors returned home, the salesmen would visit the city where the excursion had
originated and organized the buyers into the Eden Lot Owners’ Association.

Segregation policies at most resorts kept middle-class blacks from vacationing
comfortably. The concept of a black resort was welcome to those who had encountered
discrimination in their travels. Larry and Lea Jones came from Chicago in 1915, along
with Dr. Richard Douglas Johnson, a prominent black heart surgeon, and other
“pioneers.” These early landowners bought 10 miles of telephone wire and set up their
own telephone company with 13 subscribers. Dr. Johnson’s prominence attracted more
investors, and owning Paradise property became a status symbol.

Another Eden advocate, N. E. T. LaCombe, was the ﬁrst black American to earn a
Ph.D. from Harvard. LaCombe was a strong proponent of a black intelligentsia, whose
leadership would elevate the position of all black people. In 1921, LaCombe. described

Eden in the NAACP magazine:

130

For sheer physical beauty, for sheen of water and golden air, for nobleness of tree
and ﬂower shrub, for shining river and song of bird and the low moving whisper
of sun, moon, and star, it is the beautifulest stretch I have seen for 20 years; and
then add to that fellowship—sweet strong women and keen-witted men from
Canada and Texas, California and New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois-all sons
and great-grandchildren of Ethiopia, all with the wide leisure of rest and play, can
you imagine a more marvelous thing than Eden.

LaCombe bought lots there, although he did never built a home. He also commended the

developers, stating that “Eden is worth every penny.”

These renowned early residents and vacationers gave Eden a caché that attracted
many less famous, middle-class blacks to the Makinauk “Eden.” Blacks who could
afford resort vacations were unwelcome at most white resorts, and with the imprimatur of
the black elite and the area’s natural beauty, Eden had much to offer, as an early
promoter promised: “When you stand in Eden, breathe the fresh air, and note the
freedom from prejudice, ostracism, and hatred, you can feel yourself truly an American
citizen.”

The white developers turned over the resort to the Eden Lot Owners’ Association
in 1921. The Paradise Lake Clubhouse was built on the island in the 105-acre Paradise
Lake. Floors were set on lots along the lake for canvas tents, which later were replaced
by bungalows. Eventually, substantial homes were built for those who could afford
them, many of whom were early real estate investors.

The resort grew from the 1920s through the 19505. The 19405 saw black plant
workers earning good wages in the war effort. A 1957 article mentioned 1,000 summer

homes and rental cottages; 50 motels and lodges; 2 hotels; dozens of shops, grocery

stores, restaurants, nightclubs and taverns, beauty shops, and service stations; a roller-

131

skating rink; a riding stable; and 2 swimming and bathing beaches. At least 13 churches
ﬂourished.

From the 19303 to the 19603, top entertainers from across the country performed
~ at Eden’s clubs: the Flamingo Club, the Paradise Club, and the Purple Palace. The El
Morocco was an after-hours spot, the place to go when the other clubs closed, open until
8 am. Stars who were just starting out and those who were at the peak of their careers
performed at Eden. Their names are legendary: Sarah Vaughan, Cab Calloway, Louis
Armstrong, Della Reese, Dinah Washington, B. B. King, the Four Tops, Aretha Franklin,
Sammy Davis Jr., and Bill Cosby. Moms Mabley, T-Bone Walker, Fats Waller, and
Billy Eckstein performed at Eden as well. Three of the Four Tops met their wives there.
In its heyday, Eden drew as many as 22,000 people on a summer day.

In the 19603, great strides were made toward integration. The 1964 Civil Rights
Act forbade discrimination in housing, and white resorts opened their doors to blacks.
Integration spelled the end of an era for Eden. Across the nation, other resorts became
integrated and blacks left behind Eden and other segregated resorts and clubs for the
more prestigious (and formerly exclusively white) resort areas like Las Vegas, Florida,
Cape Cod, and the Catskills Mountains. And along with the people went the entertainers
who had made Eden so special and unique in American history (Nolan, 2000).

As the civil rights movement brought a rapid end to the popularity of the Eden
resort area, long-time Eden resident Robert Hughley summed up the resort’s demise:
“When that civil rights come on, you could go in anyplace you want to. Now that

knocked Eden down. It was the knife in the back of Eden” (Kotolwitz, 1984).

132

Demographics of the Winbald Area

At the time this study was conducted (April 2000), Eden County’s economy was
heavily dependent on tourism and recreation, and there was little else in the way of
employment opportunities. For a person from Eden County to ﬁnd employment (and
thus health care beneﬁts), he or she often had to commute to a nearby county or city.
Unfortunately, many of the working-age residents could not afford reliable
transportation. In 1997, the population of the county was approximately 10,153, an
increase of 18.3% since 1990. Similarly, the population had increased 11.3% between
1980 and 1990. The population density was 15.12 people per square mile. So, there was
growth in Eden County, but it appeared to be at the older end of the age spectrum and
included mostly retirees who were not native to the area but had built homes and become
permanent residents. To illustrate this point, in 1994 there were 114 births and 142
deaths, yet the county still experienced growth, indicating that the population increase
occurred because of an inﬂux of new residents who were retirees. Twenty-six percent of
the population were under the age of 18, and approximately 50% were over age 65 (US.
Census Bureau, 1995).

In 1995, the ethnic composition of the county was 85% white, 14% black, 1%
Native American, .7% Hispanic, and .1% Asian. The crime rate in Eden was
approximately 8.91%, only slightly lower than that of a nearby metropolitan city (US.
Census Bureau, 1995). Perhaps the most telling statistic regarding Eden County and the
surrounding area is that the number of individuals living below the poverty level was the
same in 1994 as it was in 1989 (26.4%), even though the median household income did

increase between 1990 and 1994—from $14,562 to $16,667 (US. Census Bureau, 1995).

133

Other statistics of interest pertain to educational attainment. According to 1990
census data for Eden County, persons over the age of 25 who were high school graduates
comprised 61.3% of the population, whereas only 6.6% of the population were college
graduates. Public school enrollment totaled 936 students in the 1991-92 school year,
decreased to 876 in 1994-95, and rose to 935 in 1999-2000. The unemployment rate in
1990 was 12.3%, and by 1996 it had improved only slightly, decreasing to 11.2%. This
unemployment ﬁgure was still very high, considering the booming economy that most
other locations in the state experienced between 1990 and 2000.

In conclusion, Eden County is a growing retirement locale with a high poverty
level and a low level of educational attainment among many of the local and lifelong
residents. It is within this environment that Winbald Area Schools must attempt to

deliver a quality education to its students.

Winbald Area Schools

Winbald Area Schools is a small, class-D school district. This size of district is
common in northern rural Makinauk. In contrast, in the more populated regions of
southern Makinauk, the school districts tend to be more suburban, have larger student
populations, and cover fewer square miles. In Makinauk, the class of a school district is
determined by high school population:

A class-D-sized school district equates to a school district with an enrollment of

242 or lower for grades 9-12. This classiﬁcation of school size is dictated by the

[Makinauk] High School Athletic Association and changes yearly. The MHSAA

calculates this average by taking the total number of high school students and the

total number of high schools in the state, then dividing them up into four fairly
equal groups. (Makinauk State High School Athletic Association, 2001)

134

The Winbald district had experienced a decline in enrollment over the past
several years, but the enrollment overall had remained fairly consistent. At the time of
the study, approximately 900 students were enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth
grade. Another 35 students were enrolled in the district’s alternative education program,
which was self-paced and was designed for middle- and high-school-age students who
had not succeeded in the traditional program. Much of the alternative education
curriculum was computer based, and the majority of the instructional techniques and
materials had been adopted from the Winbald SATURN! klubhouse.

Two administrators, both of them principals, were in charge of the middle school
and high school. The remaining nonteaching staff included a general secretary, a special
education secretary, an attendance clerk, a counselor, a receptionist, a student advocate,
and four custodians. In addition, an athletic director and her secretary interacted daily
with the middle and high school students and staff. An organizational chart depicting the
administrative structure of Winbald Middle/High School is presented in Figure A2.
Although the structure is basically hierarchical, there are some interesting features; for
instance, the secretaries and principals appear to have the most access to all groups of
educators and support personnel. The board of education and the superintendent appear
to be the most isolated, according to this organizational chart.

Forty percent of the district’s student population are minorities. Further, students
in the district consistently score in the lowest one-third on the state-mandated Makinauk
Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) and High School Test (HST) assessments.
The statistics included in Table A1 were found on the Makinauk Department of

Education’s web site, which is easily accessible by staff, administrators, and parents.

135

 

Winbald Area Schools Community At Large:
Winbald, Eden. and Lake Townships

\\Board of Edultion
J l

Superintendent of Schools

ll \\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High School Principal Vice/Middle School Principal Elementary Principal

 

A. \J

 

   
  
 

Secretaries

 

 

 

 

i

Athletic Director Counselor Teachers

ll 1? //

Custodians Attendance Clerk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure A2: Administrative structure of Winbald High School and Middle School.

136

Table A1: Enrollment, ﬁnancial, dr0pout/completion, and MEAP/HST statistics for

Winbald Area Schools, 1996-97, 1997-78, and 1998-99.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99
K-12 Enrollment 792 792 756
Pupil/Teacher Ratio 18.3 23.2 18.0
Financial Data
Foundation allowance per pupil 5,621 5,775 5,775
Current operating expenditures per pupil $7,453 $7,177 n/a
Total revenue per pupil $7,861 $7,996 n/a
Average teacher salary $34,830 $41,620 n/a
Dropout/Completion Rates
Dropout rate (1 year) 11.2% 4.2% n/a
Completion/graduation rate (4 years) 63.2% 86.3% n/a
MEAP and HST Results
MEAP—Grades 4 & 7 (Percent Satisfactory)
Math-4th grade 50.0% 52.8% 70.2%
Math—7th grade 22.0% 26.1% 32.1%
Reading—4th grade 36.4% 41.5% 61.7%
Reading—7th grade 16.0% 20.0% 37.7%
MEAP—Grades 5 & 8 (Percent Proﬁcient)
Science—5th grade 9.8% 21.3% 21.7%
Science—8th grade 9.5% 2.5% 8.8%
Writing—5th grade 62.7% 46.8% 33.3%
Writing—8th grade 76.2% 41.0% 67.6%
11th Grade HST (Percent Met or
Exceeded State Standards)
Math—11th grade n/c* 23.5% n/a
Reading—11th grade n/c* 22.2% n/a
Science—11th grade n/c* 23.5% n/a
Writing—11th grade n/c* 21.4% n/a

 

 

As indicated earlier, the students enrolled in Winbald Area Schools are from the
lower socioeconomic strata of society. As a result, many of the ills besetting a
community that is impoverished both economically and academically are present in the
Winbald district, including apathy, low test scores, discipline problems, and a high

dr0pout rate. Still, despite these obstacles to learning, principal Jerry Edwards believed

137

that vocational and technology programs such as SATURN! could make a difference in
an at-risk school district such as Winbald. He stated,

I don’t care who you bring in here as leadership and what you do, we’re just not
going to tear MEAP [Makinauk Educational Assessment Program] scores up. We
are not going to be up there with the top group. It’s the clientele we work with.
But you can see how our kids with hands-on programs and vocational programs
can excel. Sometimes we get so caught up that we measure everybody by
college-bound. Or how many kids do well on the ACT or the SAT and how well
they do on MEAP scores because that’s what the governor wants. But you know
what? I have a different theory, working in an at-risk district like this, and I’ve
worked at one before as a teacher. If we can produce a kid who can go out and be
a mechanic or build a house okay, and is doing something positive, contributing,
raising a family and doing the right thing, there’s certainly nothing wrong with
that. And that ties in with this SATURN! klubhouse in a sense, because you can
go around and see the talents of many of our students. In these types of hands-on
programs that they’re doing, they can see the development and it encourages
them. And I’ll go look at the same kid in the classroom, and this kid is barely
passing. So what does that tell you?

The reason that this program has been so good for this district is that there
just aren’t any things for kids to do here [in Winbald]. People are starting to
come to our school. So for us to have this [SATURN!] for our kids, an after-
school program like this, on a consistent basis, and have two people to run the
program and have their hearts into running a good program, there's a line outside
the door every night for kids to be in this room. In this community, there just isn't
anything else for them to do. This program has been a godsend for our school. It
really has. And what great publicity, because sometimes Winbald just hasn't had
the greatest publicity. But this SATURN! klubhouse has brought us more
positive publicity in the last two years since I've been here than probably any
other program that we have going districtwide. (Interview transcript, April 11,
2000)

There was a growing spirit in Winbald among staff and students that translated into a
quest for being on the cutting edge of technology and being a part of something new.
People were making a conscious effort to refuse to make do with conditions of the past
and promote the positive aspects of the school district.

Teacher Cindy Hapsburg related how the SATURN! project had infused her and

her students with a renewed enthusiasm for teaching and learning:

138

Even for me it’s changing how we’re thinking about teaching because it used to
be I had to train the kids [to use] the computer. I would take them over for
English class or for social studies, whatever, to research. I would have to train
them all. Now they’re already trained. They’ve got them trained before they
come—you know, before we start going into the computer lab. So that saves me
tons of time, saves all the teachers tons of time. Plus the kids are doing some
things that enable them to bring stuff back to the classroom. They can do a
PowerPoint presentation [in the] classroom but put it together in SATURN! It’s
given them a really great background and they can teach the other kids, so it’s a
time saver. It helps give them other options. For me, we’re talking about doing a
web museum. I would never in a million years have thought to do a web museum
for Eden. But now the kids are making web pages and they’re getting exposed to
HTML, which is something I didn’t even know about. I used to be able to
program computers and I never even talked about HTML, and they’re doing it. I
was just sitting here talking to the kids last hour and saying, “You know, you’re
using Dream Weaver [software program]; are you doing your own HTML?” And
the kid looks at me and says, “Yeah, I have to do some of it.” I mean, what are
the odds that an ll-year-old kid would learn HTML? (Interview transcript, April
11,2000)

Before the early 19803, the district had experienced relatively little racial strife

and possessed a strong athletic tradition. However, several polarizing incidents occurred

in the 19803 between black athletes and white coaches. As a result of this conﬂict, for

many years the district had not been able to ﬁeld teams that were competitive in their

athletic conference. According to high school principal Jerry Edwards:

It isn’t that Winbald Schools doesn’t have the athletes necessary to compete; just
the opposite is true. One of the reasons I came to Winbald was that I’m a sports
guy, and this school looked like it could really compete. Look at the athletes here
in the hallways! I found out quickly, though, that most of the black athletes just
didn’t go out for sports. (Interview transcript, April 10, 2000)

Jerry explained that the divisive incidents had involved an overly aggressive, racist white

coach and equally aggressive and bigoted black players and their families. This

combination led to a volatile situation, with the team, coaching staff, families, and school

district personnel spending more time contending with each other than they did playing

basketball and other team sports. As a result, the situation had taken on almost legendary

139

or mythical status and appeared to be become ingrained in the black community. As a
result, many of the most talented black athletes at Winbald did not go out for sports.

Principal Edwards surmised that this lack of competitiveness or unwillingness to
compete due to racial tensions was another reason for the low morale and high attrition of
some students. Before the early 19803, Winbald sports and athletic competition had been
a source of great pride in the community. The trophies and statues displayed in the
school’s trophy case were a testament to that former pride and prowess. That was no
longer the case. Principal Edwards went on to say that, as far as he knew, neither the
school district nor the community had ever taken steps to address this situation. Yet be
strongly believed that, for the district to move forward, it was imperative that these issues
be brought to the forefront of the school and the community for resolution (Interview

transcript, April 11, 2000).

Winbald Middle School

In this study, I concentrated on Winbald Middle School, the site of the SATURN!
klubhouse. The middle school, located in the village of Winbald, was attached to the
high school. The cafeteria and library formed the middle section of the school and
separated the two student populations. The new elementary school was to be located on
the same campus but would be separate from the middle/high school.

The middle/high school building was sound yet simple in design, and was
constructed of concrete blocks. It needed minor repairs in various areas, as do so many
school buildings of the 19503, which were constructed with limited resources to meet the

needs of a growing post-World War 11 population. In addition to the minor repairs, major

140

renovations also were scheduled for the middle/high school. A successful bond issue, the
ﬁrst one to pass after many failed attempts, will fund these improvements—the ﬁrst major
renovation to any building in the district in more than 30 years!

According to principal Jerry Edwards, John Hardy, the Winbald superintendent,
was the major impetus behind the building project in the community. Jerry thought the
new elementary school building, the renovated middle/high school, and the SATURN!
project would get the community to believe in itself. Jerry described the impact that the
Winbald superintendent had had on the schools’ building project, SATURN!, and the
concept of community education in bringing more educational opportunities to the
citizens of the district:

He’s [Superintendent Hardy] a community education guy; he’s an alternative
education guy. That’s part of the reason they hired him here. Because he’s
community based, and he’s good, he’s a politician. I’ll tell you, he’s very, very
good out there, and he got the bond passed by seven votes; it hadn’t been done
since 1951, 1952. Okay, he got this beautiful building, and you’ve been around
enough to know these people had no idea that this could become the reality for
them. So what they needed was somebody to show them how. And he went in,
and he showed them how you could pass this millage for a bond and you could
get this, and you can get this, and they look around and they go “Wow!” They’d
never been exposed to this. They think Pleasantville [an afﬂuent suburb and
school district 50 miles away] is another world, to have a building like that or
some other beautiful building. They understand that now we’re climbing the
ladder!

‘ It’ll be nice when this [parking lot] gets paved and you get those portables
[classrooms] out of here, you get the new parking lot coming in here. People are
not going to believe what’s here. And, h0peﬁilly, that will raise the expectation
level of the whole community. That’s part of the reason they wanted John,
because he’s community education. He said, “I’ll bring your dropout rate down,
I’ll keep these kids, I’ll get an alternative program built up.” You know, we’ve
got a lot of work to do with that yet, but we have one in place. That’s a net before
they fall out in the street; we catch ‘em. (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

Superintendent Hardy passionately believed that the Winbald district needed to

move forward, not only with the building project to upgrade facilities, but also in other

141

areas such as curriculum. The SATURN! project was a perfect vehicle to promote the
district’s support of technology education. John explained:

Everyone knows the SATURN! kids. That’s why the Chamber of Commerce

came to the school asking them to design a web site—because they heard about the

SATURN! kids and their work. The local newspaper will call and ask, “Can the

kids cover this for us?” And so it’s becoming that they are getting a reputation in

this town as the SATURN! kids. (Interview transcript, April 10, 2000)

At the time of the study, in April 2000, the high school and middle school
principals were both relatively new to the Winbald district and the ﬁeld of
administration. The high school principal, Jerry Edwards, was 35 years old and had been
an administrator for ﬁve years, three of them at Winbald. He was satisﬁed with his
position and was not looking for other employment opportunities. The middle school
principal, Philis Dundee, was 32 years old and had been an administrator for three years,
two of them at Winbald. A black woman, she had graduated from Winbald High School.
She was working toward her Ph.D. in educational administration and was looking for
other employment opportunities.

Both principals had innovative ideas, such as exploring block scheduling and
teaching with technology. Philis spoke about the importance of integrating technology
into the curriculum and the value of SATURN! as a method of curriculum delivery:

I think, with the population we serve, that it’s excellent for them to have that

exposure to computers. A lot of them don’t have computers at home. I know

from my own experience that the skills that they are learning, like how to use

Power Point and how to make web pages, are going to be valuable skills for them

if they choose to go on in their education. And I think that if everybody can get

that in just a 55-minute computer class, they will have a chance. So it has helped
us see that they can beneﬁt from exposure to this technology at an early age, and

that will include what we try to offer. I would also say that I know it impacts the
teachers as well. (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

142

Jerry Edwards also had deﬁnite ideas regarding the use of SATURN! as an
instructional-delivery tool in a challenging educational environment:

I see our kids excelling with this SATURN! klubhouse, and the superintendent

and I are saying this is maybe the direction we need to go a little more, start to

emphasize and get more programs like this. Maybe we need to look at getting
more vocational programs. I’m not saying you eliminate language arts, math, or
science. But let’s look at incorporating them more into an applied way. I don’t
exactly know how to do that right now, but our kids are learning here in the

SATURN! klubhouse. I’ve seen the things that they can do here, and I see the

same kids in the classroom getting D’s and E’s. Something doesn’t work. So the

interest level is here and [also] the motivation. You know, if you’re interested
and you’re engrossed in learning, the need for discipline goes down. When

you’re not, discipline goes up. (Interview transcript, April 1 1, 2000)

Although both principals appeared to be tired during the interviews, they became very
animated when talking about the SATURN! project. They exuded a positive attitude and
genuine concern for the children of the Winbald Area School District.

The middle school (grades 6 to 8) had 10 teachers, 5 support staff members
(secretaries and teacher aides), and approximately 200 students. Three of the teachers
had been with the district for more than 20 years. The other seven teachers were relative
newcomers to the district, having taught there for two to eight years. The support staff
had more tenure in the district; their average length of service was approximately 12
years. Teachers and support staff lived in the Winbald district as well as outside the
district. Neither the board nor community members had stated a preference for hiring
only local staff (Winbald High School graduates).

Winbald students were bused by a commercial transportation company, with
which the district had a contract. So instead of the traditional yellow school buses

carrying Winbald students to and from school, they rode in light-blue buses that sported

the local transportation company’s logo. These buses also delivered the SATURN!

143

klubhouse students to their homes following the after-school klubhouse session. One of
the district’s school board members owned and operated this transportation company. He
and all of the other board members were very supportive of the SATURN! project.
According to Superintendent Hardy, the project had brought the district and the Winbald
Board of Education an inﬂux of much-needed positive publicity. He stated, “Everyone
knows the SATURN! kids. . . . They are getting a reputation in this town as the
SATURN! kids. Maybe more kids are involved with SATURN! than in sports, which is
a real positive thing for our community and district” (Interview transcript, April 11,
2000).

Principal Jerry Edwards echoed the positive sentiment of board support for the
SATURN! project. But he also indicated it might represent board support for
Superintendent Hardy as much as for SATURN! He stated,

That’s part of the thing he wants to do . . . try and get the SATURN! idea going in

community education. This community needs it and would thrive on it.

[Through] the construction of the new school and the things we hope to offer, he

hopes to really expand and get the old community education concept from the

‘703 going again. This would be a big part of it. So there’s a lot of good things
going on. But it takes time. (Interview transcript, April 11, 2000)

Pre SATURN! Technology Capacity

Before the advent of the SATURN! project, the Winbald School District had
limited information technology capabilities. Just one middle school computer lab, which
was created in early 1992, served both middle and high school students throughout the
entire district. Before the middle school was joined with the high school, the' computer
lab had been housed in a separate building. The classes that were taught in this lab

included word processing and introduction to BASIC (Beginner’s All-Purpose Symbolic

144

Instruction Code) programming. By today’s standards, the computers were archaic
(IBM-PC 286 technology versus Pentium II/Windows 2000), yet they remained an
integral part of the district’s technology program until the SATURN! klubhouse project
was implemented.

In 1994, the high school installed a lab that had 20 computers with Windows 3.1
capabilities; these were stand-alones (not networked as they were in the SATURN! lab).
This lab was used for business or ofﬁce-machines-oriented classes, and a word-
processing class using Microsoft Word was offered. Although the new Pentium I
computers were greatly advanced over the 286-chip models, they were still used to teach
business classes in much the same way that beginning typing and accounting had been
taught in the 19503 and 19603. The computers were upgraded every year; however, when
the SATURN! lab was established at the middle school, it became apparent that the high
school computer lab was woefully underpowered. This disparity in computer labs caused

major tensions between the high school and middle school staffs.

145

APPENDIX B

INTRODUCTORY LETTERS, CONSENT FORMS, AND APPROVAL
LETTERS FROM THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON
RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

146

Letter to Introduction to Potential Interview Participants

December 10, 1999
Dear (Participant’s Name),

This letter is written to invite you to participate in an interview that will take
place during the months of December and January at your school district. The purpose of
this interview is to consider various aspects of the implementation of the SATURN!
project throughout last year (1998-99). The session will be informal, and the questions
will be focused in the area of program implementation.

This individual interview will serve as one data source for my dissertation study
through Southwestern University. Your participation will be very valuable because your
perspectives as a SATURN! project participant are important in understanding how
rewarding, yet sometimes frustrating, implementing a new program such as SATURN!
can be.

The information gathered through this interview will, of course, be conﬁdential,
and you will be assigned a pseudonym to further ensure conﬁdentiality. The comments
you make may show up as a written record, but not in such a way that you will be
speciﬁcally identiﬁed. There will be no positive or negative consequences due to your
participation or nonparticipation as far as the project is concerned. However, you may
ﬁnd it valuable to consider discussing interesting and relevant factors of the SATURN!
project with other project personnel, from both the school districts and Southwestern
University.

Attached is a conﬁrmation form that indicates your interest in participating in the
interview. Please complete this conﬁrmation form and return it to me by January 5,
2000. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jan C. Amsterburg
13428 East Ziegler Road
DeTour Village, MI 49725

Jana@eup.k12.mi.us
906.297.2000

147

Consent Form-Individual Interview

I agree to participate in the study of the role of institutional (school district and
Southwestern University) support and resistance involved in the implementation of the
SATURN! project.

I have read the letter from Jan Amsterburg dated December 10, 1999, which brieﬂy
describes the purposes and procedures of the research. The letter includes his name,
address, and methods of communication in case I have any questions or concerns
regarding the study.

I understand that my participation in this study requires me to participate in a face-to-face
interview that may last approximately 45 minutes. I am aware of and understand that all
interview data will be held in the strictest conﬁdence and that my identity will not be
disclosed in any form during the preparation or completion of this study. I understand
that my participation in this study is completely voluntary and that I may ask for the tape
recorder to be turned off at any time, that I may choose not to respond to any question,
and that I may withdraw from the study at any time with no repercussions.

 

 

Signature Date

148

Letter to Interviewees

I’m Jan Amsterburg, Superintendent of DeTour Area Schools, community agency
person with SATURN!, and also a doctoral student at Southwestern University. I am
currently studying the SATURN! project in your school district. Your district was
chosen for this study due to its rural location, demographics, and success as a SATURN!
site. Since the inception of the SATURN! project, I have been very interested in the
dynamics that have occurred as this program has been introduced or “diffused” into each
of the participating school districts. There have been examples of support and resistance
from personnel in the local districts as well as Southwestern University during the ﬁrst
year of this project. The purpose of my study is to identify these areas of support and
resistance to the SATURN! project in your district. My dissertation is centered on what
has helped and hindered the process of bringing SATURN! to the Winbald School
District.

Before I conduct the individual interview, I would like to ask you to draw a “road
map” for me of how you visualize the implementation of the SATURN! program in your
district. Please begin this map with a straight roadway to signify the program beginning,
and then proceed by highlighting last year. Feel free to include all the conditions you
feel SATURN! went through, such as curves, roadblocks, passing zones, rest areas, toll
booths, or anything else you might visualize in relation to the support or resistance
involving your role in the SATURN! project. Please draw this “road map” on one page
of paper, and then we will talk about your journey extensively when I visit. The
interview will consist of in-depth discussion of your “road map.” Thank you so much for
your time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jan C. Amsterburg

13428 East Ziegler Road
PO. Box 267

DeTour Village, MI 49725

149

Letter of Consent—Document Analysis

I agree to participate in the study of the role of institutional (school district and
Southwestern University) support and resistance involved in the implementation of the
SATURN! Project.

I have read the letter from Jan Amsterburg dated December 10, 1999, which brieﬂy
describes the purposes and procedures of the research. The letter includes his name,
address, and methods of communication in case I have any questions or concerns
regarding the study.

I understand that my participation in this study requires me to participate by providing
SATURN! documents (e-mail) related to this project. I am aware and understand that all
of the documents provided will be held in the strictest conﬁdence and that my identity
will not be disclosed in any form during the preparation or completion of this study. I
understand that my participation in this study is completely voluntary and that I may
withdraw from the study at any time with no repercussions.

 

 

Signature Date

150

 

OFFICE or
RESEARCH
AND

GRADUATE ,
swore ’

  

Inlvarslty Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
46 Administration Building
East Lansing. Michigan
48824-1046

51 ”355-21 80

FAX 517/3532976
www.msu.edu/user/ucrihs
E-Mail: ucrihsGmsuedu

'he Mb‘iiom State University
DEA is institutioml Diversity.

Era/m in Action
MSU is m emits-action

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R s I r Y

 

April 20, 2001
TO: Maenette K. BENHAM
430 Erickson Hall
RE: IRB # 99-808 CATEGORY: EXPEDITED 2-G

RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: April 19, 2001

TITLE: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: A STUDY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 'KLICK!" IN A
RURAL MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the
UCRtI-IS APPROVED TI- .18 PROJEC‘"S.- RENEWAL.

This letter also approves the revised consent form.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form.
A maximum of four such expedited renewal are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in
your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Shouldeither of the following arise during the course of the work, notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects
or 2) changes in the'research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human
subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@piIot.msu.edu.

 
  

Ashir Kumar, MD. I
Interim Chair, UCRIHS

Abid

cc: Jan Amsterburg
13428 East Ziegler Rd.
DeTour Village. Mi 49725

151

 

OFFICE or
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

nlvorclty Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
16 Administration Building
East Lansing. Michigan
48824-1046

517/355-2180

FAlt 517/353-2976
www.mu.edu/user/ucrihs
E-Mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

he Midiigan Sure University
064 is irIsriarrIbnaI Diversity
Balm in Action.

MICHIGAN STATE

 

UNIVERSITY

February 3, 2000

TO: Maenette K. BENHAM
425 Erickson Hall

RE: IRB# 99-808 CATEGORYz2-G .
APPROVAL DATE: February 3, 2000

TITLE: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: A STUDY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
”KLICK!" IN A RURAL MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review “of this
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare .of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green
renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to
continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB#
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments.
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new Information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance please contact Us at 517 355-2180 or ‘via email:
UCRIHS@piIot. msu. edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http Izlwww. msu. edu/univargs/UCRIHS/

David E. Wright, Ph.D.
DEW: bd

cc: Jan Amsterburg
13428 East Ziegler Rd.
DeTour Village, Mi 49725

 

152

REFERENCES

153

REFERENCES

American Library Association. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for
learning. Chicago: American Library Association & The Association for

Educational Communications and Technology.

Anderson, G., & Solveig, M. (1992). The diffusion of computers as an innovation in _a_
rpm! school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gonzaga University,
Pennsylvania.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1994). Multiple
intelligences in the classroom (ASCD curriculum handbook). Alexandria, VA:
Author.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1998). Learning with
technology (ASCD yearbook). Alexandria, VA: Author.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1999). Preparing our schools
for the 213t century (ASCD yearbook). Alexandria, VA: Author.

Axelson, M., & Hardy, L. (1999). As web-based curriculum grows, are textbooks
obsolete? Electronic School 186(6).

 

Benham, M. (1998). Case studies for school administrators. Lancaster, PA: Technomic
Publishing.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1995). Leading with soul. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Branch, A. (2000a, November). Michigan to spend $110 million in massive infusion of
computers in schools. Curriculum Administrator 36(10).

 

Branch, A. (2000b, November). Parents counting more on the Internet to keep in touch

with schools. Curriculum Administrator, 36(10).

Caimcross, F. (1997). The death of distance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.

Cameron, J. (1992). The artist’s waL New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

154

Cirone, B. (2001, February). The computer goes home. American School Board
Journal 188(2).

 

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dooley, K. W. (1995). The diffusion of computer technology and telecommunications:

A comparative case study of middle schools in the Texas Education
Collabor;_ative. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University.

Education trends, issues, resources and technology. (1999). Curriculum Administrator
35(2)-

 

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Evans-Wentz, W. Y. (1960). The Tibetan book of the dead. London: Oxford
University Press.

F olger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1999). Unfaimess and resistance to change: Hardship as

mistreatment. MCB Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1) [On-
line]. Available: http://ww.emerald-library.com/brev/023 12ac1 .htm

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluation researph in
education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Freeman, A. (1983). The network nation-The relevance of this for possible educational
and general public administrative structures and strategies in the 1980's and
1990's. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change, New York: Teachers’
College Press.

Garner, R., & Zhao, Y. (In press). Distant ideas, local shapes: After school centers in

four rural communities in Michigan. Computers in Human Behavipr, 16, 301-
311.

Garner, R., & Zhao, Y. (In preparation). Rootedness and rural education in Upper
Peninsula communities in Michigan.

Garson, G. D. (1997). Computer technolpgy and social issues. Harrisburg, PA: IDEA
Group.

Glickrnan, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gress, J. R., & Purpel, D. E. (1988). Curriculum: An introduction to the ﬁeld.
Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.

155

Habermas, J. (1984/87). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hess, G. A., Jr. (1992). Empowering teachers and parents. Westport, CT: Bergin &
Garvey.

Hoekstra, H., Vink, M., & A Fa, R. T. (1998). Force ﬁeld analysis [On-line]. Available:
http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl~om_prj/MEE98/misop016/nodel .htrnll

Kahin, B., & Keller, J. H. (1997). Coordinating the Internet. Cambridge:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Khosrowpour, M. (1994). Information technology and organizations: Challenges of
new technologies. Harrisburg, PA: IDEA Group.

Lane, C. (1999, February). The distﬂce learning technology resource guide [On-line].
Available: http://www.tecweb.org/eddevel/steps.html

Larsen, T. J., & McGuire, E. (1998). Information systems innovation and diffusion:
Issues and directions. Harrisburg, PA: IDEA Group.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers (ed. D.
Cartwright). New York: Harper & Row.

Maier, N. R. F ., & Verser, G. C. (1983). Psychology in industrial organizations (5th
ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifﬂin.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McDaniels, G. (1999). Public schools get high marks for communication education

reform. Curriculum Administrator, 35(4), 11.

McKenzie, J. (2001). Head of the class. Electronic School: A Supplement to the
American School Board Journal 188(1). (Entire issue)

 

McNeill, D., & Freiberger, P. (1993). Fuzy logic. New York: Touchstone Books,
Simon & Schuster.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Boston: Beacon Street Press.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Nardi, B. A., & O’Day, V. L. (1999). Information ecologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

156

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1999). Information literacy.
Reston, VA: Author.

Owens, R. G. (1998). Organizational behavior in education. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Pickard, A. J. (1998). The impact of access to electronic and digital information

resources on learning opportunities for young people: A grounded theory
approach. Newcastle, UK: University of Northumbria at Newcastle.

 

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E, & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly, New York: Random House.

Race, A. (2001). Teaching and technology: A decade of change. Cable in the
Classroom 11(2).

 

Regan, B. W., & Athenia Associates. (1996). Model Java: One year out [On-line].
Available: http://www.webreference.com/content/java/difﬁise.html [1998,
November 22]

Rochin, G. I. (1997). Trapped in the net. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovation (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation, A systematic approach (5th ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sarason, S. B. (1993). The case for change. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.
Sarason, S. B. (1996). Barometers of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. (1992). Small districts, big problems. Newbury
Park, CA: Corwin Press. '

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

157

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1995). Foundations of program
gvaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Siegal, W., Church, A. H., Javitch, M., Waclawski, J ., Burd, S., Bazigos, M., Yang, T-F,
Anderson-Rudolph, K., & Burke, W. W. (1996). Understanding the management
of change: An overview of managers’ perspectives and assumptions in the

1990's. MCB Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(6) [On-line].
Available: htrp://www.emera1d-libgarycom/brev/oZ309fe1.htm

Stephens, C. U., & Cobb, A. T. (1999). A Habermasian approach to justice in
organizational change synthesizing the technical and philosophical perspectives.

MCB Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1) [On-line].
Available: http://www.emerald-Iibrary.com/brev/Ol212abl .htm

Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil. New York: Doubleday.

Surrey, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. Diffusion theory and instructional technology [On-
line]. Available: http://usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/volZno1/surry/surry.htm

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Boston, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context
of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and
organizational settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexily: The emerging science at the edge of order and

chaos. New York: Touchstone Books, Simon & Schuster.

Washington-Bunkley, W. C. (1988). Computer technology in Ohio schools: An

investigation of its adoption, implementation, and outcomes. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The University of Akron, Ohio.

 

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weiss, C. H. (1972). mluation research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wheatley, M. (1994). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Yin, R. (1994). Case studuesearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

158

Zhao, Y. (1998). let century communiry learning center grant application. KLICK! of
kids learning in computer klubhouses. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Zhao, Y. (1999, March 5). Technology—What’s it good for and what’s the impact?
MASB Headlines (Michigan Association of School Boards Journal),

Zucchermaglio, C., Bagnara, S., & Stucky, S. U. (1995). Organizational learning and
technological change (NATO ASI Series). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

159