IN F O R M A T IO N TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
film* the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
H ie quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

A Belt & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

THE SUSTAINING OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM: AN EXAMINATION OF THE
STATUS OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICES
IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

By

Carmen S. Zeigler

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1995

UMI Number:

9619932

UMI Microform 9619932
Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI

300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103

ABSTRACT

THE SUSTAINING OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM: AN EXAMINATION OF THE
STATUS OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICES
IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
By
Carmen S. Zeigler

The actual assessment of the change process, the period of time between
innovation and institutionalization, usually labeled implementation, is difficult to
measure and yet is critical to the continuation of educational reform. The researcher
focused on the continuation of educational reform by examining the status of
organizational
implementation

components

and

administrative

practices

related

to

the

of developmentally appropriate practices (DAP) throughout

Michigan.
The study population comprised 162 elementary principals from 86 school
districts that had a policy for, or strongly encouraged, DAP at the elementary level.
Elementary principals responded to a four-part survey instrument developed by the
researcher, and a follow-up telephone survey conducted by the researcher.
It was found that in school districts where DAP had been implemented at
specific grade levels, principals reported that the organizational factors related to

Carmen S. Zeigler
professional development, classroom practices, transitions for children and families,
and resources for implementation were in evidence in their schools. Three areas of
school climate-parents involved in the development and planning for implementing,
staff having a choice as to whether or not they participate in the implementation, and
the actions of the collective bargaining unit supporting the implementation of DAP-were identified to be in evidence in less than 60% of the schools.
There were significant relationships between the organizational components
and administrative practices of the principal.

The leadership of the principal,

teachers knowing the principal expects them to implement, and the principal talking
to parents about DAP were three practices that appeared to influence the change
process, more than the principal’s knowledge and understanding, the principal being
responsible for the implementation,

or the principal receiving training for

implementing DAP. It was also found that a majority of schools had not evaluated
the implementation of DAP and that principals were concerned about teachers not
implementing not being supportive of DAP, assessment practices related to student
outcomes, and moving DAP into other grade levels.

The findings suggest that

successful implementation of a major reform is ongoing and takes eight years or
longer, and that planning for change from an organizational perspective is required
in order to have sustained systemic change.

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Karl. Thank you for loving me
enough to let me finish.
To my mother, Joanna Miller, for always being there and never asking why.

Memorial
In memory of my dad, Milton Miller. He knows why.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writing of a dissertation, like change, is a process, not an event. It is a
process of personal as well as professional growth that goes through a number of
phases. The process would have been impossible without the guidance, support,
encouragement, and enduring patience of my family, friends, colleagues, and
dissertation committee. It is with deep appreciation that I acknowledge them.
To Dr. Samuel Moore II, the chair of my dissertation committee, thanks for
never giving up on me, and for knowing that the decision to finish had to be mine,
not yours.
To Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik, thank you for your gentle mentoring and for the
guidance and direction you have given to teachers for developmentally appropriate
practices for children around the world.
To Drs. Steve Kaagen and Peggy Reithmiller, please accept my appreciation
and thankfulness for your time and contributions.
To my colleagues, Dr. Teresa Zumsteg, Dr. Caryn Wells, Dr. Joan Firestone,
and Dr. Janet Burns, thanks for taking time to listen and offer advice. To Dr. Gene
Hall, thanks for sharing your expertise and providing direction and support. Many
thanks to my neighbor and friend, Peg Oke, for reading drafts and gently suggesting
revisions.

To Dr. Lindson Feun, thank you for always taking time in your busy schedule
to discuss statistics and for providing access to the technology needed to analyze
these data.
My sincere gratitude to Sue Cooley Miller for answering a prayer and pulling
the entire dissertation together.
To my staff and my family, all of whom encouraged and supported this
endeavor with their words and actions. You have all been very patient.
To all of you for never doubting that this process would become a product.
Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF T A B L E S .............................................................................................................. x
LIST OF F IG U R E S .......................................................................................................

xii

Chapter
I.

THE P R O B L E M ..........................................................................................1
Introduction.................................................................................................1
Purpose of the S tu d y ................................................................................ 4
Statement of the P ro b le m ....................................................................... 4
Importance of the Study ........................................................................16
Research Questions ...............................................................................17
Assumptions and Clarification.............................................................. 18
Definition of Terms .................................................................................19
Summary and Overview ....................................................................... 21

II.

REVIEW OF THE L IT E R A T U R E ......................................................... 23
Developmentally Appropriate Practices ............................................24
Definition .............................................................................................. 24
History of the Implementation of Developmentally
Appropriate Practices ..................................................................... 27
Philosophy of Developmentally Appropriate P ractices................ 28
Obstacles Between Theory and P ra c tic e ....................................... 29
Critical Themes Affecting Early Childhood
Restructuring..................................................................................... 33
Key Issues That Enter Into the Quality Implementation
of Early Childhood Programs ....................................................... 35
The Process of Change ....................................................................... 41
The Role of the Principal in Facilitating C h a n g e .............................. 53
S um m ary................................................................................................... 56

vii

III.

M ETHODS AND P R O C E D U R E S ....................................................... 57
Introduction..............................................................................................57
Research Questions and Hypotheses................................................ 58
Research D esig n.....................................................................................59
Phase 1: Identification of Survey C om ponents............................60
Phase 2: Development of the Survey Instrument .......................61
Phase 3: Pretesting and Piloting the Instrum ent......................... 63
Phase 4: Collecting Information for Selecting the Sample . . . 64
Phase 5: Data-Collection Procedure and Sample Selection . . 66
Phase 6: Analysis of the D a t a ......................................................... 68
S u m m ary.................................................................................................. 70

IV.

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA ....................................................... 72
Introduction..............................................................................................72
Characteristics of the S a m p le ..............................................................74
Results Regarding the Research Q uestions.....................................81
Research Question 1 ......................................................................... 81
Research Question 2 ......................................................................... 93
Research Question 3 ....................................................................... 109
Follow-Up Telephone Interview s....................................................... 114
Alternative Programs for Young C hildren..................................... 115
Teachers in Grades Not Implementing Developmentally
Appropriate Practices Not Supporting the P ractices
116
Bargaining Unit S up port...................................................................117
Implementation History ...................................................................118
Concerns Regarding Implementation............................................ 119
Continuation of Developmentally Appropriate Practices . . . . 120
Developmentally Appropriate Practices Influencing Other
R eform s............................................................................................120
S u m m ary.................................................................................................121

V.

ANALYSIS, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOM M EN­
DATIONS. AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

. . . 122

Introduction............................................................................................122
S u m m a ry.................................................................................................122
Purpose .............................................................................................. 122
The Study Population....................................................................... 123
M e a s u re s ............................................................................................ 124
Data Collection...................................................................................125
Major Findings of the Study .............................................................. 125
Demographic D a t a ............................................................................ 126
viii

Organizational Com ponents............................................................ 127
Administrative Practices...................................................................147
Other Findings....................................................................................... 149
History of Implementation .............................................................. 149
Continuation of Developmentally Appropriate Practices . . . . 151
Summary.of Findings .......................................................................... 152
Status of Developmentally Appropriate Practices .................. 153
Relationship Between Organizational Components and
Administrative Practices .............................................................. 153
Concerns Related to the Implementation of Developmentally
Appropriate Practices ...................................................................154
Discussion.............................................................................................. 154
Recommendations .............................................................................. 158
Suggestions for Further Research ................................................... 159
APPENDICES
A.

The Survey Instrument ......................................................................... 161

B.

Letter and Survey Sent to District Superintendents

C.

Letter of Transmittal ..............................................................................170

D.

Follow-Up Postcard................................................................................ 171

E.

Written Comments From the Survey Instrum ent..............................172

F.

Responses to the Follow-Up Telephone Interviews .......................177

G.

Approval Letter From U C R IH S ........................................................... 182

.......................168

R E F E R E N C E S .............................................................................................................. 183

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table
Page
1.1
Comparison of Traditional Public School Model to
Developmentally Appropriate P ractices............................................................9
3.1

Distribution of Responses and Implementation of D A P ............................... 66

4.1

Distribution of Participants by Educational Experience ............................... 75

4.2

Distribution of Participants by Years in Current Building as
P rin cip al.................................................................................................................75

4.3

Instructional and Administrative Experience of the S a m p le ...................... 76

4.4

Characteristics of Schools Represented in the Sample: Student
Enrollment of District and Student Enrollment of S c h o o l............................77

4.5

Per Pupil Expenditures of Districts Represented in the Sample ............... 77

4.6

Grade-level Configuration of the Schools Represented in the Sample . 78

4.7

Distribution of Participants by Grade Levels Implementing D A P

79

4.8

Number of Years the Schools Represented in the Sample HadBeen
Implementing D A P .............................................................................................. 80

4.9

Number of Schools in the Sample With Alternative Programsfor Young
Children and the Frequency of Testing for Admittance to Those
P ro g ra m s .............................................................................................................. 81

4.10

School Climate for Restructuring.................................................................... 83

4.11

Organizational and Resource F e a tu re s ......................................................... 84

4.12

Personnel F e a tu re s ........................................................................................... 85

4.13

Classroom Practices ......................................................................................... 86
x

4.14

Involvement of Parents .................................................................................... 87

4.15

Community R esponsiveness...........................................................................88

4.16

Transitions for Children and Families

4.17

Maintaining Quality Control ............................................................................. 89

4.18

Professional R eso u rces.................................................................................... 90

4.19

Administrative Practices....................................................................................92

4.20

Relationships Between School Climate for Restructuring and
Administrative Practices.....................................................................................94

4.21

Relationships Between Personnel Features and Administrative
Practices .............................................................................................................. 97

4.22

Relationships Between Classroom Practices and Administrative
Practices .............................................................................................................. 99

4.23

Relationships Between Involvement of Parents and Administrative
Practices ............................................................................................................ 101

4.24

Relationships Between Community Responsiveness and
Administrative Practices...................................................................................103

4.25

Relationships Between Support to Families for Transitions and
Administrative Practices...................................................................................105

4.26

Relationships Between Maintaining Quality Control and
Administrative Practices...................................................................................107

4.27

Relationships Between Professional Resources and Administrative
Practices ..........................................................................................................108

4.28

Summary of Results of Testing the Eight Hypotheses Concerning the
Relationship Between Organizational Components and Administrative
Practices ............................................................................................................ 110

...........................................................89

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
2.1

Page
Interactive Factors Affecting Implementation................................................ 44

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction
Current literature related to school reform has addressed the need for
sustaining changes that are introduced, and the difficulty schools are having in doing
so. The focus of the first wave of reforms in the 1980s was on raising standards and
increasing accountability, and the changes did not produce the results in student
achievement that had been hoped for. Schools are now well into the second wave
of reform, focusing on a very different agenda. "The clear message of the second
wave of reform is that we need to examine our basic philosophical beliefs about
teaching, learning, and the nature of human being, and the kinds of environments
that maximize growth forteachers and students alike" (Michaels, 1988, p. 3). In The

Human Face o f Reform, Evans (1993) asked,
Will the latest round of reform-"restructuring"~avoid the fate of its
predecessors, or will it fail to make the transition from advocacy to
implementation? Whether the nation’s classrooms will be restructured
depends on whether educators will make the changes asked of th em -a vast
process of adaptation that must be accomplished teacher by teacher, school
by school, (p. 19)
Over the years, the terminology has changed, and there is an expanded
research base regarding the change process.

1

However, actual change in

2
educational practices seems to be elusive to a majority of public schools.

The

schools look, more or less, much the way they did 20 years ago, despite a myriad
of educational reforms that have been introduced.
The educational reform movements of the past three decades have focused
primarily on activities that improved existing structures by changing procedures,
rules, and requirements. The reforms were, for the most part, top-down, and the
intention was to improve achievement through raising standards (Conley, 1991).
The new phase of reform includes restructuring, or "fundamental" reform, and is
directed toward changing the very heart of the teaching and learning process.
Fundamental reforms are those that transform and permanently alter institutional
structures.

School restructuring proponents believe that nothing less than

systemwide change will produce schools capable of serving the current needs of
students, educators, and the community (O’Neil, 1990).
There are many examples of restructuring attempts in schools today that
represent major paradigm shifts because they introduce new ideas and values that
contradict rather than build on a previous paradigm.

The implementation of

developmentally appropriate practices in public schools is an example of one such
reform movement.
Experts in early childhood education have developed a comprehensive vision
for educating young children that requires fundamental reform in educational
practices for young children.

This approach, referred to as developm entally

appropriate practices (DAP) for young children, is "an approach to working with

3
young children that requires that the adult pay attention to at least two important
pieces of information-- what we know about how children develop and learn, and

what we team about the individual needs and interests of each child in the group"
(Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992, p. 4).
The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC),
through consultation with a wide range of educators, psychologists, and child care
specialists, operationalized DAP in a document entitled Developmentally Appropriate

Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age 8
(Bredekamp, 1987). The publication of these strategies had a major influence on a
reform movement throughout the entire nation to improve the quality of teaching and
learning in classrooms for young children. Defining "developmentally appropriate
practice" is somewhat cumbersome. According to Bredekamp (1991), the origin of
the term "developmentally appropriate" has not been documented, but it is one that
has a long history of use (and overuse) among early childhood professionals (p.
199). Simply put, DAP "takes into account those aspects of teaching and learning
that change with the age and experience of the learner," said Lilian Katz (cited in
Willis, 1993), director ofthe ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

The concept of

developmental appropriateness was defined in the NAEYC document as having two
dimensions: age appropriateness and individual appropriateness.

4

Standards for Quality Programs for Young Children, developed by the
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP, 1990), relates the
following:
NAESP and other professional organizations, along with individual experts
in the field of early childhood education, have increasingly felt the need to
emphasize the uniqueness of four- to eight-year-old children and the
importance of providing them learning experiences that are appropriate for
their level of development. Similarly, questions are being raised about such
practices as screening children to keep them out of kindergarten even though
they are chronologically old enough, retaining high numbers of students atthe
K-3 levels, and using standardized test scores to determine passage to the
next grade. Because of research and experience, there is a growing concern
for making schools more responsive to the unique needs of young children
rather than forcing them to conform to traditional and often inappropriate
expectations and practices, (p. 1)

Purpose of the Study
The researcher’s primary purpose in this research was to explore systemic
change and the sustaining of educational reform by examining the status of
organizational

components

and

administrative

practices

related

to

implementation and continuation of DAP in elementary schools in Michigan.

the
In

addition, the researcher addressed the concerns of building principals related to the
sustaining of DAP to identify trends and common issues.

Statement of the Problem
There is a lack of information about and understanding of the requirements,
at the organizational level of structural and procedural changes, required for
sustaining and continuing an educational innovation. For sustained change, it has
been reported that systemic change in the organization must take place.

The

researcher addressed the change process that is part of the implementation of an
educational innovation, intended to restructure the school, from an organizational
and administrative practices perspective.
DAP for young children are recommended as "best practice" at the state and
national levels. Such practices were heavily promoted in the literature and through
professional development from 1989 through 1992. Yet current writers have been
reporting that districts are struggling to achieve actual implementation.
According to Standards for Quality Programs for Young Children (NAESP,
1990),
Children in three-to-eight age range acquire knowledge in ways that are
significantly different from the way older children learn.. . . The instructional
program for young children needs to focus on experience, providing for active
exploration of the environment, allowing for guided discovery, involving
concrete experiences, and providing both structured and child-initiated
activities together with involvement with the teacher in planning,
implementing, and evaluating their learning experiences. With young children
academic skills are developed and enhanced through programs in which
there are activities for both independent activities and small-group instruction.
(P- 2)
Other national organizations, such as the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (1989), the National Council of Teachers of English, National
Association of State Boards of Education, and the American Psychological
Association (1993), are in agreement with the perspectives of early childhood
educators on curriculum and teaching. Curriculum Update, a publication from the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, edited by Scott Willis,
(1993) stated, "Despite the consensus among early childhood educators that
developmentally appropriate practice is best for young children, obstacles loom

6
between theory and practice” (p. 1). There is not agreement regarding what all of
those obstacles are. Writers have reported three major areas, two specific to DAP
and one related to fundamental reform:

philosophical and conceptual barriers

(Elkind, 1991; Kessler, 1991; Spodek, 1988a, 1988b, reported by Bredekamp, 1991),
myths and misunderstandings associated with DAP (Bredekamp, 1991; Kostelnik,
1992), and school culture (Espinosa, 1992; Fullan, 1991; Sarason, 1971).
The philosophical and conceptual barriers are among early childhood
practitioners, developmental theorists and curriculum theorists, child-centered views
and social reconstructionist views, and between traditional psychometric philosophy
of public schools and the developmental philosophy (Elkind, 1991; Kessler, 1991;
Kostelnik, 1993).
Elkind (1991) discussed resistance to DAP by stating,
Because education is so closely intermeshed with other social institutions,
true educational reform can only come about when a systemic change
simultaneously alters all of the intertwined components of the educational
establishment. Such a systemic change, however, has to begin at the
philosophical and conceptual level because all of the various components of
the educational system share an implicit educational philosophy. . . . This
shared underlying philosophy welds the various components of the
educational system together and is the true barrier to authentic educational
reform, (p. 55)
Some early childhood educators are saying that the problem associated with
child-centered practices based on developmental theory is that it is not a strong
enough framework to support teachers and administrators in their efforts to explain
or justify what they believe are good programs for young children (Kessler, 1991).

7
The NAEYC and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in
State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) responded to an identified need to
be more specific about the curriculum when implementing DAP by developing a
position statement on the Guidelines for Appropriate Curriculum Content and

Assessment in Programs Serving Children Ages 3 Through 8 (1990). The purpose
of the document was to define the best practice for early childhood programs. The
need for the document was to identify what and when to teach. The guidelines also
addressed two basic problems: the "early childhood error" (inadequate attention to
the content of the curriculum) and the "elementary error" (overattention to curriculum
objectives, with less attention to the individual child) (Bredekamp & Rosegrant,
1992).
The Guidelines for Appropriate Curriculum and Assessment have helped to
clarify content.

However, a major conceptual barrier that still exists with

implementing DAP for young children is that the suggested practices for
developmentally appropriate early childhood programs have critical differences when
compared with the philosophy and practices of traditional public education. These
differences are apparent at two levels: in the classroom and within the formal and
informal workings of a school system.
Before addressing the systemic changes related to the implementation of an
innovation, an understanding of the theoretical foundations of the innovation is
necessary. To introduce the theoretical foundations of DAP and to operationalize
the conceptual and philosophical differences expressed in the literature, the

8
researcher developed Table 1.1. Some of the statements in the table are paired and
appear to be in opposition to one another. The pairs do not necessarily represent
opposites ofteacherbehaviororschool practices, but rather conceptual alternatives.
However, the concept of DAP is at the heart of the restructuring of elementary
classrooms, and it does provide the foundation for decisions that are made at both
the classroom and district levels. Implementing DAP requires that school personnel
think differently about the teaching and learning of young children. The agenda for
children educated in DAP classrooms cannot be the same as for those children
educated in traditional classrooms. The purpose of Table 1.1 is not to qualify the
differences, but to demonstrate the extensive nature of the changes that need to be
addressed, understood, and supported, in order to implement DAP in elementary
classrooms.
Another issue that has created obstacles between theory and practice is the
myths about DAP (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992; Kostelnik, 1993). Bredekamp
stated that some of the myths have come about because of the "early childhood
error" (inadequate attention to the content of the curriculum).

The commonly

identified myths are: (a) teachers do not teach, (b) there are no goals or objectives,
(c) DAP are only fora select group of children, (d) developmental theory is the only
determinant of the curriculum, and (e) DAP is a curriculum.
Kostelnik et al. (1993) also expressed the concern that the popularity of
developmental appropriateness for young children has led to DAP becoming a
catchword for everything and anything associated with young children and many

9
Table 1.1:

Comparison of traditional public school model to developmentally
appropriate practices.

Traditional Public School

Developmentally Appropriate
Education, K-2

T H E O R E T IC A L F O U N D A T IO N S
Cognitive-developmental
Constructive
Interaction

Behavioral
Psychometric

PHILOSOPHY (concept of learner)

/nteractionist

Behavioralism

Social-conventional

Developing abilities
Learning is a creative activity and
interactive
Knowledge is under construction and
represents contributions of the subject
and the object

Children know what we want them to

Create children who want to know

Measurable abilities
Learning consists of a set of principles
Knowledge is acquired and can be
measured independently

know
C U R R IC U L U M C O N T E N T A N D P R A C T IC E S
Scientific-technical
Behavioral objectives
Specific academic skills

Cognitive integration
Democratic values
Child’s development
Engaging and meaningful
Problem-solving strategies

Blocks of time by subject
Acquisition of skills before using
integrated strategies
Time and outcomes rigid

Integrated through the use of learning
centers, themes, and projects (holistic
approach)
Time and/or outcomes
Flexible
Intellectual integrity

INSTRUCTION/PEDAGO G Y
Teacher dominated

Interactive
Variety of learning experiences,
materials, equipment, and instructional
strategies

10

Table 1.1:

Continued.

Traditional Public School
Commercially driven
Whole-group product conformity

Developmentally Appropriate
Education, K-2
Child and teacher centered (needs and
interests of the learner, support for
cultural and linguistic diversity)
Process
Uniqueness of every child
Continuum of teaching behaviors
Experiential

G RO UPING
Whole group or like ability
Small groups by a particular age

Small group-mixed ability or individual
Multi-age groups

MATERIALS
Workbooks, worksheets

Manipulatives, meaningful

LEARNING
Abstract, rote
Teacher-directed

Concrete, purposeful
Child-initiated (play)

SOCIAL EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Competitive

Cooperative

External control
Left to chance

Self-control, self-regulated
Positive and supportive environment

ASSESSMENT
Primarily formal
Achievement scores
Standardized
Benefits the "system"
Primarily in cognitive skills

Primarily informal
Authentic, ongoing

Contrived, artificial

Demonstrated performance related to
activities in the classroom
Self-evaluation and reflection

PHYSICAL ENVIRO NM ENT
Adult controlled
Control and order

Benefits the child
All areas of development

Functional for children
Promotes socialization

11

Table 1.1:

Continued.

Traditional Public School
MOTIVATION
External rewards and punishments
Control and conformative
REPO RTING TO PARENTS
Letter or number grades
Designated times, in writing

Developmentally Appropriate
Education, K-2

Internal, supportive
Risk-taking

Narrative
Frequently, in person
Status and progress in all areas of
development

A D M IN IS T R A T IV E P O L IC IE S A N D P R A C T IC E S
PERSONNEL
K-8 certification

Early childhood endorsement

SCHEDULING
Teacher isolation

Teacher collaboration

ADULT/STUDENT RATIOS
Classes of 25-35 children with one adult

Smaller class sizes
More than one adult present

PLACEMENT. PROM OTION.
RETENTION
Children are denied access based on
screening

No child is denied access who is of legal
entry age

Transitional classes are for students who
don't succeed

Children progress through sequential
curriculum

Students must meet certain standards or
be retained

Recognizes that children learn in
different ways at different times

DISCIPLINE
Behavioral
Extrinsic motivation

Developmental
Intrinsic motivation

12
misunderstandings or myths. The most common ones, in addition to those identified
by Bredekamp, are: (a) there is only one right way to implement a developmentally
appropriate program; (b) developmental appropriateness is just a fad, soon to be
replaced by another, perhaps opposite trend; (c) DAP requires teachers to abandon
all their prior knowledge and experience; (d) to be developmentally appropriate,
elementary teachers will have to "water down" the traditional curriculum; and (e) all
one needs to create developmentally appropriate programs are the right materials.
The last area the researcher addressed regarding philosophical and
conceptual barriers revolves around school culture and the problem of change. A
major obstacle to implementing DAP could, in fact, be the cultural characteristics of
school. Researchers have supported a strong relationship between school culture
and the process of educational change. Rossman, Corbett, and Firestone (1988)
enhanced the understanding of culture and change.

One fundamental notion

conveyed in their research is that "in every school a status quo prevails that can be
designated a school’s ’culture,’ that is, its patterns of belief and practice that are
’normal’" (p. vii). Sarason (1971) reported that the most frequent response to a
question regarding an existing practice is to justify the existing regularity and to avoid
anything resembling a dispassionate consideration of possible alternatives. Issues
such as upper-grade-level expectations, administrative support, power relationships,
community expectations, and systemic changes are a part of the school culture.

13
In his book The Culture o f the School and the Problem o f Change, Sarason
(1971) discussed his viewpoint of change in schools as it relates to school culture.
He stated,
We look at and describe the school culture in terms of values and personal
experiences, which, however productive of insights, puts blinders on what we
look at, choose to change, and evaluate; and it is inordinately difficult to adopt
approaches that require us to recognize and suspend our values in the quest
of achieving distance from our habitual ways of thinking and working, (p. 108)
Sarason continued this line of thinking as a way of addressing the problem of
implementing real change:
Because our values and assumptions are usually implicit and "second nature"
we proceed as if the way things are is the way things should or could be. We
do not act but we react, and then not with the aim of changing our
conceptions-or, heaven forbid, our theories from which our conceptions
presumably derive--but to change what is most easy to change: the
engineering aspects. Books get changed, new and more specialists are
brought in, specialized programs and curricula are added, and new and more
meetings (between students and teachers, teacher and parents) are
institutionalized. . . . What passionate devotion to our values does it to
prevent us from asking: are these changes intended to change existing
regularities or are they new regularities that will exist side-by-side with the
existing ones? Which one of these one intends makes the difference
between change and innovation, (p. 109)
The history of implementation research is not pleasant. Planned change
attempts rarely have succeeded as intended (Fullan, 1991).
implementation question is:

The simple

What types of things would have changed if an

innovation or a reform were to become fully implemented?
School reform has been in the public schools for the past three decades, and,
needless to say, it has not always been very successful. However, Fullan (1991)
and others believe that clearer insights have been gained regarding the do’s and

14
don't's of bringing about change. For educational reforms to be successful, there
has to be meaning in what\N\W change as well as howXo go about it, i.e., planning
for change.
Getting people to change the way they do things is a very difficult task. The
implementation of educational reforms involves "change in practices."

Real,

sustained change involves three components: new or revised materials, new or
revised teaching strategies, and the possible alteration of beliefs. These three
components make up the "change in practice" that must occur if the change is going
to affect educational outcomes (Fullan, 1991).
Fullan (1988) reported that in Canada there has been a policy conclusion,
backed by considerable research, that the elementary principal is the chief agent of
change and improvement at the school level. The principal is a key to creating the
conditions for continuous professional development of teachers (Leithwood, 1990).
Barth (1990) reported that the principal is the key to a good school. The principal is
the reason teachers grow or are stifled.
The researcher focused on principals because any kind of innovation puts
them in the role of facilitating the implementation of the reform in their schools.
Sergiovanni (1987) proposed that there is a theoretical basis for "cultural
leadership." Style and behavior are important, but now, what leaders stand for and
believe in and their ability to communicate those values and ideals in a way that
provides both meaning and significance to others are more important than how they
behave.

15
Cox (1990) and her colleagues found that change can be successfully
implemented within a school only if the change has been institutionalized at both the
individual and the organizational levels. That is, not only must an innovation be well
established within a particular classroom, but it also must have behind it a supportive
organizational infrastructure within both the school and the district.
In a study conducted by Latham (1988), he discovered the birth and death
cycles of educational innovations. The typical innovation is born in a moment of
great interest, is soon implemented, and peaks in about a year and a half. This peak
is then followed by a precipitous decline in enthusiasm, and the innovation dies
about four years from the time that interest in it was first generated.
Hord and Huling-Austin (1986) found that the relative success of implementa­
tion of an innovative program hinged on the principals taking action in each of four
support-function areas: (a) developing supportive organizational arrangements, (b)
giving in-service training, (c) providing consultation and reinforcement, and (d)
performing monitoring and evaluation functions.

Once an innovation has been

initiated, the principal necessarily becomes a key player in the change process.
The mismatch between the expectations and traditions of public schools and
those of DAP creates obstacles between theory and practice that can only be
addressed by restructuring the system in which it is implemented.

The vision

presented by the NAEYC and others requires a fundamental shift in thinking about
the role of school in the lives of young children. This approach cannot supplement
but must replace the traditional model (Espinosa, 1992).

Allocation of funds,

16
curriculum

development,

student assessment,

grouping

practices,

teacher

evaluation, upper-grade-level expectations, and family and community services all
need to be addressed if young children’s needs are going to be met in the public
schools (Bredekamp, 1993; Elkind, 1991; Jewett, 1992).
The researcher selected DAP as the vehicle for studying the implementation
process because it is a nationally recognized reform, it has been implemented in
school districts across the state, and developmentally appropriate practices were
introduced as an innovation in the last eight to ten years. In addition, this is a reform
that, for most teachers and schools, requires a major change in practices.

Importance of the Study
The writer anticipates that the findings from this study will be useful in
addressing the influence of systemic change and administrative practices related to
the sustaining of educational reforms. The need for this research is evidenced by
the following:
1.

Previous researchers have not given enough attention to the change

process related to the implementation of educational reform from an organizational
and administrative perspective.
2.

There is a lack of information on the role of the principal related to the

practices that contribute to sustaining and continuing an innovation.
3.

The implementation of DAP for young children initially was well

received in many school districts. Yet current literature, and an informal survey

17
conducted by the researcher, have indicated that districts are struggling to achieve
actual implementation.
4.

Research reported and practices suggested by major national

organizations are supportive of DAP for young children in achieving desired
educational outcomes needed for the twenty-first century.
5.

Research on the implementation of DAP from a single yet comprehen­

sive perspective was not evident in the literature.

Addressing DAP from this

perspective could help school districts approach DAP in a holistic manner, which
would provide a stronger framework for supporting the systemic changes required
for sustaining the reform.
6.

Many of the components of DAP for young children are being

addressed at other levels of education in order to improve the teaching and learning
process. Identifying the issues and concerns related to sustaining and continuing
DAP for young children may help school reform efforts at other levels of education.

Re search Questions

Three major research questions were addressed in this study. They are as
follows.
1.

What is the status of organizational components related to the

sustaining of developmentally appropriate practices reported by elementary
principals who have been implementing DAP for at least two years?
2.

Are there relationships between the organizational components and

administrative practices related to the implementation and continuation of

18
developmentally appropriate practices that are reported to be in evidence by
elementary principals who have been implementing DAP?
3.

What are the comments and/or concerns elementary principals

express regarding the implementation and continuation of developmentally
appropriate practices in their elementary schools?

Assumptions and Clarification
1.

Interpretation of these data can be only as good as the respondents

were conscientious in completing the survey questionnaire.
2.

The researcher assumed that everyone in the sample had an

understanding of DAP and shared a fairly common definition. This assumption was
made because the survey instrument was sent only to principals in districts where
the superintendents responded to the researcher that there was an expectation
and/or policy for implementing DAP in their districts.
3.

The survey questionnaire for the study was designed specifically for

this study and, as a consequence, was not validated.

Follow-up on the survey

instrument was limited to those elementary principals in the sample who volunteered
their time.
4.

The process of change has been studied for decades. Forthe purpose

of this study, the review of literature was delimited to educational research and
studies over the past two decades.

19
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this
dissertation.
Age appropriateness. Human development researchers have indicated that
there are universal, predictable sequences of growth and change that occur in
children during the first nine years of life. These predictable changes occur in all
domains of development—physical, emotional, social, and cognitive. Knowledge of
typical development of children within the age span served by the program provides
a framework within which teachers prepare the learning environment and plan
appropriate experience.
C h an g e. Change is a process, not an event (Hall & Hord, 1987); it is both
individual and cultural (Sarason, 1971). All real change involves loss, anxiety, and
struggle (Fullan, 1991).
C hange facilitator. An individual who takes actions and exhibits behaviors
to facilitate the implementation of an innovation (Hall & Hord, 1987).
Developm entally appropriate practices. DAP take into account those
aspects of teaching and learning that change with the age and experience of the
learner (Katz, 1993). DAP have two dimensions. First, they are age appropriate;
they reflect what is known about how children develop and learn. Second, they are
appropriate to the individual child; they take into account each child’s own
development, interests, and cultural background (Bredekamp, 1987).

These

practices mean treating children with respect—understanding children’s changing

20
capacities and having faith in children’s continuing capacity to change (Kostelnik,
1993).
Facilitate. The process by which events are "helped to happen." Facilitating
is a kind of influence role that is neither authoritarian nor abdicative.
Form al (leader, organization, system ). A term originally introduced in the
Hawthorne studies to designate the set of organizational relationships that were
explicitly established in policy and procedure.
Implementation. Initial use of an innovation; involves the first experiences
of attempting to put an idea or reform into practice (Fullan, 1991).
Individual appropriateness. Each child isa unique person with an individual
pattern and timing of growth, as well as individual personality, learning style, and
family background. Both the curriculum and adults’ interactions with children should
be responsive to individual differences. Learning in young children is the result of
interaction between the child’s thought and experiences with materials, ideas, and
people. These experiences should match the child’s developing abilities, while also
challenging the child’s interest and understanding (Bredekamp, 1987, p. 2).
Initiation. Factors leading up to and including the decision to proceed with
implementation.
Innovation. Any significant shift in philosophy, process, or aim taken by an
individual or group of persons working together (Kostelnik, 1993); a program or
process being implemented (Hall & Hord, 1987).

21
institutionalization. Refers to making organizational changes a permanent
part of the organization’s normal functioning, also referred to as continuation: refers
to whether the change gets built in as an ongoing part of the system or disappears
by way of discard or through attrition (Fullan, 1991).
O rganizational com ponents. Particular significant issues related to the
development and implementation of successful, quality early childhood programs
from a systems perspective.
Planned change (also referred to as program implementation). A generic
phrase for all systematic efforts to improve the functioning of some human system.
It is a change process in which power is usually roughly equal between consultants
and clients and in which goals are mutually and deliberately set (Huse & Cummings,
1985).
Restructuring. Activities that change fundamental assumptions, practices,
and relationships, both within the organization and between the organization and the
outside world, in ways that lead to improved and varied student learning outcomes
for essentially all students (Conley, 1991).

Summary and Overview
In this study, the researcher examined the status of organizational factors and
administrative practices related to the implementation and continuation of DAP in
elementary schools in Michigan.

In addition, the trends related to concerns of

elementary principals regarding the continuation of DAP were studied.

22
Chapter I contained an introduction to the study, a statement of the problem,
the importance of the study, questions addressed in the study, and definitions
pertinent to the research. In Chapter II, research and literature related to the
implementation of DAP, the change process and problems with fundamental reform,
and the role of the building principal as a change facilitator are reported.

The

research design and methodology are outlined in Chapter III. Chapter IV contains
the findings from the study and a summary of aspects of the research. A summary
of the study, conclusions drawn from the findings, and recommendations are
presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to explore systemic change and
the sustaining of educational reform.

Examining the status of organizational

components and administrative practices related to the implementation and
continuation of developmentally appropriate practices (DAP) in K-2 classrooms in
Michigan public schools was the vehicle through which this was examined. This
review of the literature contains an overview of research and applicable literature as
it relates to this dissertation.

The review is divided into three sections:

developmentally appropriate practices, the change process, and the role of the
principal as a change facilitator. The first section is divided into six subsections
related to DAP: definition, the history, the philosophy, the obstacles between theory
and practice, critical themes affecting early childhood restructuring, and key issues
that enter into the quality of the implementation of early childhood programs. The
use of the term "developmentally appropriate practice" follows the definition as
established by the National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC) and is used consistently through this document.

23

24
Research on the process of change forthe purpose of improving teaching and
learning in public education is presented in the second section of this chapter.
The concept of change being a process, not an event, and therefore taking
place over time at both the individual and organizational levels is reviewed. The
phases of change--initiation, implementation, and continuation—are reviewed. The
focus of this study is on the last two phases.
The role of the principal in managing the change process is not well
documented. The review presents the key issues related to the building principal as
a facilitator and leader of change. Current research on the role of the principal in
facilitating change efforts is reviewed in the third section.

Developm entally Appropriate Practices

Definition
"Early childhood education" is a term frequently applied to the education of
young children from birth through age eight (NAEYC, 1986). In the 1980s, experts
in the field examined practices of educating young children based on current
knowledge of understanding and learning; they produced a document entitled

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children
From Birth Through Age 8. The editor of the document, Sue Bredekamp (1991),
discussed the origin of the term "developmentally appropriate" being defined as an
identified necessity from two events. One was the NAEYC’s accreditation process,
which incorporated the term into its standards, and the other was a Commission on
Appropriate Education for 4- and 5-Year-Olds that was appointed by NAEYC to

25
prepare a position statement designed primarily to influence public school
prekindergarten and kindergarten programs.

The Commission was unable to

complete its task, and it was decided that the issue of appropriate practice needed
to be addressed for the full age span of early childhood, from birth through age 8.
The appropriate practices defined in this document are determined by development;
how one encourages positive behavior in children will vary with the age, language,
and reasoning capabilities of the child (Bredekamp, 1991). The NAEYC guidelines
for DAP have proven to be the most influential in stimulating a reevaluation of what
constitutes appropriate educational practice with young children and a pull-back from
inappropriate practices (Smith, 1992).
The concept of developmental appropriateness has two dimensions: age
appropriateness and individual appropriateness. Interpretation of DAP programs
varies.

Kostelnik, Soderman, and Whiren (1993) indicated that there are three

principles common to all:
1.

Developmentally appropriate means taking into account what is known

about how young children learn and matching that to the content and strategies they
encounter in early childhood programs.
2.

Developmentally

appropriate

means

approaching

children

as

individuals, not as a cohort group.
3.

Developmentally appropriate means treating children with respect,

understanding children’s changing capacities, and having faith in children’s
continuing capacity to change (pp. 32-33).

26
The NAEYC believes that one index of the quality of primary education is the
extent to which the curriculum and instructional methods are developmentally
appropriate for children five through eight years of age. Their position statement is
based on the following principles of instruction, taken primarily from Engaging the

Minds o f Young Children:

The Project Approach (Katz & Chard, 1987) and

described in Part 7 of the NAEYC Position Statement:
1.

Teachers must always be cognizant of the "whole child."

2.

Throughout the primary grades, the curriculum should be integrated.

3.

Primary-age children should be engaged inactive, rather than passive,

activities.
4.

Curriculum should provide many developmentally appropriate materials

for children to explore and think about, and opportunities for interaction and
communication with other children and adults.
5.

The content of the curriculum must be relevant, engaging, and

meaningful to the children themselves (Katz & Chard, 1987).
6.

Primary-age children should be provided opportunities to work in small

groups on projects that "provide rich content for conversations," and teachers should
facilitate discussion among children by making comments and soliciting children’s
opinions and ideas (Katz & Chard, 1987).
7.

Teachers should recognize the importance of developing positive peer

group relationships and provide opportunities and support for cooperative smallgroup projects that not only develop cognitive ability but promote peer interaction.

27
8.

Primary-age children need to acquire the knowledge and skills

recognized by our culture as important, foremost among which are the abilities to
read and write and to calculate numerically.
9.

The younger the children and the more diverse their backgrounds, the

wider the variety of teaching methods and materials required.
10.

Curriculum and teaching methods should be designed so that children

not only acquire knowledge and skills, but that they also acquire the disposition or
inclination to use them (pp. 63-65).
"The primary grades hold the potential for starting children on the course of
lifelong learning.

Whether schools achieve this potential for children is largely

dependent on the degree to which teachers adopt principles of DAP" (Bredekamp,
1987, p. 66).

History of the Implementation of Develop­
mentally Appropriate Practices
How best to teach young children has long been a subject of lively debate.
Over the past decade, however, a consensus has arisen among experts in early
childhood education, most of whom endorse the idea of DAP. In large measure,
early childhood experts are promoting DAP in response to a phenomenon dubbed
the "escalated" or "pushed-down" curriculum (Willis, 1993).

The pushed-down

curriculum has increased emphasis on more academic-oriented activities with young
children, leading to the following trends: (a) inappropriate uses of screening and
readiness tests, (b) denial or discouragement of (school) entrance for eligible

28
children, (c) the development of segregated transitional classes for children deemed
unready for the next traditional level of school, and (d)an increasing use of retention
(NAECS/SDE, 1987).
Never before has there been such congruence between the perspectives of
early childhood educators on curriculum and teaching and positions advocated by
other national associations, such as the National Association of Elementary School
Principals (1990), the National Association of State Boards of Education (1988), and
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989), to name a few
(Bredekamp, 1991, p. 208).

Philosophy of Developmentally Appropriate Practices
David Elkind (1991), Professor of Child Study at Tufts University, wrote that
the resistance to DAP is at the philosophical and conceptual level, and that
educational reform for young children will come only when a systemic change
simultaneously alters all of the intertwined components of the educational
establishment. The developmental philosophy of education from the early childhood
community, derived primarily from the research of Jean Piaget, views the learner as
having developing abilities. This developmental philosophy of education is in total
opposition to the "psychometric" educational philosophy that dictates educational
practice in the majority of public schools.

The psychometric philosophy views

education from a quantitative perspective, which sees the learner as having
measurable abilities (p. 57).

29
The opposed conceptions of human ability, both of which contain some truth,
have far different pedagogical implications. How children learn is how they should
be taught. Teachers ofyoung children must have an understanding of what children
need to learn and how children learn (Elkind, 1991). The word "teach" tends to imply
telling or giving information. But the correct way to teach young children is not to
lecture or verbally instruct them. Teachers ofyoung children are more like guides
or facilitators (Forman & Kuschner, 1983; Lay-Dopyera, 1986).

Obstacles Between Theory and Practice
Despite the research, the support of national organizations and state
departments, and the initial overwhelming and positive response from thefield, there
appear to be many obstacles to actually implementing developmental theory in the
classroom. A problem addressed from the conceptual level is the approach taken
by the NAEYC in their position paper, which outlines teaching methods thought to
be "appropriate" for young children and contrasts them with methods thought to be
"inappropriate." Appropriate practices are based on Piaget’s cognitive/interactive
theory, whereas inappropriate practices are based on principles of behaviorism or
a psychometric educational psychology. This format did not address curriculum
content, and by not examining the content, teachers ofyoung children are confused
and vulnerable to pressure from administrators, parents, and others who may value
the traditional school subjects (Kessler, 1991, p. 186).

Without the knowledge

component, the call for DAP lacks a strong theoretical foundation, which results in
the inability on the part of early childhood educators to thoroughly explain or justify

30
what they believe are good programs for young children (Kessler, 1991). Kessler
believed that approaching child-centered education from the perspective of
curriculum theory, and not the field of child development, would be a stronger
position from which to articulate, debate, and defend the practices they endorse.
More than 300,000 copies of the NAEYC’s position statement have been
distributed, and DAP have been addressed by curriculum developers, equipment
manufacturers, and even test publishers (Bredekamp, 1992). It is understandable
that misunderstandings are common and that myths about DAP are perpetuated
(Kostelnik, 1992). Common myths and misinterpretations are that:
1.

DAP is a curriculum, a set of standards.

2.

Teachers do not teach, and children have controlof the classroom.

3.

DAP rejects goals and objectives (or outcomes).

4.

DAP is only for white middle-class children.

5.

DAP is the only determinant of curriculum or the only justification for

appropriate practice.
Kessler (1992) pointed out that the failure to articulate clear educational goals
related to school content for young children has meant that the three R’s won by
default. The trend toward push-down academic curriculum in kindergarten and the
primary grades was cited by many teachers as the major barrier to implementing
DAP (Bredekamp, 1991). In response to the misunderstandings and the identified
need for more clearly articulated educational goals for young children, the NAEYC,
in conjunction with the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State

31
Departments of Education, in November 1990 adopted a position statement entitled

Guidelines for Appropriate Curriculum Content and Assessment in Programs Serving
Children Ages 3 Through 8 . The theoretical foundations of this document are
congruent with the philosophical foundations of curriculum as articulated by Kessler,
Spodek, and others (Bredekamp, 1991).
The last obstacle between theory and practice for early childhood education
reviewed by the researcher is that of the school culture and the distribution of power,
primarily as viewed from the perspective of school improvement efforts. "Whenever
there is a conflict between culture and change, culture will win" (American Society
for Training and Development).
The elements of school culture reveal the formal and informal structure of
schools. Deal and Kennedy (1983) identified shared values and beliefs as the most
important aspect of culture. Sarason (1991) believed that there cannot be relevant
descriptions or studies about change until it is recognized that the description of the
change process involves, or is based on, the most fundamental (and unchallenged,
if not unverbalized) assumptions determining three general types of social
relationships: those among the professionals within the school setting, those among
the professionals and pupils, and those among the professionals and the different
parts of the larger society. Any proposed change affects and will be affected by all
of these types of social relationships. The school culture is described in terms of
values and personal experiences, which, however productive of insights, puts
blinders on what people look at, choose to change, and evaluate. It is inordinately

32
difficult to adopt approaches that require people to recognize and suspend their
values in the quest of achieving distance from their habitual ways of thinking and
working (Sarason, 1991, p. 108).
Fundamental reform (restructuring) is what early childhood educators who
endorse DAP are seeking. Fundamental reforms are those that aim to transform
and alter permanently the existing structures of schooling. The premise behind
fundamental reforms is that basic structures are irremediably flawed and need a
complete overhaul (Cuban, 1992, p. 228). Sarason (1991) suggested that changes
intended to alter existing regularities and new regularities that will exist side by side
with the existing ones are what constitute the difference between change and
innovation.
A major finding in the study "What Happens to Reforms That Last? The Case
of the Junior High School" (Cuban, 1992) was that efforts to implement a
fundamental reform for adolescents in American schooling have been downsized
and revised to become a modest addition to the high school. A latter-day effort to
correct the flaws of junior high schools through the middle school movement has
shown little change over the original design. One reason for this is that fundamental
changes frequently shrink in both intentions and action once they are incorporated
into the existing school system.
Sarason (1991) presented two conclusions, which together explain in part
why educational reform either is not attempted or is carried out in an institutional
context of which the reformers have little or no knowledge. The first is that reformers

33
have nothing resembling a holistic conception of the system they seek to influence,
and the second is that being part of the system-to speak of the culture--in no way
guarantees that one understands the system in any comprehensive way.
system can be described in terms of power relationships.

Any

Power is distributed

unequally among members of the system, which is justified by tradition and
necessity; it is a way of ensuring that the overarching goals of the system will be
effectively achieved.
Elkind’s (1991) premise that philosophical and conceptual barriers prevent
classroom innovations and curricular reforms from having any significant, lasting
effect in education is understandable when put in the context of school culture and
power relationships. Elkind stated that if the educational innovation is in keeping
with the underlying philosophy, it is not truly innovative and will change nothing. On
the other hand, if the innovation is at variance with the underlying philosophy, it will
never be properly implemented and will eventually be rejected as unworkable.

Critical Themes Affecting Early
Childhood Restructuring
The Northwest Regional Educational Lab (NWREL) in Portland, Oregon, is
working with six northwestern sites to develop a knowledge base as a foundation for
the articulation of a set of effective strategies that have been found to enter into the
process of restructuring public schools around early childhood concerns. The six
schools represent a range of rural, suburban, and urban programs; large and small
schools; and a variety of program features. The NW REL’s initial paper, "Effective

34
Strategies for School-Based Early Childhood Centers" (1992), represents an initial
identification of themes, issues, and strategies that have been found to enter the
process of restructuring public schools around early childhood concerns.
Several themes have emerged through the study of public schools
participating in implementing early childhood programs. Clarifying these themes
may help to characterize the extensive nature of the shifts in assumptions and
practice that practitioners must make as they pursue goals related to early childhood
implementation. The following themes represent major alterations in assumptions
regarding public elementary education:
1.

Curriculum is viewed as representing a continuum of knowledge and

the thinking processes.
2.

Learning is conceptualized as the pursuit of intellectual, rather than

specifically academic, skills.
3.

Identification of relevant curriculum "content" becomes a dynamic

process in which children, families, and community provide crucial sources of input.
4.

Children are perceived as active learners who must make important,

rather than trivial, decisions regarding their own learning activities and derive direct
experience from the results of their own efforts.
5.

DAP is a critical underpinning for the design and implementation of

programs affecting all children from birth through age eight.
6.

Schools recognize the many benefits of grouping students in ways that

promote diversity rather than homogeneity.

35
7.

High expectations are established for all learners in the diverse

classroom.
8.

Educators come to view the process and outcomes of educational

service provision from the client's point of view, examining provided experiences by
questioning how well such strategies succeed from the point of view of children,
families, and community.
9.

Program design is guided by efforts to promote appropriate, continuous

experiences for children and families through integrated service provision.
10.

Schools operate by establishing and maintaining truly collaborative

partnership relationships with children, theirfamilies, and community representatives
(pp. 5-24).
Schools that shift from previous to new assumptions must make changes that
reverberate throughout the system. Some of the issues that are affected by this
process of change are identified below.

Key Issues That Enter Into the Quality Imple­
mentation of Earlv Childhood Programs
Many of these issues represent challenges unique to the critical interface
between early childhood precepts and public school assumptions and systems. The
following ten categories have been used to organize the particular, significant issues
relating to the development and implementation of successful, quality early
childhood programs in public schools:

36
1.

Readiness: Schools must prepare for such integration by developing

motivation and a rationale for the changes that will be involved.
2.

O rganizational/resource features:

It is necessary to consider

important organizational issues such as how this type of change affects funds,
facility use, and scheduling, in addition to the effect it may have on school structure
issues, such as how children and teachers are organized and grouped.
3.

Personnel:

Because this style of project affects the school so

extensively, staffing issues become extremely involved.
4.

Classroom:

Appropriate classroom practices are a core issue in

establishing early childhood centers in public schools and involve a number of
different features.
5.

Family:

The integration of early childhood education involves

reexamination of the role of families in relation to schools.
6.

Communities: Community involvement has also been identified as

a critical facet of successful early childhood education.
7.

Transition:

Current thinking stresses the importance of transition

processes, which facilitate the progress of children and families from one level or
type of schooling to another and foster continuity from the family’s point of view.
8.

Com prehensive care:

Quality early childhood education centers

conceptualize the provision of integrated, comprehensive care for children and
families as part of an effective, preventative educational approach.

37
9.

Q uality control: Assessing educational change through a concern for

outcomes of implementation is a critical factor in monitoring successful educational
intervention and is particularly important when implementing change in educational
systems.
10.

Adm inistrative concerns:

These are involved in all school-level

changes.
The preceding ten categories have been used to organize particular,
significant issues relating to the development and implementation of successful,
quality early childhood programs in public schools. A list of issues related to these
categories was presented to a panel of expert practitioners. The panel represented
the leaders (principals, in most cases) from the model sites selected for advanced
work in each of the five states in the region and was a group with which the NWREL
worked closely for two or more years. The panel selected from the set of issues
those that they identified as most critical to successful implementation according to
three concerns: which issues are of most im portance to the implementation of early
childhood centers, which issues represent the greatest difficulty, and which efforts
present the greatest immediacy. The identified issues were then analyzed by the
group in terms of barriers, resources, and strategies. The following is a summary
of the issues that were identified as having the most importance, greatest difficulty,
and greatest immediacy.
Fostering school readiness: Motivation, joint establishment of vision and
philosophy, and joint establishment of a view of children and families were critical in

38
setting the stage for and sustaining change efforts. Vision and philosophy: Expert
practitioners confirmed unanimously that this factor is of highest im portance and
of high immediacy.
Strategies for Dealing With Organizational and Resource Features: Policies
and issues related to facilities, class groupings, and scheduling issues have been
identified as im portant issues. Facilities had lower importance than many other
concerns. Finances was acknowledged as an area of high difficulty for the study
sites engaged in implementing the early childhood center concept. Although not
ranked as highly important or immediate, in the sense that additional finances are
not necessary to begin to pursue this process, additional funds are desirable and
difficult to obtain. Scheduling: Because time is such a crucial resource to staff
pursuing early childhood restructuring, district policies regarding scheduling can
have a significant effect on the progress of these efforts.
Strategies for Dealing With Personnel Features: The most agreed-upon
predictor of quality in the implementation of early childhood programs is the quality
ofadult-child interactions. Staffqualifications: Because the types of comprehensive
changes described affect all staff, participation by all staff in the implementation of
the process is essential. Qualities of staff that were identified by the panel of expert
practitioners as desirable include staff willingness to cooperate with peers,
representation among the staff of expertise in the area of early childhood education,
and ideally, the presence of some risk takers.

Staff development was of high

im portance and critical immediacy. The identification of a plan was highly valued.

39
Staff empowerment and decision making were identified unanimously as of critical
im portance and critical immediacy. The need for a common philosophy, vision,
and view of children and families and the need for collaborative, collegial
relationships and cross-grade interactions as they affect the process of change are
strongly related to the importance of staff decision making. Teacher flexibility and
willingness to change was targeted as of critical im portance and critical
immediacy.

This process interacts with motivation, professional commitment,

professional development, and an atmosphere in which trust, sensitivity, and
encouragement are operating features. Performance evaluation: This area can
have a crucial effect on teachers’ defensiveness and, in a related fashion, their
willingness to change. Expert practitioners agree that it is no longer appropriate to
have one set of criteria to apply to teachers of all age levels.
Strategies for Dealing with Changing Classrooms: Changing the ways in
which children interact in schools lies at the heart of the early childhood restructuring
process.

Curriculum innovation was rated as having critical importance.

Developmentally appropriate practice: If curriculum innovation lies at the heart of the
implementation of early childhood restructuring, the concept of developmentally
appropriate provides the rationale and guiding force forthe selection and monitoring
efforts at implementation.
Strategies for Developing New School Roles in Relation to Families: Family
involvement and support are now recognized as critical factors in the school-related
success of children. Parent/familv involvement was identified as an area of high

40
importance, high difficulty, and high immediacy. Parent/family empowerment
was identified as an area of high difficulty. Community decision making ranked as
low im portance and high difficulty. Community communication, advocacy, and
school support: Community advocacy was ranked as a highly difficult function and
communication as a highly im m ediate one.
Strategies for Improving Comprehensive Care for Children and Families:
Coordinated resource teams, combined case-management and information-sharing
projects, home-visiting models, "push in" integrated services for special needs
children, and other approaches to resource coordination are vehicles for improved
service provision. Collaborative relationships were acknowledged as a high priority
for im m ediate attention.
Strategies for Maintaining Quality Control: Innovation must be coupled with
assessment in which programs monitor and refine practice based on careful
assessment of outcomes. Outcomes focus: Student assessment becomes a major
concern for schools that are engaged in innovative practices with young children;
this was identified as a critical area of high difficulty in the ongoing implementation
of early childhood centers. Innovative practice must be supported by evidence of
success. Program evaluation: Expert practitioners are actively seeking support and
materials in order to deal effectively with this function.
Strategies for Administration That Supports Early Childhood Restructuring:
Restructuring is most successful in an environment that provides contextual support.
Strategies having to do with leadership, administrative support, and board

41
development were all identified by expert practitioners as having a significant effect
on the process of changing practice.

Leadership was identified as of high

im portance and high immediacy. The extent of the changes involved in systemic
early childhood restructuring is so broad that they must be managed, coordinated,
and monitored by an effective leader (pp. 5-24).

The Process of Change
We must learn-individually and as organizations~to welcome change and
innovation as vigorously as we have fought it in the past. (Peters, Thriving on
Chaos)
The history of the careful study of the educational change process is quite
young (Fullan, 1991). The process of change-implementing educational innovations
forthe purpose of improving teaching and learning in public education is discussed
in this section.
Throughout the literature, there is agreement that change should be dealt with
as a process and not an event (Fullan, 1981; Hall & Hord, 1987; Kostelnik, 1993).
The major research has been based on the assumption that meaningful change is
a process that takes time, rather than being a singular event or decision point. It
appears that more is known about the process of change as a result of the research
of the 1970s and 1980s, but there are no iron-clad rules to describe it. Fullan (1991)
indicated that research findings on the change process should be used less as
instruments of "application" and more as means of helping practitioners and
planners "make sense" of planning, implementing strategies, and monitoring (p. 47).

42
Most researchers see three broad phases to the change process: Phase I,
variously labeled initiations, mobilization, or adoptions, consists of the process that
leads up to and includes a decision to adopt or proceed with a change. Phase II,
implementation or initial use, involves the first experiences of attempting to put an
idea or reform into practice.

Phase III, called continuation, incorporation,

routinization, or institutionalization, refers to whether the change gets built in as an
ongoing part of the system or disappears (Fullan, 1991). Hall and Hord (1987)
identified five subprocesses as part of the change process: assessment, adoption,
initiation, implementation, and institutionalization.
The total time frame from initiation to institutionalization is lengthy.

Even

moderately complex changes take from three to five years, and major restructuring
efforts can take five to ten years (Fullan, 1991).
A school district must answer a multitude of questions when initiating a
change process. Fullan (1991) suggested that the best beginnings combine the
three R’s of relevance, readiness, and resources.

Relevance includes the

interaction of need, clarity of the innovation (and practitioners’ understandings of it),
and utility, or what it really has to offer teachers and students. Readiness involves
the school’s practical and conceptual capacity to initiate, develop, or adapt a given
innovation-what Firestone (1989) called the school’s "capacity to use reform."
Readiness may be approached in terms of "individual" and "organizational" factors.
Resources concern the accumulation and provision of support as a part of the
change process. Although resources are critical during implementation, it is at the

43
initiation stage that this issue must first be considered and provided for (Fullan,
1991, pp. 63-64).
Implementation consists of the process of putting into practice an idea,
program, or set of activities and structures new to the people attempting or expected
to change (Fullan, 1991, p. 65).

Innovation development plans rarely take into

account the complementary set of steps necessary to ensure that the innovation is
used.

In more successful change efforts, there is a parallel set of policies and

procedures that address implementation, and the change process is viewed as
consisting of innovation development plus implementation (Hall & Hord, 1987, p. 10).
Increasingly, factors related to implementation are being considered in
planning, facilitating, and evaluating change efforts. It is no longer acceptable to
present an innovation to the users and within a short period of time use pre-post test
data from the recipients to determine the success of the innovation. Change is a
process, not an event.

This assertion is true of institutions as well as of the

individual members who comprise them. Implementation has to be considered as
a distinct phase and phenomenon in the life of a change/improvement process
(Huling, Hord, & Rutherford, 1983).
Fullan (1991) identified nine interactive factors organized into three main
categories as being key to the implementation process. (See Figure 2.1.)

44

A. CHARACTERISTICS
OF CHANGE
1. Need
2. Clarity
3. Complexity
4. Quality/Practicality

^ 3 _____

€?

B. LOCAL
CHARACTERISTICS
5. District
6. Community
7. Principal
8. Teacher

IMPLEMENTATION |

P

C. EXTERNAL
FACTORS
9. Government and
other agencies

Figure 2.1:

A

Interactive factors affecting implementation (Fullan, 1991, p. 68).

study

entitled

"Best

Practices

for

Beginners:

Developmental

Appropriateness in Kindergarten," conducted by researchers at the Frank Porter
Graham Child Development Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in 1988, looked
at implementation of DAP (Bryant, Clifford, & Peisner, 1991).

The study was

motivated by the trend toward retention and the use of transition classes for children
who had completed kindergarten but were not considered ready for first grade. The
study was designed to address concerns about the current state of kindergarten.
The researchers’ first purpose was to document the extent of DAP in kindergarten.
The research question was:

Did observed kindergarten practices match the

guidelines recommended by NAEYC? The researchers’ second purpose was to test

45
whether the conclusions based on research in preschool programs would apply to
kindergarten-that is, to determine which factors would predict or enhance the
appropriateness of kindergarten classes.

The investigators were especially

interested in teacher and principal characteristics, such as education, experience,
and beliefs about DAP, but class size, school size, and fiscal resources were also
examined to determine whether there was a relationship to classroom quality.
Data were collected from three major sources: observational measures of
classroom practices, principal questionnaires, and teacher questionnaires.

One

hundred three kindergarten classrooms were selected randomly for the study. The
classes were sampled in proportion to the statewide distribution of kindergarten
children by two variables: school size (small, medium, and large) and region of the
state (west, central, and east, as defined by the Offices of State Budget and
Management). Observations of the classrooms were conducted during the spring
(n = 53) and fall (n = 50). At the end of the observation, teachers and principals
were each given a questionnaire to complete and return by mail to the investigators.
The return rate was the same for both principals and teachers: 90.3% (93 and 103
in each respective group).
Two observational measures were used to record information from the
classrooms visited. The first was the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale
(ECERS) (Harms & Clifford, 1980), designed for preschool classes and modified for
use in this study. The researchers made relatively small modifications and believed
the major psychometric properties were retained.

46
The second observational measure was the

Checklist of Kindergarten

Activities (CKA) based on the NAEYC position statement regarding DAP.

The

instrument includes two major subscales: (a) the activities subscale, which contains
32 yes/no items covering seven areas of teaching activities in the classroom, and (b)
the materials subscale, which contains 21 yes/no items about whether specific
materials are present within the classroom.
In addition to classroom observations, principals of the 103 sample schools
and teachers of the observed kindergarten classes were asked to complete a
questionnaire designed by the researchers.

The main purpose was to obtain

information directly from principals and teachers about their knowledge and attitudes
about developmentally appropriate kindergarten practices. Respondents rated their
level of agreement with 28 statements about kindergarten practices, including both
appropriate and inappropriate practices.

The overall score did not distinguish

between practices teachers and principals knew to be considered developmentally
appropriate by early childhood experts versus the strength of their beliefs that such
practices are best.

One could answer in the developmentally appropriate way

because it was educationally correct, yet believe in the academic, more structured
way of teaching kindergarten.

Because no standardized or validated measure

existed, this was their way of assessing teacher and principal beliefs that might be
related to differences in classroom practices and behaviors. Other items on the
questionnaires covered retention, transition classes, and demographic information,
including educational and teaching history.

47
The study sample was compared to the entire state population of elementary
school principals and kindergarten teachers on several variables. The distributions
were similar, suggesting that the study sample was representative of the population
of elementary school principals and kindergarten teachers in the state.
The primary observational measure of the quality of classroom environments
was the kindergarten version of the ECERS.

The summary score from this

assessment (the mean ECERS score) showed a great deal of variation within the
sample of 103 classes. Based on a comparison of the scoring indicators on the
ECERS with the NAEYC statement of DAP and on the recommendation of the
scale’s authors, a criterion score of 5.0 on the ECERS was determined to indicate
DAP. A score of 5 equaled "good" on each item. The scores for the majority of
classes were below the criterion. Only 20% (n = 20) of the classes met the criterion,
whereas another 20% (n = 20) scored between 4.5 and 4.9, within a range where
some modest changes might enable the classroom to meet the criterion.
The mean total score on the CKA was 38.49 (SD = 6.92), or 73% of the
maximum possible score of 53. Similar to the ECERS data, a wide range of CKA
scores was obtained from the 103 classrooms observed.
The scores on the revised ECERS and the CKA were analyzed to test for
differences in the quality of the classroom environment by region and school size.
Total scores and subscale scores were tested in separate analyses of variance, with
region (east, central, and west) and school size (small, medium, and large) as
independent variables. No significant main effects or interactions were found.

48
Principals and teachers scored similarly on the questionnaire measure of
developmental appropriateness. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = least appropriate, 5 =
most appropriate), the mean principal developmental appropriateness score was
4.05 (SD = 0.29; range = 3.25-4.89).

The mean teacher developmental

appropriateness score was 4.13 (SD = .27; range = 3.46-4.93). Coefficient alpha
reliabilities were 0.69 for teachers’ scores and 0.786 for those of principals.
The relationship of classroom, teacher, and principal characteristics to the
level of classroom quality was examined.

A regression analysis was used to

determine the best predictors of the ECERS scores. A split-sample technique was
used to select and test the robustness of the regression model. The model was
determined by using 75% of the sample, and the reliability of the model was tested
on the remaining 25% of the sample. In the 75% sample, variables were divided into
chunks, based on whether they described teacher, principal, or administrative
characteristics.
Teacher variables were (a) developmental appropriateness score, (b) years
of education, (c) grade level experience, and (d) years teaching kindergarten.
Principal variables were (a) developmental appropriateness score, (b) years of
education, (c) years as a principal, and (d) grade-level experience. Administrative
variables were (a) percentage of students in the school on free or reduced-cost
lunch (a proxy for socioeconomic level of the school), (b) average daily membership
(ADM) of school, (c) current enrollment in observed class, (d) per pupil expenditure
of school district, and (e) presence of a transition kindergarten class.

49
The best model, or set of predictor variables, was composed of two variables:
teacher developmental appropriateness

score and principal developmental

appropriateness score. The regression model estimated in the 75% sample (R2 =
.1816) was tested on the 25% sample (cross-validation R2 = .1814), and the R2
shrinkage was less than 1%, indicating that the model was highly reliable. When
parameter estimates were recalculated for the entire sample, this model was
statistically significant (F = 8.96, p < .001) and predicted 18% of the variance in the
total ECERS classroom scores.

The principal and the teacher developmental

appropriateness scores were significantly correlated with the ECERS mean (r = .39,
p < .001; r = .41, p < .001, respectively), but not with each other.
Concerns about the quality of children’s first school experiences seem
warranted. The inappropriateness evidenced in 60% of the observed classes was:
extensive time spent in whole-group, didactic instruction; frequent use ofworksheets
and rote learning exercises; and little emphasis on small-group or individualized
instruction or hands-on and child-chosen activities.
The quality of kindergarten classes was not related to region of the state, size
of the school, per pupil expenditure, or other expected predictors.

Among the

predictors in the model, influence of the individual teacher, principal, or both was
most important. Their scores on the measure of developmental appropriateness
were the most significant predictors of appropriate instruction.

Other potential

influences, according to the researchers, that were not measured were parent and

50
community values, attitudes of and pressures from first- and second-grade teachers,
and the type and quality of supervision and training.
The researchers were not able to determine whether the developmental
appropriateness scores of teachers and principals reflected their level of knowledge
about appropriate practices or the strength of their beliefs that those practices were
best, but the researchers suspected that both factors played a part in the final score.
However, because the scores were generally high already, indicating that the
teachers and principals knew about and/or believed in appropriate practices,
improving the implementation of such practices needs to be addressed.

The

researchers suggested that whether through observation, in-service training, or
mentor teacher programs, training should focus on translating knowledge of
developmental appropriateness into day-to-day practice.
The researchers were not able to determine how principals’ knowledge and/or
beliefs affected classroom practices.

One hypothesis was that principals hire

kindergarten teachers with attitudes similar to their own, but there was no significant
correlation between the principals’ and teachers’ developmental appropriateness
scores. The average teacher in the sample had taught about five years longer than
the average principal had served as principal, so many teachers probably had been
hired by someone else.

Another possible explanation for the independent

contribution of the principal scores to the prediction of classroom quality is that
administrative practices or procedures that can enhance or degrade kindergarten are
usually determined by the principal.

The researchers suggested that many

51
administrative

decisions

by

the

principal

may

influence

kindergarten

appropriateness.
The continuation of change is something that few researchers have
systematically examined. Continuation is the term used to convey the stabilization
of the new program as part of permanent practice.

An innovation can be well

implemented, and still not put into practice. Continuation is the amount of change
that lasts. The continuation of school reform needs to be studied and planned for
in its own right. According to Fullan (1991), the reasons for lack of continuation are
similar to reasons for a failure to implement, except that their role becomes more
sharply defined (p. 88). In School Context and School Change, Implications for

Effective Planning, Corbett, Dawson, and Firestone (1988) addressed the question
of why change efforts work in some places and not in others. The outcome of the
research that was conducted to write the book was that school contextual conditions
inevitably mingled with the change process to yield substantially different results
from school to school. The authors discussed school-related factors that help or
hinder the extent to which an innovation is maintained beyond its initial period of
implementation. In the studies conducted by Corbett and associates, the central
theme was that once formal school improvement activities ended, so did most of the
new practices.

The following eight contextual conditions in the schools studied

influenced how long the changes lasted:

52
1.

The availability of resources.

2.

The availability and nature of incentives and disincentives for

innovative behavior.
3.

The nature of a school’s organizational linkages.

4.

Existing school goals and priorities.

5.

The nature and extent of faculty factions and tensions.

6.

Turnover in key administrative and faculty positions.

7.

The

nature

of knowledge

use and

current

instructional

and

administrative practice.
8.

The legacy of prior change projects (pp. 5-6).

In 1983, Miles reviewed the literature to address the question: Why do some
innovations get built into the life of the district, and others just disappear? Miles
suggested that previous researchers have given unbalanced attention to user skill
to the detriment of understanding organizational-level structural and procedural
changes required for institutionalization to take place. In Miles’s research analysis
of dissemination efforts supporting school improvement (DESSI Study, Crandall &
Associates,

1982),

he looked for organizational conditions that supported

institutionalization. These he conceptualized in chart form.
The chart was organized into three groups. The first group was supporting
conditions, such as "operates on a regular, daily basis" and "competing practice
eliminated."

The second grouping was labeled "passage completion," which

included such organizational conditions as "goes from soft to hard money" and

53
"routines established for supply and maintenance." The third category of Miles’s
chart of organizational conditions that support institutionalization was labeled "cycle
survival" and included such factors as "survives annual budget cycles" and "survives
departure or introduction of new personnel."

The Role of the Principal in Facilitating Change
Getting people to change the way they do things is a very difficult task. The
implementation of educational change involves "change in practice" (Fullan, 1991).
The leadership role of the principal is a recurring theme in the literature on
principals. A large array of studies have conveyed the message that if educational
programs for students are to improve, principals must take the lead in providing
teachers with the leadership they need and are entitled to as they strive to improve
their practice.
The process of change in schools has been the focus of study by the
Research on the Improvement Process (RIP) program at the Research and
Development Center for Teacher Education at the University of Texas at Austin.
The goal of this research is to identify successful strategies for accomplishing
educational change in an effective and personal manner. The initial research efforts
focused on individual teachers, investigating how they were influenced by school
improvement efforts and how they, in turn, influenced such efforts. It was through
this research that the importance of the change facilitator was identified (Hall, 1983).
School principals as change facilitators have been the focal point because, in the

54
studies of teachers, all indicators have pointed to the school principal as the single
most influential person for facilitating change.
Although research on school improvement is now into its second decade,
systematic research on what the principal actually does and its relationship to
stability and change is quite recent. Direct, first-hand programmatic research over
the last decade has uncovered more and more issues related to the principalship
(Fullan, 1991). This research has not clarified the role, but it is well established that
the principal is a central figure in the change process, especially when those
changes are affecting the culture of the school.
A small number of researchers have investigated what principals do in the
process of facilitating change.

In the report Change Facilitators: in Search o f

Understanding Their Role, Rutherford, Hord, Huling, and Hall (1983) reported on a
study conducted by Reinhard et al. (1980) to investigate behaviors of principals that
support or hinder externally funded change projects. In doing this, they divided the
change process into four stages and looked at the principal’s role in each stage.
The four stages were (a) planning and initiation, (b) building a temporary operating
system for the project, (c) developing and implementing, and (d) ending and
institutionalizing. At each stage they found specific contributions by the principal that
were crucial to project success.
Crucial at the first stage, planning and initiation, was the principal’s agreement
with the project, his or her input into the project proposal, and communication of his
or her support and enthusiasm to others. At the second stage, successful projects

55
had principals who took an active, positive role in the project, "sold" the project to the
superintendent, and provided quickly all necessary materials and personnel
resources.

During the stage of development and implementation, successful

principals remained interested and ever ready to help solve any problems that might
arise. It was during this period that principals in successful projects began to turn
over operation of the project to the other personnel. In the fourth stage, the critical
behaviors for successful principals were continuing commitment to the project and
ability to provide the resources needed for project continuation.
Currently, researchers are addressing a transition from the principal’s role in
influencing the implementation of specific innovations to the principal’s role in
leading changes in the school as an organization (Patterson, 1993). Fullan (1991)
explained this transition by pointing out that even though Hall and others have found
that principals can have a major effect on the degree of implementation of particular
innovations, others have pointed out that successful implementation of innovations
by teachers often occurs without the involvement of principals.
The new thinking about leadership requires that one look deeper and more
holistically at the principal and the school as an organization.

The old view of

leadership, which emphasized style and behavior and development of highly
structured management systems, remains important. But now, what leaders stand
for and believe in, and their ability to communicate these values and ideals in a way
that provides both meaning and significance to others, are more important than how

56
they behave (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Patterson, 1993;
Sergiovanni, 1987).
The current research and literature support that principals with very different
styles and personalities can be effective; however, all studies showed effective
principals being actively involved in bringing about change (Fullan, 1991).

All

effective principals in a study by Smith and Andrews (1989) of seven effective
instructional leaders identified four main tasks that they all performed (resource
provider, instructional resource, communicator, visible presence), but they did this
with different methods and styles, depending on their personalities and settings.

Summary
The review of literature revealed that, despite solid research, the support of
national organizations and state departments, and the initial overwhelming and
positive response from the field, there are many obstacles to actually implementing
DAP in public schools. Those obstacles exist because of myths and misunderstand­
ings and because implementing DAP requires fundamental reform aimed at
transforming and altering permanently the existing structures of schooling.

No

literature was discovered on the status of the implementation of DAP and the
continuation of that implementation from an organizational and administrative
perspective. The review included a discussion on the process of change and the
role of the principal in facilitating change.
The purpose of the study, the research questions and hypotheses, and the
design of the study are presented in Chapter III.

CHAPTER 111

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Introduction
The researcher’s purpose, the research questions, and the design of the
study are presented in this chapter.

The six phases of the study design were

identification of survey components, development of the survey instrument,
pretesting and piloting of the survey instrument, description and selection of the
sample, data-collection procedures, and the methods of analyzing the data. The
researcher’s purpose in the study was to explore the implementation and
continuation of educational reform.
The study was designed to examine the status of organizational components
and administrative practices related to the implementation and continuation of DAP.
Limited research was found related to the actual implementation of educational
innovations, especially from the perspective of organizational change and the role
of change facilitators.

Even less research was found related to the factors that

promote or hinder the extent to which an innovation is maintained beyond its initial
period of implementation. The researcher focused on organizational components
and administrative practices supporting the implementation and continuation of DAP.

57

58
The subjects were elementary principals in public schools in Michigan districts that
had been implementing DAP for more than two years and fewer than nine years.

Research Questions a nd Hypotheses

The following research questions were addressed in this study:
1.

W hat is the status of organizational components related to the

sustaining of developmentally appropriate practices reported by elementary
principals who have been implementing DAP for at least two years?
2.

Are there relationships between the organizational components and

administrative practices related to the implementation

and continuation of

developmentally appropriate practices that are reported to be in evidence by
elementary principals who have been implementing DAP?
The following eight null hypotheses were tested to determine what
relationships existed between organizational components and administrative
practices:
Hypothesis 1: There are no significant relationships between the status of the
school’s clim ate for restructuring and the administrative practices of the
elementary principal when implementing developmentally appropriate
practices.
H ypothesis 2 : There are no significant relationships between the status of
personnel features related to the implementation and continuation of
developmentally appropriate practices and the administrative practices of the
elementary principal.
Hypothesis 3 : There are no significant relationships between the status of
classroom practices related to the implementation and continuation of
developmentally appropriate practices and the administrative practices ofthe
elementary principal.

59
Hypothesis 4 : There are no significant relationships between the status of the
involvem ent of parents related to the implementation and continuation of
developmentally appropriate practices and the administrative practices of the
elementary principal.
Hypothesis 5 : There are no significant relationships between the status of
community responsiveness and the status of administrative practices
related to the implementation and continuation of developmentally
appropriate practices.
Hypothesis 6 : There are no significant relationships between the support to
fam ilies for transitions and the administrative practices of the elementary
principal in the implementation and continuation of developmentally
appropriate practices.
Hypothesis 7 : There are no significant relationships between the status of
m aintaining quality control in the implementation and continuation of
developmentally appropriate practices and the administrative practices of the
elementary principal.
Hypothesis 8 : There are no significant relationships between the status of
professional resources available for the implementation and continuation
of developmentally appropriate practices and the administrative practices of
the elementary principal.
3.

What are the comments and/or concerns elementary principals

express regarding the implementation and continuation of developmentally
appropriate practices in their elementary schools?
Comments and concerns written on the survey instrument, as well as
responses from the telephone contact, were analyzed. Trends are reported in the
discussion of this research question.

Research Design
The design of the study consisted of six phases. The first phase was to
conduct a review of the literature to identify the organizational components and

60
administrative practices related to sustaining the implementation of DAP.

The

second phase was the development of a survey instrument. In the third phase, a
pretesting and piloting of the survey was conducted to refine and test the instrument.
The fourth phase was the collection of information for selecting the sample
population. The fifth phase was the identification and implementation of the datacollection procedure, and in the sixth phase, data from the survey instrument and
follow-up telephone conversations were analyzed statistically.

Phase 1: Identification of Survey Components
The first phase of the study was to identify the components of DAP at the
organizational level that affect the continuation of DAP in the classroom.

The

second part of phase one was to identify the administrative practices of elementary
principals that influence the sustaining and continuation of the implementation of
DAP. The researcher used the organizational components identified in the literature
as being critical to the restructuring of early childhood programs and the factors
identified in the research pertaining to change and the role of building principals as
change facilitators. A review of the literature provided evidence of critical issues in
the sustaining of educational reforms and in the implementation of DAP in
elementary schools. The critical issues were identified at the philosophical and
conceptual levels. In identifying the administrative practices related to facilitating
educational reforms, the researcher reviewed the literature on change, planned
educational reform, and the institutionalization phase of change efforts, as well as
the role of the principal in the change process.

61
Phase 2: Development of the Survey Instrument
To begin the development of the survey instrument, ten key issues identified
by the Northwest Regional Educational Lab (NWREL, 1992) as entering into the
process of restructuring public schools around early childhood were developed into
statements

representing those issues.

Organizational/Resource

The ten issues were Readiness,

Features, Personnel, Classroom

Practices, Family,

Communities, Transition, Comprehensive Care, Quality Control, and Administrative
Concerns. The initial survey instrument consisted of 44 descriptors related to the ten
organizational components.
The second part of the survey instrument, Administrative Practices, was
developed using data from the NWREL study and key issues reported in the
literature on the role of the building principal in the change process. Initially, there
were eight categories: leadership, knowledge of DAP, knowledge of the change
process, availability of adequate resources, ability to conduct staff development,
reinforcement of users, monitoring and evaluation of users, and responses to
concerns.
In the second step of the development of the survey instrument, the
researcher used the knowledge of three experts. One expert was with the NWREL,
the second was a private consultant for developmental education in Connecticut,
and the third was a dean of education and well-known author in the area of change
in schools. Members of the researcher’s advisory committee were also mailed a
copy of the instrument.

62
The survey instrument and a description of the study were mailed with a cover
letter asking for oral or written feedback regarding the content of the study and the
format of the survey instrument. Two of the experts had a telephone contact with the
researcher and agreed that the study was valuable to the field.

Both of them

suggested that the study include some ethnographic information from the population
in the study. Two of them sent the researcher additional literature to review. The
questionnaire sent at this stage contained information about specific classroom
practices. One expert suggested that these data would be very subjective and not
really pertinent to the purpose of the study. The researcher concurred, and these
statements were eliminated. One expert commented that looking at change from
this level was seldom done, and knowing exactly what the content of the
questionnaire should be was difficult; however, the expert thought the questionnaire
covered the major issues. The third expert had left the institute, and all attempts to
reach this individual failed. However, the researcher had been in contact with this
consultant much earlier in the development of the research proposal, and the
consultant encouraged the research and offered suggestions for the initial format at
that time.
An open-ended question was included in the instrument. Respondents were
asked to identify any concerns or make any comments related to the implementation
of DAP in their buildings.
A 12-item demographic section also was included for respondents to provide
information about the school and themselves, such as number of students, grade

63
configuration of the school, per pupil expenditures, years of experience, grade levels
implementing DAP, and existence of alternative programs for young children.
Members of the researcher’s advisory committee suggested that some of Ihe
statements be revised to enable the respondents to be more subjective. Changes
were made in the wording and position of the statements to reflect the concerns of
the committee members.

Phase 3; Pretesting and Piloting
the Instrument
In the third phase, the researcher used two consultants from Oakland Schools
Intermediate School District, a consultant for early childhood education, a consultant
from the Research and Evaluation Department, and five elementary school
principals involved in the implementation of DAP. The researcher met individually
with or mailed a copy of the questionnaire and cover letter to five elementary
principals familiar with DAP in Macomb County and Oakland County. The principals
participating in the pilot were asked to fill out the survey instrument and keep track
of the amount of time it took to complete.
Findings. The input from the consultants at Oakland Schools ISD was very
helpful. The early childhood consultant suggested an organizational concern that
was being identified in some districts, and it was added to the "school climate for
restructuring" section. Other suggestions were made for clarity. There was also the
opportunity to add some detail to the questionnaire that assisted in the scoring and
analysis of the data.

64
All of the participating principals completed the survey instrument in fewer
than 15 minutes. All respondents agreed that, overall, the survey was very complete
and commented that they were comfortable filling it out.

Most suggestions for

improving the survey were incorporated in the revised questionnaire.

Revisions

were primarily in the administrative practices and demographics sections. The pilot
study was very beneficial. The researcher was surprised by the number of revisions
the questionnaire went through from its inception. (A copy of the survey instrument
may be found in Appendix A.)
The instrument. The instrument for the study was a four-part questionnaire.
The first section ofthe questionnaire dealt with critical organizational components
related to DAP (A), the second section measured the status of adm inistrative
practices related to DAP (B), the third section (C) was for comments and concerns
and required an open-ended response, and the fourth section (D) consisted ofthe
dem ographic variables.

A Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to

strongly disagree (1) was used in sections A and B. In addition, there were six yes
or no questions in sections A and B, and two yes or no questions in section D.

Phase 4: Collecting Information for
Selecting the Sample
The fourth phase ofthe study involved the identification of school districts in
Michigan that have been implementing DAP for more than two years and fewer than
nine years. There were no records at the state or ISD level that specifically identified
districts that had a policy or strongly encouraged DAP at the elementary level.

65
To identify the districts in Michigan that had a policy and/or strongly
encouraged DAP at the elementary level, the researcher mailed a letter and a brief
survey to every superintendent in Michigan, asking whether his or her district had a
policy and/or encouraged DAP in their elementary schools. Superintendents were
also asked to indicate the number of years the district had been implementing DAP
in their elementary schools, and whether the researcher could include the district in
the study. (A copy ofthe letter and survey is provided in Appendix B.) Responses
were clustered by geographic area, in orderto identify representation from the entire
state. The researcher divided the state into four areas: Southeast (217 districts),
Southwest (147 districts), North (99 districts), and Upper Peninsula (24 districts).
Superintendents from 217 districts returned the questionnaire. Seventeen
questionnaires were not signed, so the geographic area or district could not be
identified.

Nine questionnaires were returned too late to be part of the sample.

Nineteen superintendents wrote unsolicited comments on their surveys.
A total of 156 superintendents reported that their districts were implementing
DAP. Twenty-seven districts had a policy for the implementation of DAP. Fifty-eight
districts had no policy, nor did they encourage the use of DAP.

Eighty-six

superintendents reported that their districts encouraged DAP at the elementary level
and had been implementing for more than two years and fewer than nine years.
Twenty-one of the superintendents

reported that their districts had been

implementing for more than nine years. One hundred eight superintendents asked

66
that their districts not be part of the study. Eighty-nine superintendents asked to
receive a copy of the results of the study.
The responses represented the distribution ofthe school population across
the state (see Table 3.1). Due to the number of responses, every district meeting
the criteria was included in the sample.

Table 3.1:

Distribution of responses and implementation of DAP (n = 191 surveys
returned in time for inclusion in Stage 2 of data collection).
DAP Implementation

Geographic Area

No. of Districts

> 2 Years, < 9 Years

No. of Principals

(No. of Districts)

Responding

& Granted Permission

in Districts

to Be in Study
Southeast (217)

81

42 (51%)

199

Southwest (147)

89

19 (39%)

72

North (99)

37

10 (27%)

44

Upper (61)

24

3 (12%)

4

TOTALS

191

74

318

Phase 5: Pata-Collection Procedure
and Sample Selection
The fifth phase of the study was a two-step procedure. Step one involved
mailing an explanatory letter and survey instrument to the population of elementary
principals implementing DAP. A stratified random sample of principals, from the 86
districts whose superintendents reported that DAP were encouraged and that the
district had been implementing more than two years and fewer than nine, were

67
identified by a random drawing of numbers representing the total number of
principals in the district. In districts with at least two principals, one principal was
selected; in districts with 3 to 5 principals, two principals were identified; in districts
with 6 to 8 principals, three principals were identified; in districts with 10 to 19
principals, six principals were identified; and in districts with more than 20 principals,
seven were identified. This sampling procedure provided a total of 162 principals
identified to receive the survey.
The population for this study consisted of 162 elementary school principals
from the four geographic areas of Michigan (Southeast = 100, Southwest = 36,
North = 22, and Upper = 4). The principals were identified and selected using the

Michigan Education Directory for 1995.

Each principal was sent a Likert-type

questionnaire developed by the researcher. Principals were asked to complete the
four-part questionnaire and return it to the researcher in a stamped, returnaddressed envelope. Respondents were given the opportunity to indicate whether
they would be willing to participate in a follow-up telephone conversation and/or
personal interview regarding their responses to the survey. If so, they filled in their
name, telephone number, and a convenient time to reach them.
Each survey instrument was numbered, and two weeks following the mailing,
all respondents who had not returned the instrument were sent a follow-up postcard.
The data collection from the survey instrument was completed in about six weeks.
Copies ofthe transmittal letter and follow-up postcard are in Appendices C and D.

68
The interviews. Step two ofthe data collection involved a follow-up, semistructured telephone interview. The interviews were conducted with 17 respondents,
all of whom indicated a willingness to participate in a follow-up on the survey
instrument. The intention ofthe telephone interviews was to clarify and/or expand
on responses from the survey instrument that the researcher thought needed more
explanation.

These questions were determined

after the data from the

questionnaires had been analyzed. All ofthe participants in the follow-up telephone
interviews were asked the following questions:
1.

Do you know how the implementation of DAP was started in your

district?
2.

Do you have any major concerns regarding the implementation and

sustaining of DAP in your building?
3.

What do you see happening with DAP in the next three to five years?

4.

Has the implementation of DAP

influenced other reforms in your

building?

Phase 6: Analysis of the Data
In analyzing the data, the researcher followed four main steps. In step one,
the population as a whole was described in terms of size of district and school, grade
level configuration, per pupil expenditures, years of experience, administrative and
teaching experience, grade levels currently implementing DAP, number of years the
building had been implementing DAP, and the existence of alternative programs.

69
The information was categorized and analyzed to ascertain trends and significant
factors.
In step two, the responses were statistically analyzed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) to determine the frequency and
percentage of responses related to the status ofthe organizational components and
administrative practices as reported by the building principals. Nine categories were
identified as organizational components:
1.

School Climate for Restructuring (9 statements + 1 y/n)

2.

Organizational and Resource Features (2 y/n)

3.

Personnel Features (4 statements)

4.

Classroom Practices (9 statements)

5.

Involvement of Parents (6 statements)

6.

Community Responsiveness (2 statements)

7.

Transitions for Children and Families (2 statements)

8.

Maintaining Quality Control (2 statements + 2 y/n)

9.

Professional Resources (4 statements + 2 y/n)

Thirteen statements and one yes/no question related to administrative
practices were in section B of the survey instrument.

The researcher had five

categories related to the role of the building principal as a change facilitator from
which the statements were developed. These categories were:
1.

Leadership

2.

Beliefs and Values

70
3.

Knowledge and Training

4.

Priorities

5.

Success of Implementation

For each category, the respondent answered a statement beginning, "In this
school . . . " to indicate the status of each ofthe categories in sections A and B. A
five-point Likert scale of Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, and Strongly
Disagree was used for the open-ended statements, and a yes or no response was
used for specific questions.
To complete step three, the researcher did a Pearson product-moment one­
way analysis of variance using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS-X) program to determine whether there was a statistically significant
relationship between the status of eight ofthe organizational components and the
13 statements identified in Section B: Administrative Practices. These analyses
were done to test the eight null hypotheses.
The fourth and final step ofthe data analysis was a reporting ofthe written
statements from the open-ended comments and/or concerns section on the survey
instrument, as well as the responses from the principals who participated in the
follow-up telephone interviews.

Summary
The purpose ofthe study, the research questions and hypotheses, and the
design ofthe study were presented in this chapter. There were six phases in the
study design. The first phase was the identification of components necessary for the

71
identification ofthe status of DAP in school districts that had a policy or encouraged
DAP for at least two years. In the second phase, the researcher developed the initial
survey instrument. The instrument contained four major areas: Organizational
Components, Administrative Practices, an open-ended question regarding concerns
and/or comments, and a demographics section.
In phase three, the researcher pretested and piloted the survey instrument.
Suggestions for improvement were incorporated in the final survey instrument. In
phase four, the researcher identified school districts in Michigan that were
implementing DAP, by sending a short questionnaire to every superintendent in the
state. The researcher identified and implemented a data-collection procedure in
phase five. In phase six, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X)
program was used to analyze the data collected in phase five. A second step in
phase six was the collection and analysis of data collected from telephone interviews
conducted with respondents who indicated on the survey instrument they would
participate.
The results from the statistical analyses, demographic characteristics ofthe
respondents, and a summary and analysis of the follow-up telephone interviews are
presented in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA

Introduction
Presented in this chapter are the data gathered from the responses of 71
Michigan elementary school principals to the survey instrument that was developed
for this study. Also presented are the data gathered from 17 elementary school
principals in a follow-up telephone survey.
The researcher’s purpose in this study was to explore the sustaining of
educational reform by examining the status of organizational components and
administrative practices related to the implementation and continuation of DAP in
elementary schools in Michigan. The survey instrument included nine organizational
components with 44 questions, a section on administrative practices with 14
questions, a section for an open-ended response, and a demographic section
designed to elicit characteristics ofthe respondents, their schools, and their districts.
The survey instrument was designed to determine the status of organizational
components and administrative practices related to the sustaining of DAP in a
stratified random sample of elementary schools that had been implementing DAP
for at least two years and not more than nine years.

72

The follow-up telephone

73
interview was conducted with 17 principals, all of whom indicated a willingness to
participate on the survey instrument.
The following research questions were addressed in this study:
1.

What is the status of organizational components related to the

sustaining of developmentally appropriate practices reported by elementary
principals who have been implementing DAP for at least two years?
Percentages of responses were determined for each variable within the nine
organizational components.
2.

Are there relationships between the organizational factors and

administrative practices related to the implementation

and continuation of

developmentally appropriate practices that are reported to be in evidence by
elementary principals who have been implementing DAP?
Eight research hypotheses were tested to determine whether there were
significant relationships between eight ofthe nine organizational components and
administrative practices reported by principals.
3.

What are the comments and/or concerns elementary principals

express regarding the implementation and continuation of developmentally
appropriate practices in their elementary schools?
Comments and/or concerns written on the survey instrument, and responses
from the follow-up telephone conversations with a selected group of respondents,
were analyzed for trends and reported.

74
Characteristics of the Sample
One hundred sixty-one elementary school principals were sent the survey
instrument in May 1955. Of that number, 71 returned surveys within the time period,
for a return rate of 44%.
In Tables 4.1 through 4.9, the sample is described. In Table 4.1, the sample
of elementary principals is described in terms of years of educational experience.
The years of administrative experience in the current building are shown in Table
4.2, and levels of instructional and administrative experience are shown in Table 4.3.
As shown in Table 4.1, 60 (84.8%) ofthe respondents had 20 or fewer years of
educational experience; 16 (22.5%) had fewer than 10 years. The mean was 15
years.

The majority of respondents (50 or 70.6%) had 10 or fewer years of

experience as an elementary principal, with a mean of 8.2 years. Sixty-two ofthe
respondents (87.3% ) had 10 or fewer years in their current buildings, with a mean
of 5.5 years (Table 4.2). Fifty-three (74.6%) ofthe respondents had instructional
experience at multiple levels, 12 (16.9%) ofthe respondents reported instructional
experience in grades K-5, and 4 (5.6%) reported having instructional experience at
the secondary level only (Table 4.3).

When asked at what level they had

administrative experience, 4 (5.6%) respondents said they had administrative
experience at the K-2 level, 1 (1.4% ) had administrative experience only at the 3-5
level, and 63 (88.7%) had administrative experience at multiple levels (Table 4.3).

75
Table 4.1:

Distribution of participants by educational experience.
N

Years

%

Y ears as a Professional Educator (R ange = 4 to 5 5 years)
Mean = 15.214. M edian = 15. M ode = 15
< 1 0 years
10-15 years
16-20 years
21-30 years
> 30 years
Missing
Total

16
26
18
9
1
1
71

22.5
36.6
25.7
12.7
1.4
1.4
100.0

Y ears as an Elem entary Principal (R an ge = 1 to 2 4 years)
M ean = 8 .2 4 6 . M edian = 6.0, Mode = 4 .0
< 6 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-24 years
Missing
Total

Table 4.2:

30
20
9
10
2
71

42.3
28.3
12.6
14.0
2.8
100.0

Distribution of participants by years in current building as principal.

Years

N

%

< 5 years
5-10 years
11 -24 years
Missing
Total

40
22
7
2
71

56.4
30.9
9.9
2.8
100.0

Range = 1 to 24 years
Mean = 5.551, Median = 4.0, Mode = 3.0

76
Table 4.3:

Instructional and administrative experience ofthe sample.

Level

N

%

Level o f Instructional Experience
K-2
3-5
6-8
9-12
Multi
Missing
Total

5
7
1
3
53
2
71

7.0
9.9
1.4
4.2
76.8
2.8
100.0

Level o f Administrative Experience
K-2
3-5
Multi
Missing
Total

4
1
63
3
71

5.6
1.4
88.7
4.2
100.0

In Table 4.4, the schools represented are described in terms of student
enrollment ofthe district and student enrollment ofthe school. The total population
of districts represented in the sample ranged from 260 to 12,900 students. Fifteen
(21.0%) ofthe respondents had fewer than 1,850 students in their districts, whereas
31 (43.6%) ofthe respondents reported a district enrollment between 1,851 and
5,000 students. An additional 10 (14%) respondents had district enrollments that
exceeded 5,000 students.

The elementary schools represented in the sample

ranged in size from 170 to 800 students; the average size reported was 438
students.

77
Table 4.4:

Characteristics of schools represented in the sample: student
enrollment of district and student enrollment of school.

Enrollment

N

%

Enrollm ent o f District (R ange = 2 6 0 to 1 2 ,90 0)
M ean = 4 ,4 4 7 .1 9 , M edian = 3 ,3 0 0 , M ode = 5 ,0 0 0
< 1,201
1,201- 1,850
1,851- 2,999
3,000- 5,000
5,001-10,000
> 10,001
Missing
Total

7
8
15
16
10
7
8
71

9.8
11.2
21.0
22.6
14.0
10.0
11.4
100.0

Enrollm ent of School (R ange = 170 to 8 0 0 )
M ean = 4 3 8 .3 6 8 , M edian = 4 5 8 , M ode = 5 0 0 )
< 300
301-399
400-499
500-599
600-800
Total

11
11
25
13
3
71

15.4
15.4
35.4
18.3
4.3
100.0

The funding for per pupil expenditures as it relates to state aid is shown in
Table 4.5. When asked whether the per pupil expenditures exceeded state aid, 36
(50.7%) ofthe respondents said yes, and 31 (43.7% ) said no.

Table 4.5:

Per pupil expenditures of districts represented in the sample.

Exceeded State Aid
Yes
No
Missing
Total

N

%

36
31
4
71

50.7
43.7
5.6
99.0a

aDoes not equal 100% due to rounding.

78
Shown in Table 4.6 is the grade configuration of schools in the sample. A
majority of the respondents (45 or 63.4%) worked in schools with a grade-level
configuration of K-5 or K-6.

Eleven schools had a preschool or developmental

kindergarten program and grades up to third, fifth, or sixth. Seven (9.9%) of the
respondents represented schools with a preschool through second-grade population,
and three (4.2%) represented a 3-5 grade-level configuration.

Table 4.6:

Grade-level configuration ofthe schools represented in the sample.

Configuration
Pre K-K
Preschool-2
Dev. K-5/6
Preschool-3/5/6
K-2
K-4
K-5
K-6
1-3/5
2-5
4-6
Missing
Total

No. of Schools

%

2
1
4
8
7
1
31
11
2
1
1
2
71

2.8
1.4
5.6
11.2
9.8
1.4
43.4
15.4
2.8
1.4
1.4
2.8
99.6a

“Does not equal 100% due to rounding.

A distribution of participants by grade levels implementing DAP is shown in
Table 4.7.

Thirty-one (43%) of the schools represented in this study were

implementing DAP at the K-2 level. Eleven respondents (14%) reported that their
schools were implementing DAP at the kindergarten level and in preschool,

79
developmental kindergarten, or Young 5’s programs also housed in their buildings.
Six schools (8%) were implementing DAP in K-3, and nine schools (12%) were
implementing DAP in K-4, 5, or 6. One school was implementing DAP in K-8. Also,
schools without a kindergarten, with a grade-level configuration of 1-2 (n = 1), 1-3
(n = 1), and 2-5 (n = 1), were implementing DAP at all levels.

Table 4.7:

Distribution of participants by grade levels implementing DAP.
Grade Level

Pre K-K
Pre K-1
Pre K-2
Kindergarten
K-1
K-2
K-3
K-4
K-5
K-6
K-8
1-2
1-3
2-5
Missing
Total

No. of Schools
1
4 Young 5’s (2)
3 Developmental K (1)
3
6
31
6
1
5
3
1
1
1
1
4
71

%
1.4
5.6
4.2
4.2
8.4
43.4
8.4
1.4
7.0
4.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
5.6
99.4a

aDoes not equal 100% due to rounding.

The number of years the building principals had been implementing DAP are
shown in Table 4.8.

Fourteen (19.7%) of the respondents reported that their

buildings had been implementing DAP for fewer than two years. A plurality ofthe

80
respondents (34 or 47.9% ) had been implementing DAP between three and five
years. Eight (11.3% ) respondents had been implementing DAP six to eight years,
and four (5.6%) had been implementing 10 to 11 years. Eleven (15.5% ) did not
know or did not answer the question.

Table 4.8:

Number of years the schools represented in the sample had been
implementing DAP.

Years
< 2 years
3-5 years
6-8 years
10-11 years
Missing
Total

N

%

14
34
8
4
11
71

19.7
47.9
11.3
5.6
15.5
100.0

Range = 1 to 11 years
Mean = 4.35, Median = 4, Mode = 5

The existence of alternative programs for young children is reported in Table
4.9. When asked whether their buildings currently had any alternative non-specialeducation programs for young children, 24 (33.8%) ofthe respondents said yes, and
45 (63.4% ) said no. Of the 24 who said yes, 17 (70%) reported that the children
were tested for admittance into the alternative program.

81
Table 4.9:

Number of schools in the sample with alternative programs for young
children and the frequency of testing for admittance to those programs.
N

%

Currently have alternative_Drogram_
for_y.oung children
Yes
No
Missing
Total

24
45
2
71

33.8
63.4
2.8
100.0

Are children tested for admittance?
Yes
No
Missing
Total

17
10
44
71

23.9
14.1
62.0
100.0

Results Regarding the Research Questions
Three research questions were formulated to serve the purpose ofthe study.
In the following pages, each research question is restated, followed by a report of
the data pertaining to that question.

Research Question 1
What is the status of organizational components related to the sustaining of
developmentally appropriate practices reported by elementary principals who
have been implementing DAP for at least two years?
The status of organizational components related to the sustaining and
continuation of DAP, as reported by the participants in this study, is reported in
Tables 4.10 through 4.18.

The organizational components related to the

continuation of DAP are identified by nine factors:

(a) school climate for

82
restructuring, (b) organizational and resource features, (c) personnel features, (d)
classroom practices, (e) involvement of parents, (f) community responsiveness, (g)
transitions for children and families, (h) maintaining quality control, and (i)
professional resources. Within each majorfactor, the building principals’ perceptions
ofthe various descriptions ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. There
was also an Undecided category for each ofthe statements.
Factor 1:__ School climate for restructuring.

As shown in Table 4.10,

statements pertaining to the motivation ofthe staff to make the changes, a common
philosophy and vision, willingness to take risks, collaboration among staff, support
of district policies, and consideration of DAP in the school improvement plan
received a response of Strongly Agree or Agree from 75% ofthe respondents. Two
statements, parent involvement in development and planning (43.7% ) and the
actions ofthe collective bargaining unit (38.8%), received less than a 50% response
in the Strongly Agree or Agree categories. Almost 40% ofthe respondents indicated
that they disagreed with the statement that parents had been involved in
development and planning (39.4%), and 26% ofthe respondents disagreed (19.7%)
or strongly disagreed (7.0%) with the statement that the actions of the collective
bargaining units support the implementation of DAP.

Ninety-four percent of the

respondents reported that consideration was given to DAP when developing school
improvement plans.

83
Table 4.10:

School climate for restructuring.
SA

A

U

D

SD

23.9

63.4

8.5

4.2

4.2

The staff was prepared for implementing
developmentally appropriate practices.

8.5

56.3

22.5

9.9

2.8

There is a common philosophy and vision
in the school that supports
developmentally appropriate practices.

19.7

59.2

0.0

14.1

7.0

Parents were involved in the development
and planning for implementing
developmentally appropriate practices.

1.4

42.3

15.5

39.4

1.4

The staff takes risks related to the
implementation of developmentally
appropriate practices.

18.3

57.7

12.7

9.9

1.4

Collaboration between staff is common.

42.3

45.1

5.6

7.0

0.0

1.4

52.1

9.9

29.6

7.0

23.9

54.9

7.0

11.3

2.8

4.2

29.6

39.4

19.7

7.0

Statement
The staff was motivated to make the
desired changes toward implementing
developmentally appropriate practices.

Staff have the choice as to whether or not
they participate in the implementation of
developmentally appropriate practices.
Most district policies support our
implementation of developmentally
appropriate practices (e.g., allocation of
funds, class size, retention).
The actions of collective bargaining units
support the implementation of
developmentally appropriate practices.
Consideration is given to developmentally
appropriate practices in the development
of our school improvement plan.

YES
94.3

NO
5.7

84
Factor 2: Organizational and resource features. Sixty-three percent ofthe
respondents reported that their schools received funds for the initial implementation
of DAP.

Another 58.8% reported that funds were designated annually for the

continuation ofthe implementation (Table 4.11).

Table 4.11:

Organizational and resource features.
Statement

Yes

No

Funds were specifically allocated for the initial
implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices.

63.2

36.8

Annually funds are specifically designated for the
ongoing implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices.

58.8

41.2

Factor 3: Personnel features. Seventy percent or more ofthe respondents
strongly agreed or agreed with the personnel features related to sustaining an
innovation, staff development is on-going, staff have time to plan together, staff
establish professional goals, and teachers are involved in sharing their knowledge
and experiences outside of the school. Twenty-six percent of the respondents
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that staff have time to plan
together (Table 4.12).

85
Table 4.12:

Personnel features.
SA

A

U

D

SD

Staff development is ongoing for the
implementation of developmentally
appropriate practices.

17.6

60.3

5.9

16.2

0.0

Staff have a designated time to plan
together.

22.1

48.5

2.9

23.5

2.9

Instructional staff establish their own
professional goals.

22.1

60.3

10.3

5.9

1.5

Teachers are involved in sharing their
knowledge and experiences outside of our
school.

17.6

54.4

11.8

16.2

0.0

Statement

Factor 4: Classroom practices. Elementary principals implementing DAP
responded most consistently to the statements in the classroom practices category.
Five statements-delivery of curriculum in a variety of ways; children are given
opportunities to explore, manipulate, investigate, and discover with materials in the
classroom; classroom instruction involves a variety of grouping practices; a variety
of teaching strategies are used; and assessments beyond standardized testing are
used-received 90% or better responses in the Strongly Agree or Agree categories.
Developmentally appropriate practices guiding changes made in the curriculum,
discipline practices, and diverse mixed-ability grouping practices received less than
90% responses in the Strongly Agree or Agree categories (Table 4.13).

86

Table 4.13:

Classroom practices.
Statement

SA

A

U

D

SD

Developmentally appropriate practices
guide the decisions made for changes
in the curriculum.

23.5

64.7

4.4

7.4

0.0

Curriculum is delivered with a variety of
materials including multi-sensory, and
open-ended manipulatives.

44.1

54.4

1.5

0.0

0.0

Children are provided opportunities to
explore, manipulate, investigate and
discover with materials in the
classroom.

39.7

57.4

2.9

0.0

0.0

Children are encouraged to take risks.

33.8

55.9

8.8

1.5

0.0

Classroom instruction includes whole
group, small group and individual
instruction.

52.9

47.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

Discipline practices reflect an
emphasis on children’s development of
self-control.

39.7

48.5

7.4

4.4

0.0

A variety of teaching strategies are
used in implementing the curriculum
(e.g., teacher directed, teacher
facilitated, and free choice).

55.2

44.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

Diverse, mixed ability groups are
common.

44.1

45.6

7.4

2.9

0.0

Assessment practices beyond
standardized testing are used for
evaluating students.

40.3

52.2

3.0

4.5

0.0

Factor 5: Involvement of parents. As indicated in Table 4.14, the involvement
of parents component received a wide range of responses. Two ofthe statementsinformation about classroom practices, and parents recruited for the classroom—

87
received 91.2% and 100% responses, respectively, in the Strongly Agree and Agree
categories. Parents trained in supporting classroom activities had support from only
48.5% of the respondents, with 32.4% undecided and 17.6% disagreeing.
Approximately 78% ofthe respondents reported that parents were supportive of the
implementation of DAP, with 20.6% undecided and 1.5% disagreeing. Fifty-seven
percent of the respondents reported that parent education was an ongoing
component ofthe implementation, with 20.6% undecided and 20.6% disagreeing.
Procedures were in place for obtaining parent input, according to 76.4% of the
respondents.

Table 4.14: Involvement of parents.
Statement

SA

A

U

D

Information about classroom practices is shared
with parents in a variety of ways.

29.4

61.8

5.9

2.9

0.0

Parents are recruited to support children’s
activities in the classroom.

35.3

64.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

Parents are trained to support children’s activities
in the classroom.

14.7

33.8

32.4

17.6

1.5

Parents are supportive of our implementation of
developmentally appropriate practices.

17.6

60.3

20.6

1.5

0.0

Parent education is an ongoing component of our
implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices.

13.2

44.1

20.6

20.6

1.5

Procedures are in place to achieve parent input
(e.g., representation on SIP committees,
Dialogue meetings, Advisory groups).

23.5

52.9

10.3

13.2

0.0

SD

88

Factor 6: Community responsiveness. The involvement of the community
in the planning for the district to adopt DAP was supported by 41.2% of the
respondents; 26.5% were undecided and 27.9% disagreed.

A majority of the

respondents (86.8% ) reported that the school believes the board of education
supports the implementation of DAP (Table 4.15).

Table 4.15:

Community responsiveness.
Statement

The community was involved in the planning for
our district to adopt a developmentally
appropriate philosophy.
We believe the Board of Education supports
the implementation of developmentally
appropriate practices.

SA

A

U

D

8.8

32.4

26.5

27.9

4.4

26.5

60.3

8.8

4.4

0.0

SD

Factor 7: Transitions for children and families. In the category of transitions
for children and families, 26.5% of the respondents were undecided about
information related to DAP being available to the community. Sixty-three percent
strongly agreed or agreed that it was available. Support for transitioning from one
grade level to the next was reported to exist in 76.5% ofthe schools represented;
13.2% ofthe respondents were undecided, and 10.3% disagreed (Table 4.16).
Factor 8; Maintaining quality control. For the category of maintaining quality
control, the researcher looked at building- and district-level activity. Elementary
principals in the study reported that teachers were self-evaluating to monitor and

89
refine their practices (73.2% ) and that student outcomes were used to determine the
effectiveness of DAP (77.1%).

At the district level, 53.5% of the respondents

reported that a formal evaluation, other than a statewide assessment tool, was in
place for the monitoring of student outcomes.

However, a majority of the

respondents (67.5% ) reported that no formal evaluation had been conducted to
determine the status of their implementation of DAP (Table 4.17).

Table 4.16: Transitions for children and families.
Statement

SA

A

U

D

SD

Information covering a variety of topics related
to developmentally appropriate practices is
available to the community.

11.8

51.5

26.5

10.3

0.0

There is support available for parents to
facilitate transitions from preschool to
kindergarten, kindergarten to first, etc.

16.2

60.3

13.2

10.3

0.0

Table 4.17: Maintaining quality control.
Statement

SA

A

U

D

SD

Teachers are self-evaluating in order to monitor
and refine their practices.

16.9

56.3

15.5

9.9

1.4

Student outcomes are used to determine
effectiveness of developmentally appropriate
practices.

11.4

65.7

10.0

10.0

2.9

There is a formal evaluation in place for the
monitoring of student outcomes other than a
statewide assessment tool.

YES
53.5

NO
46.5

A formal evaluation has been conducted to
determine the status of the implementation of
developmentally appropriate practices.

YES
29.6

NO
67.6

90
Factor 9: Professional resources. As shown in Table 4.18, 91.6% ofthe
principals strongly agreed or agreed that in their school there were individuals with
expertise in DAP; 8.5% were undecided. Seventy-eight percent ofth e principals
reported having support available to them from central administration for the
implementation of DAP, 12.7% were undecided, and 8.5% disagreed with the
statement. Consultation from a source outside ofthe school system was available
to 67.6% ofthe respondents. An individual other than the principal assisted with the
implementation in 64.8% ofthe schools. Twenty-eight percent ofthe schools had
a position at the district level with specific responsibility for the implementation of
DAP.

Table 4.18: Professional resources.
Statement

SA

A

U

D

SD

There are individuals with expertise in
developmentally appropriate practices.

45.1

46.5

8.5

0.0

0.0

Support is available from central administration
for the implementation of developmentally
appropriate practices.

23.9

54.9

12.7

8.5

0.0

Consultation from the ISD, University, and/or
private sector is accessible for supporting our
implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices.

21.1

46.5

19.7

12.7

0.0

An individual other than myself assists with the
implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices.

21.1

43.7

4.2

29.6

1.4

There is a position at the district level with
specific responsibility for implementing
developmentally appropriate practices.

YES
28.2

NO
64.8

91
Administrative practices. The administrative practices section ofthe survey
instrument addressed five categories related to the role ofthe building principal as
change facilitator for educational innovations. In collapsing the Strongly Agree and
Agree columns into one percentage, in all but one category the principals reported
a high percentage of agreement. Ninety-six percent reported that their beliefs about
how young children learn were consistent with DAP. Ninety-four percent indicated
that they had a leadership role for the implementation of DAP, and 90% agreed that
the teachers knew the principal expected them to be implementing DAP. Eighty-five
percent believed their level of knowledge and understanding in DAP was adequate
to lead the implementation, and 80% said that they were able to respond to the
needs ofthe staff. Eighty-seven percent reported that the implementation of DAP
required time and effort on their part, and 78.9% reported that it was one of their top
five priorities and they felt responsible for the implementation of DAP. Two other
administrative practices were also supported: principals talking to parents about
DAP (77.5%) and collaborating with other professionals (76.1 %). Only 61.9% ofthe
principals were in agreement that they had received training to lead the
implementation of DAP. The lowest percentage of agreement (47.1%) was with the
statement that teachers in grades not implementing DAP were in support of the
changes; however, 82.6% agreed with the statement that DAP had changed the way
the school does business.

92
Table 4.19:

Administrative practices.
SA

A

My level of knowledge and understanding of deveiopmentally appropriate practices is adequate for me to
lead the implementation in my building.

26.8

57.7

8.5

7.0

0.0

My beliefs about how young children learn are consis­
tent with developmentally appropriate practices.

43.7

52.1

4.2

0.0

0.0

The implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices has required time and effort on my part.

35.2

52.1

7.0

5.6

0.0

Implementing developmentally appropriate practices is
one of my top five priorities.

36.6

42.3

8.5

12.7

0.0

1have received training to lead the implementation of
developmentally appropriate practices in my building.

22.5

39.4

5.6

25.4

7.0

The teachers in my building know that 1expect them to
be implementing developmentally appropriate prac­
tices.

33.8

56.3

7.0

2.8

0.0

1talk to individual and small groups of parents about
developmentally appropriate practices.

26.8

50.7

2.8

18.3

1.4

Over the past year 1have collaborated with profes­
sional colleagues regarding the implementation of
developmentally appropriate practices.

25.4

50.7

8.5

14.1

1.4

1 am responsible for the successful implementation of
developmentally appropriate practices in my school.

26.8

52.1

8.5

11.3

1.4

1 have a leadership role in the implementation of devel­
opmentally appropriate practices in my building.

29.6

64.8

2.8

1.4

1.4

1am able to respond to the needs and concerns of the
staff related to the implementation of developmentally
appropriate practices.

26.8

53.5

12.7

5.6

1.4

Teachers in grades not implementing developmentally
appropriate practices are supportive of the changes.

5.7

41.4

37.1

11.4

4.3

The implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices has changed the way we do business in this
school.

20.3

62.3

11.6

1.4

4.3

Statement

1have attended a workshop or conference on develop­
mentally appropriate practices.

YES
88.1

U

D

NO
11.9

SD

93
Research Question 2
Are there relationships between the organizational components and
administrative practices related to the implementation and continuation of
developmentally appropriate practices that are reported to be in evidence by
elementary principals who have been implementing DAP?
To answer this research question, eight hypotheses were tested. Each one
is stated below, followed by the results of the statistical analyses for the null
hypotheses. To test whether there were any relationships, a one-way Pearson
product-moment analysis was performed.
Hypothesis 1: There are no significant relationships between the status ofthe
school’s clim ate for restructuring and the administrative practices of the
elementary principal when implementing developmentally appropriate
practices.
Analyzing the nine school climate variables (a-i) with the 13 administrative
practices variables, 46 ofthe 117 had a significant relationship (see Table 4.20).
The higher levels of significance (.01) were found in teachers not implementing DAP
being supportive of DAP, the principal’s leadership role, the principal being able to
respond to the needs ofthe staff, the principal talking to parents, time and effort the
principal puts into the implementation, and whether or not there was an expectation
teachers would implement. Areas with a lower level of significance (.05) were the
principal’s beliefs being supportive of DAP and the principal receiving training. No
significant relationships were found between the status of school climate for
restructuring and the principal’s level of knowledge and understanding. There was
a negative relationship at the .01 level between the staff having a choice as to
whether or not they implement and the principal having a leadership role for the

Table 4.20:

Relationships between school climate for restructuring and administrative practices.

Administrative Practices
School Climate for
Restructuring

Knowledge &
Understanding

Beliefs

Time &
Effort

Priority

Training

Expect, for

Talk to

Implement.

Parents

a. Motivated

.0454

.0719

.1577

.1414

.0114

.2028*

.3390**

b. Staff prepared

.1860

.1356

.2247*

.1280

.2316*

.1696

.4951**

c. Common philosophy

.1642

.1382

.2976**

.2055*

.0242

.2155*

.2371*

d. Parents involved

.0904

.2367*

.3466**

.3726**

.1157

.3086**

.4040**

e. Takes risks

.0903

.1145

.2244*

.1349

.0724

.2455*

.3983**

f. Collaboration

.0068

-.0091

.1337

.0436

.0627

.2088*

.1529

g. Staff choice

.1270

-.0036

-.1399

-.0839

.2107*

h. Policies support

.0075

.2470*

.2278*

.1485

.0388

i. Collective bargaining

.0342

.0208

.0275

-.0754

.0187

-.1659
.2069*
-.0764

-.0205
.1638
.0616

Table 4.20:

Continued.

Administrative Practices
School Climate for
Restructuring

Collaborated

Responsible

Leadership

Respond to

Teachers

Way We Do

Needs

Not Implem.

Business

With Profess.

for Implem.

a. Motivated

.1564

-.0121

.0888

.1417

.3443**

.2724*

b. Staff prepared

.2444*

.0576

.2545*

.3431**

.2995**

.3815**

c. Common philosophy

.1449

.2341*

.2941**

.3107**

.3164**

.3934**

d. Parents involved

.2233*

.3373**

.3547**

.3388**

.2729

.2783*

e. Takes risks

.2988**

.0969

.2896**

.3070**

.3303**

.2116*

f. Collaboration

-.0587

-.0287

.1672

.1398

.0948

-.0337

g. Staff choice

-.0889

-.1142

-.2422*

.0593

.0006

-.2147

h. Policies support

.1191

.1641

.1852

.1612

.1524

.1686

i. Collective bargaining

.0946

.0113

.1147

.1015

.0340**

.0208

‘ Significant at the s .05 level.

“ Significant at the <; .01 level.

96
implementation of DAP.

The null hypothesis that there are no significant

relationships between school climate for restructuring and administrative practices
was not retained.
Hypothesis 2 : There are no significant relationships between the status of
personnel features related to the implementation and continuation of
developmentally appropriate practices and the administrative practices ofthe
elementary principal.
Analyzing the four personnel features

(a-d) variables with the

13

administrative practices variables, 29 ofthe 52 had a significant relationship (Table
4.21). Staff development being ongoing and staff having time to plan together had
four administrative practices—beliefs, time and effort, talking to parents, and
responding to needs and concerns ofthe teachers who are implementing--with a
significance level of .01.

Staff development being ongoing, instructional staff

establishing goals, and teachers sharing information about DAP outside their school
all had a significant relationship (at the .05 level) with the principal having DAP as
one of his or her top five priorities. All of the personnel features had a significant
relationship with the expectation that all teachers would implement and the principal
assuming a leadership role in the implementation.

There were no significant

relationships between personnel features and the principal’s responsibility to
implement DAP. The null hypothesis that there are no significant relationships
between personnel features and administrative practices was rejected.

Table 4.21:

Relationships between personnel features and administrative practices.

Administrative Practices
Personnel Features

a. Staff development

Knowledge &
Understanding

Beliefs

Time &
Effort

Priority

Training

Expect, for
Implement.

Talk to
Parents

.1879

.3572**

.3572**

.3223**

.2788**

.4342**

.5176**

b. Staff time to plan

.1300**

.3002**

.0931

.0931

.1908

.2594

.3199**

c. Staff establish goals

.3104**

.1925

.1925

.3470**

.0094

.2695*

.1828

d. Teachers share

.2260

.2445*

.2445*

.3193**

.1474

.2869**

.2545*

ongoing

Administrative Practices
Personnel Features

a. Staff development
ongoing
b. Staff time to plan
c. Staff establish goals
d. Teachers share

Collaborated
With Profess.

Responsible
for Implem.

Leadership

Respond to
Needs

Teachers
Not Implem.

.3722**

.1864

.2245*

.3780**

.2276*

.4438**

.1077

.1377

.2180

.2821**

.1561

.1346

-.0616

.1272

.2196*

.0793

.1849

.2271*

.0534

.0947

.2607*

.1527

-.0642

.0455

"Significant at the ^ .05 level.

""Significant at the ^ .01 level.

Way We Do
Business

98
Hypothesis 3 : There are no significant relationships between the status of
classroom practices related to the implementation and continuation of
developmentally appropriate practices and the administrative practices ofthe
elementary principal.
Analyzing the nine classroom practices (a-i) with the 13 administrative
practices, 69 ofthe 117 had a significant relationship (Table 4.22). There were three
areas with a significance of .01 with at least five of the variables: knowledge and
understanding, expectation for implementation, and teachers not implementing being
supportive of DAP. Time and effort spent on implementation had a significance of
.01 with three variables and .05 with four variables. Two ofthe nine variables related
to classroom practices had a .05 relationship to DAP changing the way the school
does business.

One of the nine variables had a significant relationship to the

responsibility ofthe principal to implement. There were no significant relationships
between classroom practices and the principal collaborating with other professionals.
The null hypothesis that there are no significant relationships between classroom
practices and administrative practices was not retained.
Hypothesis 4 : There are no significant relationships between the status ofthe
involvem ent o f parents related to the implementation and continuation of
developmentally appropriate practices and the administrative practices ofthe
elementary principal.
Analyzing the six involvement of parents variables (a-f) with the 13
administrative practices variables, 50 of the 78 had a significant relationship (Table
4.23).

There was a .01 relationship in five of the six variables related to the

administrative practice of talking to parents about DAP. Four areas-tim e and effort
required from principal, principal placing DAP in his or her top five priorities,

Table 4.22:

Relationships between classroom practices and administrative practices.

Administrative Practices
Classroom Practices

Knowledge &

Expect, for

Talk to

Implement.

Parents

.0408

.2058*

.2725*

.3371“

.1366

.4440“

.4330“

.4023“

.2761*

.0848

.3847“

.3264“

.1572

.2652*

.0190

.2159*

.2523*

.2812“

.2937"

.2495*

.1934

.0489

.3626“

.2800*

.1261

.1036

-.0458

.1837

.2254*

Beliefs

Time &
Effort

Priority

Training

.0221

.1294

.1356

.1567

b. Variety of materials

.3896“

.4165“

.3896**

c. Hands-on activities

.4157“

.4319“

d. Children take risks

.3200“

e. Variety of groupings

.2544*

f. Discipline reflects DAP

.1791

Understanding
a. DAP guides changes in
curriculum

g, Variety of teaching

-.0118

.2926“

.3703“

.2800*

.2850“

.0679

.3960“

.3620“

h. Mixed ability groups

.2842“

.2336*

.3399“

.2070*

.2160*

.3933“

.2300*

i. Assessment practices

.1574

.1904

.2058

.0929

.2150*

.2285*

strategies

-.1118

Table 4.22:

Continued.

Administrative Practices
Classroom Practices

Collaborated

Responsible

With Profess.

for Implem.

a. DAP guides changes in curriculum

.1660

.0869

.0964

.1578

.4727**

.3236*

b. Variety of materials

.1495

.2420*

.3842**

.2524*

.2430*

.2401*

c. Hands-on activities

.1564

.2262*

.3633**

.2723*

.2729*

.1630

d. Children take risks

.0946

.1438

.2939**

.3677**

.2226*

.1514

e. Variety of groupings

.0981

.1138

.3459**

.2380*

.2846**

.1607

-.0125

.1251

.2748*

.1634

.4434**

.0188

g. Variety of teaching strategies

.1061

.1187

.3803**

.3445**

.3397**

.1628

h. Mixed ability groups

.0829

.1391

.3188**

.3127**

.2500*

.1191

i. Assessment practices

.1478

.0951

.3621**

.2179*

,2424*

.1881

f. Discipline reflects DAP

‘ Significant at the s .05 level.

Leadership

Respond to

Teachers

Way We Do

Needs

Not Implem.

Business

“ Significant at the <; .01 level.

Table 4.23:

Relationships between involvement of parents and administrative practices.
Administrative Practices

Involvement of Parents

Knowledge &
Understanding

Beliefs

Time &
Effort

a. Information shared

.2386*

.2417*

.2228*

.2832**

.0123

.2711*

.3365“

b. Parents recruited

.3175**

.4554*

.3437**

.3447**

.0823

.3554“

.3946"

c. Parents trained

.1506

.0905

.2060*

.1783

.3167**

.2561*

.3302“

d. Parents supportive

.1692

.3335**

.3032**

.3909**

.1004

.4403**

.4212“

e. Parents educated

.3281**

.1606

.2299*

.3079**

.2733*

.2807*

.4513“

.1832

.0120

.2024*

.1338

.1988

f. Parents' input

-.0940

Priority

Training

-.0379

Expect, for
Implement.

Administrative Practices
Involvement of Parents

Collaborated
With Profess.

Responsible
for Implem.

Leadership

Respond to
Needs

Teachers
Not Implem.

a. Information shared

.1564

-.0121

.0888

.1417

.3443“

.2724*

b. Parents recruited

.2444*

.0576

.2545*

.3431“

.2995“

.3815“

c. Parents trained

.1449

.2341*

.2941“

.3107“

.3164”

.3934**

d. Parents supportive

.2233*

.3373“

.3547“

.3388“

.2729

.2783*

e. Parents educated

.2988“

.0969

.2896**

.3070“

.3303“

.2116*

.1672

.1398

.0948

f. Parents’ input

-.0587

‘ Significant at the s .05 level.

-.0287

“ Significant at the ^ .01 level.

Way We Do
Business

-.0337

Talk to
Parents

102
expectation for the teachers to implement DAP, and leadership from the principal for
implementing DAP--had a relationship of .05 or higher in five out ofthe six variables
related to parent involvement. Training parents to work in the classrooms, parents
being supportive of DAP, and ongoing parent education did not have a significant
relationship with teachers not implementing being supportive of DAP or changing the
way the school does business. The null hypothesis that there are no significant
relationships between involvement of parents and administrative practices was not
retained.
Hypothesis 5 : There are no significant relationships between the status of
community responsiveness and the status of administrative practices
related to the implementation and continuation of developmentally
appropriate practices.
Analyzing the two community responsiveness variables (a-b) with the 13
administrative practices variables, 15 of the 26 had a significant relationship (Table
4.24). Community responsiveness addressed whether or not parents had been
involved in the initial planning for the implementation of DAP, and whether principal
and staff believed the board of education supported the implementation of DAP. The
highest relationships were found with the principal making DAP one of his or her top
five priorities, expectation for implementation, talking to parents about DAP,
collaborating with other professionals, the principal being responsible for the
implementation, the principal taking a leadership role with the implementation of
DAP, and DAP changing the way the school does business.

There were no

significant relationships with the principal’s knowledge and understanding of DAP or
the principal’s training to lead the implementation of DAP. The null hypothesis that

Table 4.24:

Relationships between community responsiveness and administrative practices.
Administrative Practices

Community Responsiveness

a. Parents involved in
planning
b. Board of education
supports

Knowledge &
Understanding

Beliefs

Time &
Effort

Priority

Training

Expect, for

Talk to

Implement.

Parents

.1167

.2537*

.3622**

.3081**

.1531

.3821**

.3279**

.0715

.4133**

.4136**

.3697**

.1173

.4891**

.4120**

Administrative Practices
Community Responsiveness

a. Parents involved in
planning
b. Board of education
supports

Collaborated
With Profess.

Responsible
for Implem.

Leadership

.3003**

.3490**

.3480**

.2592*

.3186**

.3585**

.3269**

.4623**

.5257**

.4235**

.1536

.3670*

‘ Significant at the ^ .05 level.

“ Significant at the

Respond to

Teachers

Needs

Not Implem.

.01 level.

Way We Do
Business

104
there are no significant relationships between community responsiveness and
administrative practices was not retained.
Hypothesis 6 : There are no significant relationships between the support to
fam ilies for transitions and the administrative practices ofthe elementary
principal in the implementation and continuation of developmentally
appropriate practices.
Analyzing the two variables for support to families for transitions (a-b) with the
13 variables for administrative practices, 15 ofthe 26 had a significant relationship
(Table 4.25).

Three areas—talking to parents, principal’s leadership in the

implementation of DAP, and teachers not implementing DAP being supportive ofthe
implementation-all had a significant relationship (at the .01 level) with information
being available to the community and support to families to facilitate transitions.
Time and effort required on the part of the principal, and the leadership of the
principal for the implementation of DAP, had a significant relationship with
information available to the community (at the .05 level) and with support to facilitate
transitions (at the .01 level).

Three administrative practices—knowledge and

understanding of DAP, priority given to the implementation of DAP, and training to
lead the implementation of DAP—had no significant relationship to support to families
for transitions.

The null hypothesis that there are no significant relationships

between support to families for transitions and administrative practices was not
retained.

Table 4.25:

Relationships between support to families for transitions and administrative practices.

Administrative Practices
Transitions for Children
and Families

Knowledge &
Understanding

a. Information available to
community
b. Support to facilitate
transitions

Beliefs

Time &
Effort

Priority

Training

Expect, for

Talk to

Implement.

Parents

.1276

.1108

.2573*

.1851

.0787

.2560*

.2942**

.0301

.2429*

.2292**

.1197

.0041

.1403

.2859**

Administrative Practices
Transitions for Children
and Families

a. Information available to
community
b. Support to facilitate
transitions

Collaborated
With Profess.

Responsible
for Implem.

Leadership

.2629*

.2900**

.3012**

.2592*

.3801**

.2812*

.1853

.1539

.2924**

.4235**

.2832**

.0763

‘ Significant at the ^ .05 level.

Respond to

Teachers

Needs

Not Implem.

“ Significant at the <; .01 level.

Way We Do
Business

106
Hypothesis 7 : There are no significant relationships between the status of
m aintaining quality control in the implementation and continuation of
developmentally appropriate practices and the administrative practices ofthe
elementary principal.
Analyzing the two maintaining quality control variables (a-b) with the 13
variables for administrative practices, 20 of the 26 had a significant relationship
(Table 4.26). One area-teachers not implementing being supportive of D A P-had
a significant relationship (at the .01 level) with teachers self-evaluating. Two a re a s leadership in the implementation of DAP and the expectation for teachers to
implement—had a significant relationship at the .05 level. There was no significant
relationship with teachers self-evaluating and the principal’s knowledge and
understanding of DAP, the principal’s beliefs about DAP, the time and effort the
principal put into the implementation of DAP, priority given to the implementation of
DAP by the principal, the training the principal received for the implementation of
DAP, the principal’s priority for implementing DAP, the principal’s leadership in the
implementation of DAP, or in changing the way the school does business. The null
hypothesis that there are no significant relationships between maintaining quality
control and administrative practices was not retained.
Hypothesis 8 : There are no significant relationships between the status of
professional resources available for the implementation and continuation
of developmentally appropriate practices and the administrative practices of
the elementary principal.
Analyzing the four variables of professional resources (a-d) with the 13
variables for administrative practices, 32 of the 52 had a significant relationship
(Table 4.27). One area-collaborated with other professionals—had a significant

Table 4.26:

Relationships between maintaining quality control and administrative practices.

Administrative Practices
Maintaining Quality Control

Knowledge &
Understanding

Beliefs

Time &
Effort

Priority

Training

Expect, for

Talk to

Implement.

Parents

a. Teachers self-evaluating

.0333

.1476

.0945

.0719

.0645

.2148*

.1533

b. Student outcomes used

.2330*

.2345*

.2642*

.3151**

.0899

.2740*

.3392**

Administrative Practices
Maintaining Quality Control

Collaborated
With Profess.

Responsible

a. Teachers self-evaluating

.1344

b. Student outcomes used

.2519*

‘ Significant at the s .05 level.

Leadership

Respond to
Needs

Teachers
Not Implem.

.0929

.1422

.2337*

.3209**

.1276

.2854**

.3171**

.3613**

.2712*

.5141**

for Implem.

“ Significant at the <; .01 level.

Way We Do
Business

Table 4.27:

Relationships between professional resources and administrative practices.
Administrative Practices

Professional Resources

Knowledge &
Understanding

Beliefs

Time&
Effort

Priority

Training

Expect, for
Implement.

Talk to
Parents

a. Individual with expertise

.5287“

.5767“

.5823**

.5062“

.2664*

.4674“

.4273“

b. Support from central
administration

.4056“

.2537*

.3778**

.2427*

.3402*

.2643*

.2904“

c. Consultation from outside
district

.1476

.1793

.2680*

.2095*

.1390

.1892

.2454*

d. Individual helps principal
with implementation

.0976

.1710

.1323

.1852

.0559

.2983“

.1763

Administrative Practices
Professional Resources

Collaborated
With Profess.

Responsible
for Implem.

Leadership

Respond to
Needs

Teachers
Not Implem.

a. Individual with expertise

.3113“

.3750“

.4834“

.2926*

.1600

.1008

b. Support from cent, admin.

.3246*

.1692

.3882“

.2715*

.2116*

.1191

c. Consultation from outside
district

.3090“

.2305*

.2523*

.0134

.0945

.0710

d. Individual helps principal
with implementation

.2892“

.1037

.1331

.1058

.1464

.4251“

‘ Significant at the * .05 level.

“ Significant at the ^ .01 level.

Way We Do
Business

109
relationship (at the .01 level) with three of the four variables and a significant
relationship (at the .05 level) with the fifth variable-support from central
administration. The other areas with three of four variables showing a significant
relationship were: time and effort the principal gave the implementation of DAP,
priority given to the implementation of DAP by the principal, expectation for
implementation,

talking to parents,

and

the principal’s leadership

in the

implementation of DAP. Teachers not implementing DAP being supportive ofthe
implementation had a significant relationship (at the .05 level) with support from
central administration.

Change in the way the school does business had a

significant relationship (at the .01 level) with an individual assists the principal with
implementation.

The null hypothesis that there are no significant relationships

between professional resources and administrative practices was not retained.
A summary ofthe results of testing the eight hypotheses related to Research
Question 2 is presented in Table 4.28.

Research Question 3
What are the comments and/or concerns elementary principals express
regarding the implementation and continuation of developmentally
appropriate practices in their elementary schools?
Thirty-four (47%) of the 71 respondents wrote comments or concerns in
Section C or elsewhere on the survey instrument. The comments and concerns are
reported by the researcher as they related to the organizational components and
administrative practices on the survey instrument. (Appendix E contains a complete
listing ofthe responses.)

Table 4.28:

Summary of results of testing the eight hypotheses concerning the relationship between organizational
components and administrative practices.
ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS

ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICES

HvDOthesis 2
Not Retained
Personnel

HvDOthesis 3
Not Retained
Classroom Practices

HvDOthesis 4
Not Retained
Parental Involvement

Knowledge and understanding

Oof 9a

2 of 4

6 of 9

3 of 6

Beliefs

2 of 9

3 of 4

5 of 9

3 of 6

Time and effort

5 of 9

3 of 4

7 of 9

5 of 6

Top priority

2 of 9

3 of 4

4 of 9

5 of 6

Training to lead implementation

2 of 9

1 of 4

2 of 9

2 of 6

Expectations for implementation

6 of 9

4 of 4

8 of 9

5 of 6

Talking to parents about DAP

5 of 9

3 of 4

9 of 9

5 of 6

Collaboration with professional

3 of 9

1 of 4

Oof 9

3 of 6

Responsibility for implementation

1 of 9

Oof 4

1 of 9

4 of 6

Leadership

5 of 9

4 of 4

9 of 9

5 of 6

Respond to needs and concerns

4 of 9

2 of 4

7 of 9

4 of 6

Teachers in grades not implementing
being supportive

5 of 9

1 of 4

9 of 9

6 of 6

Changed the way we do business

4 of 9

2 of 4

2 of 9

3 of 6

110

HvDOthesis 1
Not Retained
Climate

Table 4.28: Continued.
ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICES

HvDOthesis 5
Not Retained
Comm. Responsiveness

HvDOthesis 6
Not Retained
Transitions for Families

HvDOthesis 7
Not Retained
Quality Control

Hvoothesis 8
Not Retained
Profess. Resources

Knowledge and understanding

0 of 2“

Oof 2

1 of 2

2 of 4

Beliefs

2 of 2

1 of 2

1 of 2

2 of 4

Time and effort

2 of 2

2 of 2

1 of 2

3 of 4

Top priority

2 of 2

Oof 2

1 of 2

3 of 4

Training to lead implementation

Oof 2

Oof 2

Oof 2

2 of 4

Expectations for implementation

2 of 2

1 of 2

2 of 2

2 of 4

Talking to parents about DAP

2 of 2

2 of 2

1 of 2

3 of 4

Collaboration with professional

2 of 2

1 of 2

1 of 2

4 of 4

Responsibility for implementation

2 of 2

1 of 2

1 of 2

1 of 4

Leadership

2 of 2

2 of 2

1 of 2

3 of 4

Respond to needs and concerns

2 of 2

2 of 2

2 of 2

2 of 4

Teachers in grades not implementing
being supportive

1 of 2

2 of 2

1 of 2

1 of 4

Changed the way we do business

2 of 2

1 of 2

1 of 2

1 of 4

indicates the number of variables with a significant relationship, out ofthe total number of variables for the
particular hypothesis.

112
School climate for restructuring. Fifty-four percent of the comments were
related to the school climate for restructuring component. The most common (10/30)
responses were related to having, the need to have, or not having a common
philosophy or vision. Division among staff members, differences between grade
levels, and outstanding programs were examples cited. The need for preparation
received 17% (5/30) of the written responses for this component. The comments
emphasized the importance of preparing all staff who were expected to implement.
Five comments (17%) were about motivation: how long it takes to implement DAP,
and what has motivated staffto implement. Thirteen percent (4/30) of the comments
were related to the actions of the bargaining unit; all of the comments were negative.
Organizational and resource features. Three of the four written comments
pertaining to organizational and resource features concerned resources. All of them
dealt with initial funding, and two related problems associated with not maintaining
support. The fourth comment was organizational and dealt with the positive aspect
of everyone working together in a team/multiage set-up.
Personnel features. Four comments related to personnel features; three were
about professional development. One of the comments concerned hiring practices.
Classroom practices. Two comments were made concerning classroom
practices. One related to everyone understanding DAP, but not everyone practicing
DAP. The other dealt with consistent and valid assessment.
Involvement of parents. The two comments regarding the involvement of
parents component shared the support of parents for DAP.

113
Community responsiveness.

The two comments related to community

responsiveness were positive. One addressed support for central office, and the
other mentioned that a seven-year commitment from the district had resulted in a
fine early childhood curriculum and practices moving up through the junior and
senior high.
Transitions for children and families. The one comment regarding transitions
for children and families related a problem with a K-2 building implementing DAP
and personnel in the 3-5 building in the district not understanding DAP.
Maintaining quality control. Eleven percent (6/54) of the written comments
related to maintaining quality control.
outcomes.

All of the comments were about student

Three of the six expressed concerns about state assessment

requirements.

Two of the six dealt with time for students to master skills. One

comment was a reminder that the public needs to see positive results.
Professional resources. One respondents expressed that assistance and
support at the

initial stage

of implementation

influenced

the

successful

implementation of DAP.
Administrative practices. Three comments were made regarding administra­
tive practices. Two demonstrated a concern for limiting the implementation to K-2
and teachers who were not implementing not being supportive. The third comment
was an affirmation that DAP was a priority for the respondent.

114
Follow-Up Telephone Interviews
The final phase of the research was a telephone interview. The intention of
the interview was to clarify and/or expand on responses to the survey instrument.
A follow-up, semi-structured telephone interview was conducted with 17 principals,
all of whom indicated a willingness to participate in a follow-up conversation on the
survey instrument. Seven of the principals were from the southeast, five were from
the southwest, three were from the north, and one was from the Upper Peninsula.
The researcher’s selection of the principals to include in this phase of the research,
from the 32 principals who agreed to participate in a follow-up interview, was based
primarily on their survey responses related to four areas:
Indication of an alternative non-special-education program foryoung children.
A Disagree or Strongly Disagree response to the statement about the support
of the bargaining unit.
Teachers in grades not implementing not being supportive of DAP.
An indication of either a very successful implementation or a very
unsuccessful implementation in the comment section.
The questions listed below were asked most frequently in the follow-up
telephone interviews:
Do you know how the implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices was started in your district?
Do you have any major concerns regarding the implementation and
sustaining of developmentally appropriate practices in your building?
What do you see happening with developmentally appropriate practices in the
next three to five years?

115
Has the implementation of developmentally appropriate practices influenced
other reforms in your building?
The questions asked were dependent on the individual survey instruments that the
interviewees had returned.
The telephone conversations lasted from 20 minutes to 1 hour and 30
minutes. The researcher made all of the calls. The calls were made at the times the
respondents indicated they wanted to be called, i.e., during office hours or at home
in the evenings.

All of the principals who were called shared their responses

willingly.

Alternative Programs for Young Children
The researcher assumed that schools that had implemented DAP would not
have alternative non-special-education programs for young children.

However,

33.8% of the respondents’ schools had an alternative program (see Table 4.9).
Seven respondents in the telephone follow-up group indicated an alternative
program operated in their schools: one from the northern lower peninsula, one from
the southeast, and five from the southwest. Responses to the question, "Tell me
about the alternative programs your school has for young children," were not
consistent.

(Appendix E contains the comments related to this question.)

Responses are summarized below:
One program was provided because of a political situation with the board of
education.
Three alternative programs were provided in order to give options for
"younger" children.

116
One alternative program was designed with an alternative "kid-centered"
curriculum.
•

One alternative program was for children "not ready" for regular kindergarten.
One alternative program was the only program implementing DAP in the
district.

Teachers in Grades Not Implementing Developmentally
Appropriate Practices Not Supporting the Practices
The researcher anticipated that one of the measures of a successful
implementation of DAP would be the support of DAP from the teachers who were in
grade levels not formally implementing. The statement on the survey instrument
was: "Teachers in grades not implementing developmentally appropriate practices
are supportive of the changes." Forty-one percent of the respondents (N = 71)
agreed with the statement, 37.1% were undecided, and 15.7% either disagreed or
strongly disagreed.
Of the 17 principals in the follow-up group, eight reported on the survey
instrument that they had nonsupportive staff in grade levels that were not
implementing. Another principal had a K-2 building in which all of the teachers were
supportive, and that was indicated on the instrument. However, the respondent
indicated in the follow-up telephone conversation that the teachers in the 3-5 building
in the district were very critical of the implementation of DAP.
Two questions were asked during the follow-up telephone interviews
pertaining to teachers in grades not implementing not being supportive. The first
was: "There seems to be a lack of acceptance of DAP in grades not implementing;

117
why do you think this is so?" The second was: "What could have been done to
have more acceptance in grades not implementing?" (Appendix F contains a listing
of comments.) Responses to the first question are summarized below:
Seven respondents focused on the whole system not being involved and not
getting information about DAP.
Great resistance from three to five teachers was mentioned by one
respondent.
There were 12 responses to the second question. A summary of those questions
follows.
Five (41% ) thought upper grade levels should have been involved in the
implementation.
Teachers retire (n = 1).
Develop alternative assessment practices (n = 1).
Board of education policy (n = 1).
Have a principal who believes in DAP and provides leadership (n = 2).
Hire teachers with ZA endorsement (n = 1).

Bargaining Unit Support
Another area on which this researcher chose to obtain additional information
was the actions of the bargaining unit not being supportive of the implementation of
DAP. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents (N = 71) were undecided, and 27%
either disagreed (19.7% ) or strongly disagreed (7%) (see Table 4.10).
Six respondents in the follow-up group had disagreed with the statement,
"The actions of the collective bargaining units support the implementation of DAP."
The researcher asked the six principals in the follow-up group, "In what ways has the

118
bargaining unit not been supportive of the implementation of DAP?" (Appendix F
contains the comments for this section.) A summary of the responses follows.
Not supporting professional development outside of the school day (n = 3).
Allowing academic freedom (n = 2).
Bargaining unit not wanting teachers treated differently (n = 1).

Implementation History
The initial data collection for this research involved sending a questionnaire
to every public school superintendent in Michigan, asking whether DAP was an
educational innovation in their districts. The sample of principals was selected only
from districts whose superintendents indicated that DAP was encouraged and that
the district had been in the process of implementation for more than two years. The
data that the principals supplied did not support what the superintendents reported.
One principal said DAP was not being implemented in the district. Another wrote on
the survey that DAP was no longer a priority in the district. Two principals indicated
they were just beginning to address DAP. Due to this variation in the data, the
following question was asked of principals in the follow-up telephone survey: "Do
you know how the implementation of developmentally appropriate practices was
started in your district?"
Thirteen of the 17 principals in the follow-up survey knew how the
implementation of DAP had started. One said there had been no implementation of
DAP in the district. The responses are summarized below.

119
Restructuring the school or grades within the school (n = 4).
District committee that researched, visited sites, and attended workshops and
conferences (n = 4).
Small group of teachers (n = 2).
Vision and leadership of the principal (n = 2).
Five principals reported that an outside consultant had been beneficial in the
initial stages of planning for the implementation.
Three principals said that the availability of professional development funds
was important.

Concerns Regarding Implementation
To examine the status of DAP in the school districts and to determine whether
the districts were having difficulty sustaining the implementation, respondents were
asked, "Do you have any major concerns regarding the implementation and
sustaining of developmentally appropriate practices in your building?" There were
14 responses to this question; they are summarized below. (Appendix F contains
a complete list of the comments.)
No concerns because DAP is institutionalized, "the way the school does
business" (n = 3).
Six responses related to school climate, i.e., mistake not to include more
teachers, change is hard, resistance from teachers, and many
misunderstandings.
Classroom practices (n = 2), the need for academic standards, and teachers
choosing what practices to use in their classrooms.
Two responses were in the category of organizational and resource features.
One respondent was concerned about the turnover of staff (personnel).

120
Continuation of Developmentally
Appropriate Practices
To determine whether there would be a continuation of the implementation
of DAP, respondents were asked, "What do you see happening with developmen­
tally appropriate practices in the next three to five years?" Ten responses were
obtained regarding the continuation of DAP. Those responses are summarized
below. (Appendix F contains a complete list of the responses.)
Refining of the practices with teachers already implementing (n = 3).
Expansion to higher grade levels (n = 3).
Refocusing of the implementation (n = 2).
Restructuring within the school (n = 2).

Developmentally Appropriate Practices
Influencing Other Reforms
Twelve of the 17 principals who took part in the follow-up telephone
conversations stated that the implementation of DAP had influenced other reforms
in the building. A summary of those reforms is as follows:
Multiage grouping (n = 4).
Quality schools, Integrated Thematic Instruction, and Brain Research (n = 3).
Transformation of the total school (n = 2).
Alternative assessment practices (n = 1).
Whole language and cooperative learning (n = 2).

121
Summary

In this chapter, data were presented on characteristics of the principals in the
survey sample, including years of educational experience, levels of educational
experience, and years in the school represented in the survey.

The schools

represented in the sample were described in terms of student enrollment, per pupil
expenditures, and grade configuration. The sample was also described in terms of
the implementation of DAP: what grade levels were implementing and the number
of years the building had been involved in the implementation.
In addition, data for each of the following three research questions were
reported:
1.

What is the status of organizational components related to the

sustaining of developmentally appropriate practices reported by elementary
principals who have been implementing DAP.for at least two years?
2.

Are there relationships between the organizational factors and

administrative practices related to the implementation and continuation of
developmentally appropriate practices that are reported to be in evidence by
elementary principals who have been implementing DAP?
3.

What are the comments and/or concerns elementary principals

express regarding the implementation and continuation of developmentally
appropriate practices in their elementary schools?
In Chapter V, an analysis, the summary, major findings, and the researcher’s
conclusions and recommendations are reported.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Introduction
This chapter contains a brief summary of the study purpose, conclusions
drawn from the findings, and a discussion of the implications of this study.
Recommendations based on the data and suggestions for further study also are
offered.

Summary

Purpose
The researcher’s purpose in this study was to explore systemic change and
the sustaining and continuation of educational reform by examining the status of
organizational

components

and

administrative

practices

related

to

the

implementation and continuation of developmentally appropriate practices. The
researcher chose to examine the implementation of DAP in Michigan because it was
a nationally recognized reform, and the literature has reported that districts are
struggling to achieve actual implementation. A review of the literature was focused
on three areas: developmentally appropriate practices, the change process, and the

122

123
role of the principal as a change facilitator. The following research questions were
addressed in this study:
1.

What is the status of organizational components related to the

sustaining of developmentally appropriate practices reported by elementary
principals who have been implementing DAP for at least two years?
2.

Are there relationships between the organizational components and

administrative practices related to the implementation

and continuation of

developmentally appropriate practices that are reported to be in evidence by
elementary principals who have been implementing DAP?
Eight null hypotheses were tested to determine whether there was a
statistically significant relationship between the status of organizational components
related to the implementation of DAP and the status of the 13 administrative
practices related to the principal's role as a change facilitator.
3.

What are the comments and/or concerns elementary principals

express regarding the implementation and continuation of developmentally
appropriate practices in their elementary schools?
Comments and concerns written on the survey instrument, as well as
responses from a follow-up telephone interview with selected principals, were
analyzed. Trends were reported.

The Study Population
The population for this study consisted of a stratified random sample of 162
principals from 86 school districts in Michigan that were reported to be implementing

124
DAP. The principals were identified and selected using the Michigan Education

Directory for 1995.

The survey instrument, which was developed for this study, was a four-part
questionnaire.

The first section of the questionnaire dealt with nine critical

organizational components related to DAP:

school climate for restructuring,

organizational and resource features, personnel features, classroom practices,
involvement of parents, community responsiveness, transitions for children and
families, maintaining quality control, and professional resources.

The second

section measured the status of administrative practices related to the principal’s role
as a change facilitator. The 13 statements were related to five categories reported
in the literature on the role of the principal in facilitating change in schools:
leadership, beliefs and values, knowledge and training, priorities, and success of
implementation. To determine the status of each variable, the respondent answered
each statement using a five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree to
Strongly Disagree.

Eight statements in sections A and B required a yes or no

response. The third section of the instrument was for written comments and/or
concerns related to the implementation of DAP and requested an open-ended
written response. The fourth section included demographic items concerning the
principals and their elementary schools. The school was described in terms of
enrollment and grade configuration,

per pupil expenditures,

grade levels

implementing DAP, the number of years the school had been implementing DAP,

125
and the existence of alternative programs for young children. The sample was
described in terms of years of teaching and administrative experience, levels of
educational experience, and number of years in the current building as a principal.
The second source of data for this study was a follow-up telephone interview
with 17 principals. The intention of the interview was to clarify and/or expand on
responses to the survey instrument.

Data Collection
Data collection consisted of mailing a survey instrument to a stratified random
sample of 162 elementary principals in Michigan who were currently implementing
DAP, and a follow-up telephone interview with 17 elementary principals selected
from those who returned survey instruments. The mailing of the numbered survey
instruments included a stamped, return-addressed envelope for the return of the
survey. A reminder postcard was sent to those persons who had not returned the
survey instrument within two weeks. The first phase of the data collection was
completed in about seven weeks.

The second phase, a follow-up telephone

interview, took place during the five months after the first phase of the data
collection.

Major Findings of the Study
In this study it was found that DAP, in schools that had a policy or strongly
encouraged the practices, had taken five to eight years to be implemented, primarily
in kindergarten through second grades. The critical organizational components were

126
in evidence in 60% of the schools. Systemic issues related to the continuation of
DAP were of more concern to elementary principals currently implementing DAP
than were classroom practices. The data in this study also indicated that the role of
the building principal is significant in the implementation of DAP. The findings from
the research and related conclusions are presented in this section. Three major
questions were formulated to serve the purposes of this study.

In the following

pages, each question is addressed by referring to the nine organizational
components identified in the literature as being important and sometimes critical to
the continuation of DAP in public schools.

Demographic Data
Although no specific research question was posed for this section, the basic
premise was to determine whether there were demographic characteristics that
influenced the status of organizational components and administrative practices
related to the implementation of DAP.

The important findings regarding the

demographic data were as follows:
1.

The status of the implementation of DAP was not related to region of

the state. DAP, according to a local definition of the term, was being implemented
in a variety of settings across the state.
2.

Student enrollment of the district or school did not influence the status

of the continuation of the implementation of DAP.
3.

Per pupil expenditures did not influence the status of the continuation

of the implementation of DAP.

127
4.

There were more alternative non-special-education programs for young

children in the southwestern part of Michigan.
5.

There was not consistency between the superintendents’ reporting the

number of years implementing DAP and the responses of principals in the respective
districts. Fourteen (20%) of the principals reported they had been implementing
DAP for fewer than two years. The discrepancies in the data may have been due
to interpretation of the definition of DAP or the number of years the principal had
been in the building.
Sum m ary and conclusions: The status of DAP in elementary schools in
Michigan was not influenced by demographics. Grade configuration of buildings
positively influenced the status of DAP in districts in which a particular grouping of
students was put together, i.e., kindergarten center, early childhood center, K-2
programs.

Concerns about the implementation of DAP were not related to

demographics.
There is a wide interpretation and application of DAP across the state.
Developmentally appropriate practices are inclusive; that is, the implementation is
not with a particular type of district or population of students.

Organizational Components
School climate for restructuring.

The culture of a school can be very

influential in the change process (Corbett et at., 1988). This factor, school climate
for restructuring, addressed systemic variables related to the initiation and
implementation of DAP. Fostering school readiness and developing a common

128
implementation of DAP.

Fostering school readiness and developing a common

philosophy and vision are of high importance to the maintenance of an innovation.
Overall, the principals in the sample reported most of the important issues related
to school climate to be in evidence in their schools. The statements listed below
reflect important issues identified in this component.
1.

Seventy-five percent of the respondents reported that in their schools

the staff were motivated to make changes, had a common philosophy/vision, had a
willingness to take risks, and collaborated with other staff. It was also reported that
collaboration among staff members was common (84.4%), and most district policies
supported the implementation of DAP (78.8%).
2.

Ninety-four percent of the respondents said consideration was given

to DAP in the development of their school improvement plans.
3.

The principal’s knowledge and understanding of DAP, beliefs about

DAP, and training in DAP had minimal influence on school climate.
4.

The administrative practices related to time and effort, implementation

being a priority, talking to parents about DAP, being responsible for the
implementation of DAP, having a leadership role, and responding to the needs and
concerns of staff had a significant relationship (at the .01 level) with parents being
involved in the development and planning for the implementation of DAP.
5.

Three variables received higher percentages of responses in the

Disagree and Strongly Disagree columns than the other six variables:

parents

involved in the development and planning for implementing DAP (56.3%), staff

129
having a choice as to whether or not they participate in the implementation of DAP
(46.5%), and the actions of the collective bargaining unit supporting DAP (66.1%).
6.

Fifty-nine percent of the comments made on the survey instrument

were related to school climate. Principals wrote about the importance of a common
philosophy and division among staff members; one principal wrote about teachers
with "power" blocking the implementation.
7.

Support for a common philosophy, building a strong foundation, and

the need for systemic change were evident in the follow-up telephone conversations.
Thefollowing statements are samples of comments supporting the need for systemic
change:

"When the whole system isn’t involved, there are many problems."

"Teachers are critical of others’ practices if they don’t understand them." "Have a
board policy so teachers know they do not have a choice."
8.

Teachers attending professional development activities outside of the

school day was identified as the primary area of nonsupport from the bargaining unit.
Sum m ary and conclusions: Principals implementing DAP identified critical
and important variables related to school climate for restructuring as being in
evidence in their schools.

However, there were systemic issues that were

influencing the successful implementation of DAP:

staff preparation for the

implementing of DAP, staff having a choice as to whether or not they participate in
the implementation, and bargaining units not being supportive. Principals influenced
the climate of the school through their leadership, time and effort, and ability to
respond to the needs and concerns of teachers.

130
The implementation of DAP has influenced school climate, and school climate
has influenced DAP. Both the personal and the organizational sides of the change
process must be addressed when looking at the importance of school climate and
its influence on the sustaining of change. Schools cannot afford not to address the
role of the parents in the initial stages of planning for change. The entire school
community, parents, bargaining unit representatives, and individuals from other
grade levels, need to be included in the planning and implementation of major
educational reforms in order for the entire school culture to support the reform. The
principal’s background and experience with a particular innovation is not as
important as his or her visible commitment to the innovation in influencing the
acceptance of the innovation into the school’s culture. The data collected on school
climate for restructuring supported the previous research on the influence of the
school culture in bringing about change.
Organizational and resource features.

The factor, organizational and

resource features, addressed the availability of funds for the initial implementation
as well as the continuation of DAP. The variables for this component required a yes
or no response; therefore, no statistical analysis was done to determine whether
there was a significant relationship between this factor and administrative practices.
This factor could also include the grouping and scheduling of children. In this study,
organizational information was obtained from the demographics section. Important
results from organizational and resource features are stated below.

131
1.

The majority of schools in the study were organized in a K-5 or K-6

configuration, with DAP being implemented K-2.

Restructuring the grade

configuration of the school (i.e., kindergarten centers, early childhood centers,
multiage grouping) was a common means of implementing DAP in a district.
2.

One principal enclosed a copy of a statement on "looping" (teachers

following students to the next grade level), and one principal commented on the
success of a teaming/multiage setup.
3.

Thirty-four percent of the principals responding said that their schools

had an alternative program for young children. According to the principals who
participated in the follow-up telephone survey, the alternative programs were seen
as an appropriate option for children and parents in most of the districts that had
them. One principal in the follow-up telephone survey indicated that the program
was a political issue and that the program was a contradiction in practices.
4.

Funds were allocated specifically for implementation in 63% of the

buildings. These funds, according to principals in the follow-up telephone survey,
were primarily for professional development.
5.

Funds were allocated annually for the continuation of DAP in 59% of

the buildings.
6.

The lack of funding was not a critical issue for a majority of the districts.

Three respondents commented on the survey that financial support was a problem
for the implementation, and as a result, DAP had not been sustained or was having
difficulty.

132
7.

Funding for ongoing professional development in areas of curriculum

and instruction that support DAP was of high importance to principals.
Sum m ary and conclusions:

The grade configuration of the building

influenced the status of classroom practices if the implementation of DAP was part
of the development of a particular configuration, i.e., kindergarten centers, early
childhood centers.

The configuration of the school did not affect teachers not

implementing being supportive of DAP. Funding was influential in reflecting the
status of the implementation. The lack of funds or the withdrawal of funds in the
early stages of implementation negatively influenced the continuation of the
implementation of DAP. The availability of funds for professional development was
influential in the implementation of DAP.
The allocation of funds for professional development must be part of the
implementation and continuation planning. These funds need to be available over
a five- to eight-year period, perhaps longer.
Personnel features. The factor, personnel features, addressed the following
variables:

professional development, scheduling (opportunities for staff to plan

together), staff empowerment and decision making, and teachers sharing their
expertise and opportunities to share experiences and expertise outside of their
schools. The variables in this component, according to Corbett et al. (1984) in

School Context and School Change, Implications for Effective Planning, help or
hinder the extent to which an innovation is maintained beyond its initial period of
implementation.

133
1.

Seventy percent or more of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed

that the variables on the survey instrument for personnel features were evident in
their schools.
2.

Ongoing staff development had a significant relationship (at the .01

level) with the following administrative practices: principal’s beliefs supporting DAP,
time and effort devoted to implementation, training in DAP, expectation for
implementation, talking to parents, collaborating with other professionals, responding
to needs, and changing the way the school does business.
3.

The principal’s knowledge and understanding of DAP had a significant

relationship with teachers establishing their own professional goals (at the .01 level),
and teachers sharing their knowledge and experiences outside of their schools (at
the .05 level).
4.

Written comments indicated that evidence for some of the variables

had taken five to eight years to implement.
5.

Principals in the follow-up telephone survey reported that actions of the

collective bargaining unit were having a negative effect on personnel features,
primarily in the area of professional development.
6.

Principals in the follow-up telephone survey reported that the hiring of

teachers with a ZA (early childhood) endorsement influenced the status of these
components.
Sum m ary and conclusions: Statistically, the status of personnel features
was positive. Principals reported that funds and support throughout the system were

134
necessary in order to have the personnel features in place. The administrative
practices of the principal influenced the status of staff development. Based on the
concerns of the elementary principals in the follow-up telephone interviews, the
survey instrument could be expanded in this section to include statements about
performance evaluation and the teacher assignment process. Individual rather than
systemic change processes seemed to have a greater influence on the importance
of the status of this component.
The principal’s understanding and commitment to the innovation influences
the amount of staff development provided to teachers.

Time for professional

development is a factor that should be identified when planning for change, and it
should be a part of the process that is agreed upon by the entire school community.
Although there is evidence that turnover of staff can be a problem with sustaining
change, in some situations it can be positive because the new staff have the
background and training and are employed knowing the expectations for
implementation.
Classroom practices. The factor, classroom practices, lies at the heart of the
early childhood restructuring process. The variables in this component addressed
the ways in which children and adults interact in schools. The literature review
identified the difficulty of determining what administrative practices influence
classroom practices. Classroom practices in grade levels that have been specifically
identified to implement DAP for the most part reflect DAP.

In collapsing the

responses in the Strongly Agree and Agree columns, all nine of the variables

135
received 80% or more of the responses.

There were no Strongly Disagree

responses, and the Undecided or Disagree responses were all less than 10%.
Important points from this section are listed below.
1.

Developmentally appropriate practices are guiding changes in the

curriculum, and these changes are altering the way the school does business.
2.

There were significant relationships between classroom practices and

administrative practices related to teachers being expected to implement (eight out
of nine variables), talking to parents about DAP (nine out of nine variables),
knowledge and understanding of DAP (six out of nine variables), leadership (eight
out of nine variables), and teachers not implementing being supportive (nine out of
nine variables).
3.

There were no significant relationships between classroom practices

and whether or not the principal collaborated with other professionals about DAP.
Only two of the nine variables of classroom practices identified on the survey had a
significant relationship to the principal’s training, the principal being responsible for
the implementation, and the implementation of DAP changing the way the school
does business.
4.

There were two written comments about classroom practices. One

was "Not all of the teachers were regular practitioners of DAP." The other dealt with
consistent and valid assessment of children.

136
5.

Concerns expressed by the principals in the follow-up telephone

interviews did not focus on the classroom practices of the teachers that were
identified as being part of the formal implementation process.
Sum m ary and conclusions: Most teachers in classrooms that have been
specifically designated to implement DAP have classroom practices in place that
support DAP.

Specific administrative practices were identified as having a

significant relationship to classroom practices. However, these changes in practice,
forthe most part, had not influenced classrooms not included in the implementation.
The acceptance of the practices with individual teachers and in grade levels not
implementing was a concern of principals. One principally actually responded to the
survey instrument in two different colors of ink, one to reflect the kindergarten
teachers and one to reflect all the other teachers in the building.

There was a

marked degree of difference in the responses.
The classroom practices related to DAP, as stated on the survey instrument,
were being implemented in classrooms.

The administrative practices of the

principals had a significant influence on classroom practices, especially the
expectation that teachers would implement, and talking to parents about DAP. The
evidence of classroom practice can also influence the acceptance of the practices
in grade levels not implementing. The more evidence there is ofthe implementation,
the more teachers in grade levels not implementing are supportive ofthe practices.
The component of classroom practices may have received its high percentage of

137
Strongly Agree and Agree responses because the variables were generic in nature,
and varying definitions could be interpreted.
Involvement of parents. Family involvement and support is recognized as a
critical factor in the school-related success of children. In the NWREL study, parent
and family involvement was identified as an area of high importance, high difficulty,
and high immediacy. School improvement policies in Michigan require evidence of
parent involvement.

This factor addressed the involvement of parents in the

classroom and the status of parent education and representation in areas dealing
with the implementation and continuation of DAP. Parent involvement received a
wide range of responses.
1.

Ninety percent of the principals in the sample reported that parents

were informed about classroom practices and recruited to work in the classrooms.
2.

Responses regarding parent training for supporting children’s activities

in the classroom were equally divided between strongly agree/agree (48.5%) and
undecided/disagree (50%).
3.

Principals (77.9% ) agreed that parents were supportive of the

implementation of DAP. One principal commented that parent surveys reflected
support for DAP.
4.

Forty percent of the principals were either undecided or disagreed with

the statement that parent education is an ongoing component of the implementation.
5.
parent input.

A majority of the schools (76.4%) had procedures in place to achieve

138
6.

There were significant relationships between parent involvement and

all of the variables identified under administrative practices. Leadership, time and
effort, expectation for implementation, talking to parents, and priority for the principal
had a significant relationship with five of the six parent-involvement variables.
Ongoing parent input was significant (at the .05 level) in the areas of principal's
priorities, principal being responsible for implementation, teachers not implementing
being supportive of DAP, and changing the way the school does business.
7.

The only concern expressed about parents in the follow-up telephone

survey was, "Parents don’t seem to be aware of anything they should be doing to get
their kids ready for school." This statement was made in defense of alternative
programs for young children.
8.

Principals did not have any concerns related to parent involvement.

Sum m ary and conclusions:

The status of parent involvement in the

classrooms of teachers implementing DAP was positive. According to data collected
in another section of the survey instrument, at least 40% of the schools did not
involve parents in the development and planning for the implementation of DAP. It
would appear that schools are not formally using the involvement of parents in the
classroom as a vehicle for educating parents about DAP. There were significant
relationships between the involvement of parents and the administrative practices
of the principal. Parent involvement was not a concern of principals.
Parent volunteers in classrooms is a common form of parent involvement in
traditional as well as DAP classrooms. Parent involvement is influenced by the

139
administrative practices of the principal.

Not involving parents in the initial and

ongoing planning for the implementation of DAP, and not educating parents on DAP,
could affect the implementation of DAP at other grade levels. Either the importance
of parent involvement is not well communicated, or principals are not familiar with
models that are successful for including parents.
Community responsiveness.

The factor, community responsiveness,

addressed the implication that community involvement and support are critical
components of successful implementation of school reforms. The research reviewed
for this study addressed this component only minimally. There were two variables
on the survey instrument.
1.

Less than half of the principals (41.2%) indicated the community was

involved in planning for the district to adopt a DAP philosophy.
2.

A majority of the principals (86.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that the

board of education supported their implementation of DAP.
3.

There

were

significant

relationships

between

11

of the

13

administrative practices related to the implementation of DAP, and the community
being involved in planning. The two areas that did not have a significant relationship
were the principal’s training in DAP and the principal's knowledge and understanding
of DAP.
4.

There

were

significant

relationships

between

10

of the

13

administrative practices related to the implementation of DAP and the belief that the
board of education supported DAP. The three areas that did not have a significant

140
relationship

were

principal’s training

in

DAP,

principal’s

knowledge

and

understanding of DAP, and teachers not implementing being supportive.
5.

There was one written comment related to community responsiveness:

"Having support of central office and the board is best.”
6.

Three references were made to boards of education in the follow-up

telephone interviews.

One was a reference to the influence the board had in

continuing an alternative program even though there was no evidence to support
that it was making an impact on children.

The other two were related to the

importance of formalizing the implementation bygoing to the board of education and
having a policy regarding the implementation so that teachers would know they did
not have a choice.
S um m ary and conclusions: The status of community responsiveness is not
clear from the data collected in this study. At least half of the districts did not involve
the community in their initial planning for the implementation of DAP. Involving the
community in the planning and support from boards of education is influenced by the
role of the principal in the implementation, and influences systemic change. Current
literature suggests that involvement of the community from the initial stages of
development and planning is critical to the success of the implementation.
The support of the community and the board of education influences the
administrative practices of the principal related to assuming a leadership role in the
implementation of an innovation. Districts need to identify ways in which to include
community members in the planning for and implementation of change.

141
Transitions for children and families. Transition processes that facilitate the
progress of children and families from one level or type of schooling to another and
foster continuity from the family’s point of view are the variables identified in this
component. Evidence related to the status of this component is listed below.
1.

Sixty-three percent of the principals agreed or strongly agreed that

information covering a variety of topics related to DAP was available to the
community.
2.

A majority of the principals (76.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that

support was available to parents to facilitate transitions. The status of this variable
could be influenced by the kindergarten centers, early childhood centers, and/or the
alternative programs for young children.
3.

Six of the 13 administrative practices related to the implementation of

DAP-principal’s beliefs, time and effort devoted to the implementation, talking to
parents, leadership, responding to needs, and teachers not implementing being
supportive-had a significant relationship to support being available to facilitate
transitions.
4.

A concern about transitions for families was expressed by two

principals in the follow-up telephone interview. The concern was that parents are not
familiar with the expectations of schools and they are not doing things with their
children to prepare them for entering school.
5.

The concern that did not show up under this component on the survey

instrument was the transition from a grade or teacher that is implementing to a grade

142
or teacher that is not implementing DAP.
concern were:

Written comments reflective of this

"We have taken a lot of flack."

"Question is difficult to answer

because there is division among staff members."

"Individual teachers have

implemented DAP; others have not." "Our staff is divided on the issue. Changing
paradigms is a heart-wrenching experience for many of my staff."
Sum m ary and conclusions:

The status of transitions for children and

families, as reported on the survey instrument, was positive. However, responses
to the survey instrument did not provide evidence of what those practices might
actually be. Without identifying specific practices that are being implemented to
support transitions for children and parents, it is difficult to draw conclusions about
the status of this component. It does appear as though a means for reaching out to
and educating parents before their children enter school, and then maintaining some
form of communication and education, is needed.
Maintaining quality control. Researchers have suggested that innovation
must be coupled with assessment in which programs monitor and refine practice
based on careful assessment of outcomes.

School-related factors that help or

hinder the extent to which an innovation is maintained beyond its initial period of
implementation have been identified (Corbett et al., 1988). Three postimplemen­
tation events were identified that had direct effects on whether or not teachers
maintained new classroom practices:
altering procedures-curriculum

incentives and interaction opportunities,

revision as a source of continuation,

and

assessments of effectiveness. This component of the study, maintaining quality

143
control, deals with the assessment of effectiveness. Until recently, practitioners
have

paid

little

attention

to

evaluating

the

implementation

phase

of a

change/improvement process (Huling etal., 1983). The two variables on the survey
instrument for maintaining quality control addressed the status of the evaluation of
student outcomes to determine the effectiveness of DAP, and the conducting of a
formal evaluation to determine the status of the implementation. A summary of the
findings is listed below.
1.

Principals strongly agreed (16.9%) or agreed (56.3%) that teachers in

their buildings were self-evaluating in order to monitor and refine their practices.
Three administrative practices—expectation for implementation, responding to needs,
and teachers not implementing being supportive-had a significant relationship to
teachers self-evaluating.
2.

Principals also strongly agreed (11.4% ) or agreed (65.7%) that student

outcomes were used to determine effectiveness of DAP.

All but one of the 13

administrative practices, training in DAP, had a significant relationship to the use of
student outcomes to measure the effectiveness of DAP.
3.

The results on the survey instrument were equally divided when

principals were asked whether or not there was a formal evaluation in place for
monitoring student outcomes.
4.

Less than 30% of the respondents answered yes to the statement, "A

formal evaluation has been conducted to determine the status of the implementation
of DAP."

144
5.

Written comments related to maintaining quality control were more

focused on student outcomes. The most frequent concern (n = 3 of 5) related to
maintaining quality control was about the Michigan Educational Assessment
Program (MEAP). A comment that summarizes the concerns was:
I am greatly concerned about an eroding of appropriate practice because of
MEAP pressure. DAP recognizes that all children can learn, but not
necessarily by the fourth week of fourth grade. Unfortunately, we are caught
in the trap of trying to force them to be ready whether they are or not. The
state’s heavy emphasis on MEAP takes preference and negatively impacts
DAP.
6.

There were no written comments or stated concerns about the

evaluation of the implementation process of DAP.
7.

There were data to support the notion that even after five to eight

years, schools were still struggling with the implementation process from an
organizational perspective.
Sum m ary and conclusions: The status of quality control as it relates to
individual teachers and classroom practices was positive. The status of quality
control as it relates to evaluation of the implementation process, i.e., systemic
evaluation, was not a common practice.
Formal evaluation to determine the effectiveness of an innovation at the
student or organizational level was not a part of the implementation of DAP in most
school districts. One could conclude that if the implementation was limited to a
center program, or one or two grade levels in a school, without there being a formal
adoption process or policy at the board of education level, an evaluation of the
implementation would not be a priority. Program evaluation, from an organizational

145
perspective, is expensive, time consuming, and not a common practice. A means
and a model for evaluating the implementation/change process needs to be
available to school districts.
Professional resources. The factor, professional resources, addressed the
support available to the principal in the role of change facilitator. The identification
of a secondary change facilitator, support from central administration, availability of
consultant services, and an individual other than the principal having implementation
responsibilities in the district were the variables addressed in this component. The
status of professional resources is summarized below.
1.

Forty-five percent of the principals strongly agreed that there were

individuals with expertise in DAP in their buildings. The administrative practices of
the principal strongly influenced this variable.
2.

Support

was

available

from

central

administration

for

the

implementation of DAP in almost 80% of the buildings represented.
3.

Almost 20% of the respondents were undecided about consultation

from the ISD, university, and/or private sector, and another 13% disagreed with the
statement. In the follow-up telephone interviews, when the question was asked
about the history of DAP and how it was initially implemented, 5 of the 17 principals
mentioned that a consultant from the outside was a major influence.
4.

Sixty-five percent of the respondents reported that someone other than

themselves assisted with the implementation of DAP.

Three administrative

practices—principal having an expectation for teachers to implement, collaborating

146
with other professionals, and DAP changing the way the school does business—were
significantly related to having a secondary change facilitator.
5.

Less than 30% of the respondents answered yes to the statement that

there was an individual at the district level with the specific responsibility for
implementing DAP.
6.

The only significant relationship between professional resources and

teachers not implementing being supportive wassupport from central administration.
7.
story:

One written comment about professional resources tells a complete

"We had a great deal of assistance and support as we moved into

implementation: now we have a highly trained staff that just does business in a
developmentally appropriate manner and not as much district support is there, nor
needed."
8.

There were no concerns related to professional resources when the

principals in the follow-up telephone interview were asked what concerns they had
about the implementation of DAP.
Sum m ary and conclusions: The status of professional resources varied
across the sample. Sixty-five percent of the principals had someone else assisting
them with the implementation of DAP. Initial support in terms of consultation and
professional

development

was

identified

as

a critical

component

of the

implementation process. The importance of a secondary change facilitator was
supported in this study. Principals did not perceive that lack of human resource
support was a detriment to the implementation of DAP.

147
Identifying and training secondary change facilitators should be a deliberate
activity of the elementary principal when implementing new practices.

Other

individuals sharing the leadership responsibilities, and involvement from central
office staff, affect the success of an implementation. Teachers need to see evidence
that the innovation is supported and acknowledged.

Administrative-Br-actices.
Restructuring is most successful in an environment that provides contextual
support. Administrative practices were identified in the research at the Northwest
Regional Educational Lab as having high importance and high immediacy in the
successful implementation of DAP in public schools. This section of the survey
instrument was designed to collect data that would reflect the status of the principals’
role in facilitating DAP.
1.

Ninety-four percent of the principals in the sample agreed or strongly

agreed that they had a leadership role in the implementation of DAP, and 78.9%
reported that they were responsible for the successful implementation. Sixty-two
percent reported that they had received training to implement DAP.
2.

A majority of the principals implementing DAP (87%) agreed that the

implementation of DAP takes time and effort on their part, and that the
implementation was one of their top five priorities (78%).
3.

In responding to the survey instrument, 37.1 % of the principals were

undecided about teachers in grades not implementing DAP being supportive of the
changes. Eleven percent disagreed with the statement that teachers in grades not

148
implementing were supportive. Eleven out of 29 written comments under school
climate were related to teachers not implementing DAP not being supportive.
4.

One principal wrote a comment related to administrative practices:

"DAP is a very high priority for me." Leadership, the principal having the expectation
that teachers will implement DAP, and talking to parents about DAP were the
administrative practices identified in the study as having the greatest number of
significant relationships with the 39 variables identified within the nine organizational
components.
5.

When principals were asked in the follow-up telephone interviews,

"What could have been done to have more acceptance of the implementation of
DAP in grades that were not implementing?" 7 of the 12 responses related to
administrative practices. The following represents the nature of these responses:
"Have a principal that believes in DAP and provides the leadership and support to
sustain the momentum."

Another principal stated, "Have leadership from the

principal. Combine DAP with other practices that we know are good for kids. . . .
Keep pointing out what schools should be doing for kids."
Sum m ary and conclusions: Principals implementing DAP are providing
leadership, and teachers in their buildings know that they are expected to implement
DAP. Principals in the study were willing to and did devote time and effort to the
implementation of DAP. Talking to parents about DAP was an important role for the
principal. Teachers not implementing DAP not being supportive of the changes was

149
a concern to principals, and the solutions that were suggested were systemic in
nature.
The data collected in this study support the research on the principal as a
transformational leader-focusing on leading changes in the school based on a vision
and shared values and beliefs.

The principal’s knowledge and understanding,

training, being responsible for the implementation, and collaborating with other
professionals were not as critical to the implementation of the innovation as were
leadership, devoting time and effort, having an expectation for teachers to
implement, and talking to parents about the innovation.

Principals can and do

influence the implementation of educational reforms by leading as well as managing
the change.

Other Findings
History of Implementation
Data on the history of the implementation of DAP were obtained from the
follow-up telephone interviews for two reasons: first, to address the discrepancy in
the responses of the superintendents and the principals, and second, to look more
closely at the innovation phase to determine whether there were trends that
supported a more successful implementation. Thirteen of the 17 principals in the
follow-up telephone survey knew the history of the implementation of DAP. The
trends are reported in the following statements.
1.

Building a foundation by establishing a committee to conduct research,

visit sites implementing DAP, and attending workshops and conferences were used

150
in four of the districts represented by the 17 principals in the follow-up telephone
survey. The work of these committees concluded with approval from their boards
of education to proceed with the implementation of DAP.

The four principals

commented that this was an important aspect of the successful implementation of
DAP, at least at the grade levels for which it was intended.
2.

A second means of implementation was the establishment of a center

program for a particular grouping of children, i.e., early childhood centers for
preschool through kindergarten, kindergarten centers, or K-2 schools. Although this
form of restructuring seemed to influence individual teachers in making changes, it
had not influenced the acceptance or movement of the practices into higher grade
levels. This form of implementation was more dependent on the leadership of the
principal.
3.

An outside consultant with expertise in DAP was an important

component for developing the innovation.

There were three experts in early

childhood education from around the state, mentioned most frequently.
4.

District-level support seemed to be most important at the innovation

stage, except in the area of professional development, and the need for that support
was ongoing.
5.

Not having a clear definition of DAP was a concern expressed by

principals regarding why some superintendents would report that DAP were
encouraged in their districts, whereas principals reported that they were not.

151
Conclusion:

The implementation of DAP has been a deliberate and

concentrated effort primarily at the building level. According to the demographic
data from the survey instrument, most districts (43%) had implemented at the K-2
levels. The availability of an outside consultant was a valuable resource during the
initial planning.
The implementation of DAP is a major change in practice for educating young
children in most school districts. Districts have invested time and resources to assist
with the implementation of these practices at the classroom level. There was not
evidence to support that there was a plan for the organizational/systemic changes
that would need to be made in order to actually reform the educational system.
Developing a solid foundation, the existence of a policy, and planning for change at
the organizational and personal levels appeared to be critical factors in the
sustaining and continuation of DAP.

Continuationjpf Developmental^ Appropriate Practices
Refining and refocusing an innovation are parts of the implementation
process. To gather additional information about the status of the implementation of
DAP, principals in the follow-up telephone survey were asked, "What do you see
happening with the DAP in the next three to five years?"
summarized below.

The responses are

152
1.

DAP will be continued and expanded to higher grade levels.

2.

DAP will be refined, and new research will be integrated into what

teachers are already doing. Multiage classrooms, integrated thematic instruction,
brain research, and learner-centered education are examples of such refinements.
3.

There was concern about academics and standardized testing, but

only 2 of the 17 principals thought their districts would do major refocusing to
address the concern.
Conclusion: DAP will continue to be refined in classrooms that are currently
implementing, and in schools where a common vision and philosophy exists or is
developed, DAP will be expanded to other grade levels. Restructuring within the
schools will be part of the continuation of the implementation. Schools will refine
DAP in order to integrate new research and practices into the curriculum. Principals
and teachers will need the support of the organizational system in order to sustain
the practices.

Summary of Findings
There were three questions for this study that examined the implementation
phase of the change process from an organizational and administrative perspective:
(a) the status of the innovation as perceived by principals currently implementing, (b)
the relationship between the status of organizational components related to
sustaining an innovation, and (c) implementation concerns expressed by principals.
The findings related to the three areas are summarized below.

153
Status of Developmental^ Appropriate Practices
O f the nine organizational components measured on the survey instrument,
60% or more of the principals reported all of the variables in each of the following
components to be in evidence in their schools:

personnel features, classroom

practices, transitions for children and families, and professional resources.
Three of the ten variables under school climate were not in evidence in 60%
or more of the schools that were represented in the sample: parents involved in
development and planning, staff having a choice as to whether or not to participate,
and the actions of the collective bargaining unit not being supportive.

Funds

supporting the ongoing implementation for DAP were reported to be available for
58.8% of the schools. Nearly half (48.5%) of the principals reported that parents
were trained to support classroom activities and that parent education was an
ongoing component of the implementation.

Fifty-eight percent of the principals

reported that the community had not been involved in the planning for the
implementation of DAP. A majority of the schools represented (67.6% ) had not
conducted a formal evaluation of the implementation process.

Relationship Between Organizational Components
and Administrative Practices
There were significant relationships between the organizational components
and administrative practices.

None of the null hypotheses was retained.

The

leadership of the principal, the teachers knowing the principal expected them to
implement, and the principal talking to parents about DAP had a significant

154
relationship with 78% or more of the 38 variables identified in the organizational
components.
The knowledge and understanding the principal had of DAP, the principal
being responsible for the implementation, and the principal receiving training for
implementing DAP had a significant relationship with 40% or less of the 38 variables
identified for the organizational components.

Concerns Related to the Implementation of
Developmentally Appropriate Practices
The concerns identified by the principals focused on school climate,
classroom practices, and maintaining quality control. Principals were concerned
about teachers not implementing having difficulty with changing their practices
and/or not being supportive of DAP, assessment practices related to student
outcomes, and moving DAP into other grade levels.

Discussion

The researcher examined the status of DAP in elementary schools in
Michigan in order to explore a means to operationalize the study of the
implementation

phase of planned systemic change.

The focus was on

organizational components and administrative practices because writers have
reported that in order to sustain fundamental change, systemic change in the
organization must take place.
The results of the study suggest that for a majority of schools currently
implementing DAP, systemic change has occurred at the levels for which it was

155
intended. Those changes were supported, for the most part, at the organizational
and administrative levels. The contextual condition or culture of the school has
influenced the effect of the innovation at individual schools. The study findings also
confirmed that "success is always under construction." Time and effort for the
successful implementation of DAP is ongoing. The study findings indicated that the
status of DAP from a systemic perspective is experiencing difficulty in the following
areas: lack of support from the bargaining unit, lack of support from teachers not
implementing DAP, and the lack of involvement of parents and the community in the
planning and implementation process.
Two organizational issues were identified that would support principals in
sustaining DAP and possibly moving it into higher grade levels: (a) official support
of boards of education through the adoption of formal policy, and (b) training in the
change process so that the implementation of an innovation would be formally
planned and monitored. A principal representing a district with a formal policy made
the following comment when asked about major concerns: "None; it is institutional­
ized in my building. We have embraced it as a district. W e are hoping for K-12."
On the other hand, a principal in a district with a well-established program K-2,
wanting to move to other grade levels and no policy, said, "It was a mistake not to
include more teachers initially and not going to the board of education to formalize
the implementation." Formal policy possibly would help to improve the status of two
school climate variables: staff having a choice and bargaining unit support.

156
Phillips (1992) studied the effect of board policy on changing classroom
practices at the kindergarten level in Pontiac, Michigan. In this study, 60% of the
principals perceived policy to be related to their role as facilitator. It also reinforced
the need for the principal to receive support and professional development to lead
an innovation.
The data from the survey instrument indicated that more than 60% of the
principals had received training in the implementation of DAP. However, only 30%
of the principals reported that a formal evaluation of the implementation of DAP had
taken place in their schools. Eighty percent of the principals reported that DAP had
changed business in their schools, yet 50% of the respondents were either
undecided about or disagreed with the statement that teachers not implementing
were supportive of DAP.

The variance in these data may be due to principals

responding from the viewpoint of just the grades that were implementing, and
receiving training related specifically to DAP, but not in the change process.
The comments from principals indicating a desire to have DAP move into
higher grade levels are very promising. The accomplishments of Central Park East
School in New York are an example of how this has been accomplished (Meier,
1995). In developing the elementary school and later the high school, the faculty
committed themselves to being different. A major part of that difference was keeping
alive the ideas and spirit of good early childhood education. Deborah Meier, the
leader of renowned Central Park East School, remarked that the spirit of early
childhood education is fundamental to all good education: "Wouldn’t it be wonderful,

157
after all, if high school students were as deeply absorbed in their ’work’ as five-yearolds are in their ’play’?" (p. 47).
Current researchers on change in schools are focusing on changing the basic
theory of schooling, which means changing how we think and what we believe. This
kind of change in schools is a fundamental reform that transforms and permanently
alters the existing structure of schooling. This kind of change requires a rethinking
of the most common, entrenched, and fundamental educational beliefs, structures,
practices, and behaviors.

This fundamental change can occur, according to

Sergiovanni (1994), using a theory of community.

Building a purposeful school

community requires each school to define who they are, what they hope to become
forthe students they serve, and how they will decide, organize, teach, learn, and live
together (Sergiovanni, 1994). It is this kind of community building that could move
the "spirit" of early childhood education up through the grade levels.
Throughout the different sources of data, there were comments indicating that
a movement to this effect is beginning in Michigan. A superintendent wrote, "Isn’t
this [DAP] just good teaching practices, and shouldn’t it be in every classroom?"
Another superintendent wrote, "All students should be taught in a developmentally
appropriate manner; anything short of that is malpractice."
Principals suggested that the terminology needs to change because DAP has
become a "buzz" word, or is only associated with early childhood. Approaching DAP
from a systemic/community perspective would involve the entire school community
addressing their values and beliefs about how children learn and what children

158
should learn. The approach could lead to a restructuring of the entire school system
and could be addressed as teachers, parents, and administrators work together to
provide a continuum of developmental educational experiences to students.
Determining the status of organizational components and administrative
practices related to the implementation phase of DAP appears to be relevant to the
study of the change process.

Addressing the systemic issues related to an

innovation during the implementation phase could serve as a means to evaluate the
process and make modifications and adjustments to ensure the continuation of the
implementation and the sustaining of the innovation.

Recommendations
Based on the results or this study, the following recommendations are made:
1.

When an innovation is introduced with the intention of restructuring or

transforming a school, a formal plan of implementation should be developed that has
the support of the entire school community.
2.

Identification of organizational changes and administrative practices

that are needed to support the implementation should be a part of the planning
process.
3.

Districts currently implementing DAP need to identify models and begin

discussion on creating a framework for applying the values and beliefs of early
childhood education throughout the system.

159
4.

Dialogue needs to begin between principals, teachers, and leaders of

bargaining units to work out differences and gain support for practices that sustain
quality teaching and learning.
5.

An innovation that affects the entire school system must have a

common and understood working definition within the school system and throughout
the community.
6.

Systemic change should be implemented horizontally as well as

vertically. Open up the implementation of good teaching practices to everyone by
including all teachers in the readings, workshops, and conferences related to the
innovation.

Suggestions for Further Research
1.

Compare and contrast the status of districts with a written policy for the

implementation of DAP to those with an informal or unwritten policy.
2.

Continue to refine and develop a model for an instrument that would

assist districts with a means to evaluate the implementation phase of an innovation.
3.

More information is needed on the effect of administrative practices on

the change process, especially in light of current thinking about the role of the
principal, to develop purposeful learning communities.
4.

Investigate howdifferent policies influence teaching and learning in the

classroom.
5.

Compare the effect ofdifferent grouping practices on the achievement

of children and the sustaining of DAP.

160
6.

Additional and current research is needed on the relevance of school

culture to sustaining the change process. A longitudinal study of schools within a
district or similar schools in more than one district could be examined.
7.

Study the role of recognition of teachers in sustaining an innovation.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

161

A-

ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS
Nine organizational components affecting the sustaining of
developmentally appropriate practices are listed below. Please answer
the statements by putting an ✓ in the box most descriptive of your
opinion. (SA) strongly agree, (A) agree, (U) undecided, (D) disagree.
(SD) strongly disagree.

School Climate for Restructuring

in this school:

SA

A

U

D

SD

1.

the staff w as m otivated to m ake the desired
changes toward im plem enting developm entally
appropriate practices

Q

G

G

G

G

2.

the staff was prepared for im plem enting
developm entally appropriate practices.

Q

G

G

G

G

3.

there is a comm on philosophy and vision in the
school that supports developm entally appropriate
practices

G

G

G

Q

G

4.

parents w ere involved in the developm ent and
planning for implem enting d evelopm entally
appropriate practices.

G

G

G

Q

G

5.

the staff takes risks related to the im plem entation
of developm entally appropriate practices.

G

G

G

G

G

6.

collaboration b etw een staff is com m on.

G

G

□

Q

Q

7

staff have the choice as to w hether or not they

□

G

G

G

G

participate in the im plem entation of
developm entally appropriate practices
8

most district policies support our im plem entation
of developm entally appropriate practices,
(e.g. allocation of funds, class size, retention).

G

G

G

Q

G

9

the actions of collective bargaining units support
the implementation of developm entally appropriate
practices

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

Q

10

consideration is given to d evelopm entally
appropriate practices in the d evelopm ent
of our school im provem ent plan.

Organizational and Resource Features
In this school:
11.

funds w ere specifically allocated for the initial
im plem entation of d evelop m entally appropriate
practices

12

annually funds are specifically desig nated for
the ongoing im plem entation of developm entally
appropriate practices.

Personnel Features
In this school:
14.

staff d evelopm ent is ongoing for the im plem entation
of d evelopm entally ap p ropriate practices.

15.

staff have a designated tim e to plan together.

16.

instructional staff establish their own professional
goals.

17.

teachers are involved in sharing their know ledge
and experiences outside of o u r school.

Classroom Practices
In this school:
18.

developm entally appropriate practices guide
th e decisions m ade for ch an g es in the curriculum.

19.

curriculum is delivered with a variety of materials
including multi-sensory , and open-end ed
m anipulatives

20.

children are provided opportunities to explore,
m anipulate, investigate and discover with m aterials
in the classroom.

21.

children are encouraged to take risks.

22.

classroom instruction includes w hole group,
sm all group and individual instruction.

23.

discipline practices reflect an em phasis on
children's developm ent of self control.

24.

a variety ot teaching strategies a re used in
im plem enting the curriculum, (e.g. teacher
directed, teach er facilitated, a n d free choice).

25

diverse,m ixed ability groups a re comm on.

26.

assessm ent practices beyond standardized
testing are used for evaluating students

Involvement of Parents
In this school:
27.

information about classroom practices is
shared with parents in a variety of ways.

28

parents are recruited to support children's
activities in the classroom.

29.

parents are trained to support children's
activities in the classroom

30.

parents are supportive of our implementation
of developmentally appropriate practices

31.

parent education is an ongoing component of
our implementation of developmentally
appropriate practices.

32.

procedures are in place to achieve parent input
(e.g. representation on SIP committees, Dialogue
meetings. Advisory groups).

Com m unity Responsiveness
In this school:
33.

the community was involved in the planning
for our district to adopt a developmentally
appropriate philosophy.

34.

we believe the Board of Education supports the
implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices.

Transitions for Children and Families
In this school:
35

intormation covering a variety of topics related
to developmentally appropriate practices is available
to the community.

36.

there is support available for parents to facilitate
transitions from preschool to kindergarten,
kindergarten to first, etc..

Maintaining Quality Control
In this school:
37.

teach ers are self evaluating in order to
monitor and refine their practices

38.

student outcom es are used to determ ine
effectiveness of d evelop m entally appropriate
practices

Maintaining Quality Control con’t.
In this district:
39.

there is a formal evaluation in place for the
m onitoring of student outcom es other than a
statew ide assessm ent tool.

40.

a form al evaluation has been conducted
to d eterm ine the status of the im plem entation
of develop m entally ap p ropriate practices.

Professional Resources
In this school:
41.

there a re individuals with expertise in
d evelop m entally appropriate
practices.

42.

support is available from central administration
for the im plem entation of developm entally
appropriate practices.

43.

consultation from the IS D , University, and/or
private sector is accessible for supporting our
im plem entation of d evelopm entally appropriate
practices

44.

a n individual other than myself assists with
the im plem entation of developm entally
appropriate practices.

45.

T h e re is a position at the district level with specific
responsibility for im plem enting developm entally
appropriate practices.

ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES
This sections deals with the principals’ role and practices pertaining to
the implementation of developmentally appropriate practices. Please
answer the statements by putting a ✓ in the box that best describes
your opinion (SA) strongly agree, (A) agree, (U) undecided. (D)
disagree, or (SD) strongly disagree.
SA
A
U
D
My level of knowledge and understanding
of developmentally appropriate practices is
adequate for me to lead the implementation
in my building

Q

Q

3

My beliefs about how young children learn are
consistent with developmentally appropriate
practices

□

□

3

Q

O

Q

Implementing developmentally appropriate
practices is one of my top 5 priorities.

□

□

□

□

I have received training to lead the
implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices in my building.

£_)

□

Q

U

The teachers in my building know that I
expect them to be implementing developmentally
appropriate practices.

Q

Q

Q

U

I talk to individual and small groups of parents
about developmentally appropriate practices.

Q

□

Q

U

Over the past year I have collaborated with
□
professional colleagues regarding the implementation
of developmentally appropriate practices.

□

□

□

I have attended a workshop or conference on
developmentally appropriate practices.

Q

Q

O

CJ

I am responsible for the successful implementation
of developmentally appropriate practices in my
school.

O

O

Q

□

I have a leadership role in the implementation of
developmentally appropriate practices in my
building.

Q

O

O

The implementation of developmentally appropriate
practices has required time and effort on my
part.

Q

O

166

12.

l a m ab le to respond to the need s and concerns of
the staff related to th e im plem entation of
d evelopm entally appropriate practices.

Q

□

□

□

□

13

Teachers in grades not implementing
developmentally appropriate practices
are supportive of the changes.

□

□

□

□

□

14.

T h e im plem entation of developm entally appropriate
practices has changed th e w a y w e do business in
this school.

Q

□

□

□

□

C.

COM M ENTS OR CO NCERNS
Any comments you might have regarding the implementation and/or the
sustaining and continuation of developmentally appropriate pracices in
your school would be appreciated. Please use this space provided and
additional paper if needed.

167

D.

D E M O G R A P H IC S
Please fill in the boxes or check the boxes that apply to vour school district.
1.

What is the approximate enrollment of your district?___________ ________

2.

How many students are in your school?--------------------------------------------------

3

What grades are represented in your school?---------------------------- -------------

4

Do your per pupil expenditures exceed State Aid?

5

How many years have you been an elementary principal?

6.

How many years were you employed as a
professional educator prior to becoming a principal?

7.

At what levels have you had teaching or administrative
experience? Check all that apply
□ K-2
CJ3-5
□ 6-8
H 9-12

e

How many years have you been in your current building as an
administrator?

O yes n no
________
_______

----------

9.

At what grade levels are you currently implementing DAP?_______ _____________

10.

How many years have you been implementing DAP?__________________

11 .

Do you currently have alternative non-special education
programs for young children, (e.g. Developmental K,
D yes rjno
Transitional First).
If yes, are children tested to be enrolled in these alternative
programs?
n yes □ no

12 .

Would you be willing to participate in a follow up phone
conversation and/or personal interview regarding your
responses on this survey?
□ yes □ no thank you
If yes. please indicate your name, phone number, and a convenient time to reach you
name_____________________________ phone □ wk. □ hm. (
) _____________
□ during office hours

□

evenings

□ Sat. /Sun

APPENDIX B

LETTER AND SURVEY SENT TO DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS

168

ROCHESTER

COMMUNITY

A D M IN ISTR ATIO N

SCHOOLS

CENTER

A p r il 3 . 1 9 9 5
D e a r S u p e r in te n d e n t:
A s y o u a re a w a re , th e s u c c e s s o f re fo rm e ffo rts a s s o c ia te d w it h im p ro v in g th e te a c h in g
a n d le a r n in g p ro c e s s Is a m a jo r c o n c e rn in p u b lic e d u c a tio n . T h e In g re d ie n ts o f su c c e s s ,
h o w e v e r, a re s t ill s o m e w h a t e lu s iv e . T h is le tte r Is b e in g s e n t to a ll s u p e r in te n d e n ts In
M ic h ig a n to c o lle c t I n f o r m a t io n f o r a re s e a rc h p ro je c t th a t 1 a m d o in g as p a r t o f a d o c to ra l
s tu d y in e d u c a tio n a l a d m in is t r a t io n a t M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e rs ity . T h is p ro je c t h a s th e s u p p o r t
o f D r. G e ra ld K e ld c l. E x e c u tiv e D ir e c to r o f M _A .S.A-. a n d m y s u p e r in te n d e n t. D r. J o h n M.
S c h u ltz .
T h e fo c u s o f m y re s e a rc h is o n th e s u s ta in in g a n d c o n t in u a tio n o f a n e d u c a tio n a l
re fo rm . T h e re fo rm I a m c o lle c tin g d a ta o n Is D e v e lo p m e n ta lly A p p r o p r ia t e P r a c tic e s .
D e v e lo p m e n ta lly a p p r o p r ia te p ra c tic e s a re d e fin e d as: taking into account w h a t ts k n o io n about
h o w c h ild re n tea m a n d m a tch in g th a t to the c o n t e n t a n d s tr a te g ie s use d In schools. In th e
la te 1 9 8 0 's d e v e lo p m e n ta lly a p p ro p r ia te p ra c tic e s fo r y o u n g c h ild r e n w a s h ig h ly p u b lic iz e d as
a p r o m is in g s c h o o l r e fo r m .
P lease fin d th e e n c lo s e d b r i e f q u e s tio n n a ir e a s k in g y o u to Id e n tify w h e th e r o r n o t y o u r
d is t r ic t Is In v o lv e d In Im p le m e n tin g d e v e lo p m e n ta lly a p p ro p ria te p ra c tic e s . I f y o u r d is t r ic t is
In v o lv e d , w it h y o u r a p p ro v a l, th e d is t r ic t w ill be in c lu d e d In th e p o p u la tio n fr o m w h ic h th e
s a m p le d is t r ic ts fo r m y re s e a rc h a re se le cte d . I f Id e n tifie d In th e s a m p le , a ll o f y o u r e le m e n ta ry
p r in c ip a ls w ill be a s k e d to c o m p le te a q u e s tio n n a ir e .
M y s tu d y w ill fo c u s o n th e s t a tu s o f b u ild in g le ve l o rg a n iz a tio n a l c o m p o n e n ts a n d th e
a d m in is tr a tiv e p ra c tic e s re fle c te d I n th e lit e r a tu r e a s b e in g c r it ic a l to th e s u s ta in in g o f a n
e d u c a tio n a l In n o v a tio n . T h e In fo r m a tio n o b ta in e d fr o m th e s tu d y s h o u ld p ro v e h e lp fu l to
s c h o o ls In v o lv e d In Im p le m e n tin g n e w p ra c tic e s f o r Im p ro v e m e n ts in th e te a c h in g a n d le a rn in g
p ro c e ss.
A lth o u g h c o d in g d e v ic e s f o r c le r ic a l p u rp o s e s w ill be u s e d , p le a se be a s s u re d th a t a ll
d is t r ic ts a n d re s p o n d e n ts w i l l r e m a in a n o n y m o u s . I f th e re Is s o m e o n e m o re k n o w le d g e a b le
a b o u t th e In fo r m a tio n b e in g re q u e s te d , p le a se d o n o t h e s ita te to p a s s th e q u e s tio n n a ir e o n to
th e m . T h a n k y o u v e iy m u c h fo r s u p p o r tin g th is re s e a rc h p ro je c t. Y o u r c o o p e r a tio n Is
a p p re c ia te d .

■•<p£etfully.

■Carm en S. Z e lg li
H a m p to n S ch o o l
e n c lo s u re

501 W

U N I V E R S I T Y DR. ■ R O C H E S T E R .

Ml

1 8 3 0 7 • ( 810) 6 5 1 - 6 2 1 0 • F A X

( SI C) 6 5 1 - 5 9 9 0

169

DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENT
FOR

D E TE R M IN IN G THE SCHOOL D ISTRICTS IN M ICHIGAN
TH A T ARE CURRENTLY INVO LVED IN THE
IM P L E M E N T A T IO N OF D E V E LO P M E N TA L LY A P P R O P R IA T E P R A C TIC E S
AT THE ELEM EN TA R Y LEVEL

Please indicate the present situation in your district as it pertains to the
implementation of developmentally appropriate practices ( D A P ) .
Developmentally appropriate practices are those aspects o f teaching and
learning that change with the age and experience of the learner.

3.

B.

Is there a written policy for DAP in your
school district?

□

yes

O

no

Are all elementary schools encouraged to
implement DAP?

□

yes

□

no

How many years have you been involved in the
implementation of DAP at the elementary level?

Please indicate your permission to have your elementary principals included in the sample.

I am granting perm ission to Carmen S. Zeigler to include elem entary principals
from this district in a sample of principals from the state of Michigan, for the
purpose o f collecting data on the status of organizational com ponents and
ad m in istrative practices believed to be critical to the sustaining of educational
in n o v a tio n s .
S igned:
...—.....................
,
Title: _________________ _____
School District:

-

D a t e : __________________

CD Please send me a summary of the results when the study is completed.

□

C.

The district does not want to be in the population from which a sample is selected for this stud'

Please call Carmen S. Zeigler (810) 853-9305 during the school day with questions.
Please return this questionnaire in the envelope provided by April 11. 1995 to:
Carmen S. Zeigler. Principal
530 Hampton Circle
Rochester Hills, Mi. 48307
T b s m is y s u '}m 'is is J n g 'lb ®

3© © © ra p ]® 1]® ' M a

U M a n r ir lJ e r ! .

APPENDIX C

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

170

M a y 9. 1995

D e a r Colleague.
T h is le tte r is be in g w ritte n to ash y o u ta k e a p p ro x im a te ly tw e n ty m in u te s to com plete th e enclosed
su rv e y a b o u t the im p le m e n ta tio n o f d e v e lo p m e n ta lly a p p r o p ria te p ra c tic e s (D A P ) in y o u r
b u ild in g
ijo u r S u p e rin te n d e n t re s p o n d e d to a s u rv e y t h a t SI s e n t o u t la s t m o n th , in d ic a tin g th a t y o u r d is tric t has
been im p le m e n tin g D A P a t the e le m e n ta ry level a n d gave a p p ro va l fo r u ou to p a rtic ip a te >n th is s tu d y
S u p e rin te n d e n ts th ro u g h o u t M ic h ig a n have expressed in te re s t in the ou tcom e o f th is s tu d y
T h is s u rv e y is p a r t o f m y d o c to ra l d is s e rta tio n a t M ic h ig a n S ta te U n ive rsity focusing on the s u s ta in in g
a n d c o n tin u in g e d u c a tio n a l re fo rm s T h e M ic h ig a n E le m e n ta ry a n d M id d le School P rin c ip a ls a sso c ia tio n
en a orse s th is research a n d is in te re s te d in the fin d in g s
T h is s u rv e y is d e sig n e d to id e n tify y o u r p e rce p tio n s o f
-th e s ta tu s o f o rg a n iz a tio n a l co m p o n e n ts re la te d to D A p . a n d
- y o u r role a n d re s p o n s ib ilitie s re la te d to th e im p le m e n ta tio n o f
D/ i p
9 n a d d itio n , there is a n o p p o r tu n ity f o r yo u to c o m m e n t a b o u t a n y concerns yo u have re g a rd in g the
im p le m e n ta tio n o f d e v e lo p m e n ta lly a p p ro p ria te practices, a n d a d e m o g ra p h ics section
The in fo rm a tio n a va ila b le o n th e s u s ta in in g o f a n e d u ca tio n a l in n o vation is very lim ite d However, the
lite ra tu re d o cs re p o rt t h a t f o r a n y 'real ch a n ge ' to hap pe n , syste m ic change in th e c rg a m z a t.c n m u s t also
ta ke place T h is research w ill fo cu s o n lo o kin g a t th e o rg a n iz a tio n a l co m p o n e n ts re la te d to D A P . in o rd e r to
d e te rm in e if existence o r n o n existence d o e s im p a c t the im p le m e n ta tio n y o u r p a rtic ip a tio n m th is s tu d y 'S
im p o r ta n t in o rd e r to id e n tify w h e th e r o r n o t even h ig h ly publicized re fo rm s a rc be in g s u s ta in e d ;l ’ro u g h
s y s te m ic ckn n a c
9 hope th a t y o u w ill s h o w y o u r in te re s t in a n d s u p p o rt o f th is research b y c o m p le tin g the su rve y a n d
r e tu rn in g it in the s e lf-a d d re s s e d envelope to C a rm e n S Z eig le r a t H a m p to n School b y J fta y 2 5 , J 9 9 5 .
P le a se call me (SIO) 3 5 9 -9 5 0 5 . d u rin g th e school d a y w ith a n y questions, p le a se be a s s u re d th a t yo u a n d
y o u r d is tric t w ill have a n o n y m ity a n d a ll id e n tifia b le in fo rm a tio n w ill be c o n fid e n tia l However. ■?ao w a n t to
ta lk to y o u a b o u t y o u r experiences w ith im p le m e n ta tio n , a n d a n o p p o rtu n ity fo r yo u to id e n tify yo u rs e lf ,s
p ro v id e d on the survey
T h a n k y o u fo r y o u r s u p p o r t o f m y research.
S incerely y o u rs

C a rm e n S Zeigler. p rin c ip a l
H a m p to n School

APPENDIX D

FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD

171

Dear
This postcard is being sent to remind you about a suruey that I
sent you earlier this month. The suruey is a critical piece of my
research at MSU on the status o f deuelom entally appropriate
practices in the State of Michigan. I know this is a busy time of
year, but I would really appreciate it if you would take ju s t a
fe w minutes to complete and return the suruey. I f you haue
returned the suruey in the past fe w days please accept my
sincere appreciation. I f you haue misplaced the suruey and need
another copy, please call (810)853-9305.
Thank you.
Carmen S. Zeigler, Principal
Hampton School

APPENDIX E

WRITTEN COM M ENTS FROM THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

172
Written Comments From the Survey Instrument

School Climate for Restructuring
I certainly agree with the premise that systemic change must accompany real
organizational change.
Systemic change has been possible in our
kindergarten program, which in many ways is a smaller, separate, easier-toinfluence organization than out 1-6. I believe this is why we have been able
to create change in kindergarten and have been much less successful with
1-6 grades.
Teachers in grades K-2 have had considerable training in High Scope.
Questions are difficult to answer because there is division among staff
members.
There is unrest because we no longer offer a Young 5’s program.
Our kindergarten teachers initiated DAP and did the research, attended
workshops, etc., without pressure from above. This hasn’t been the case with
grades 1 & 2, and therefore those grade levels have not successfully
implemented the practices across the board.
Union officials have expressed some opposition.
Our first grades are not DAP, and most 2 & 3 are trying to move in that
direction.
A common philosophy is essential.
A staff willing to take risks and supported in doing so is essential.
Our kindergarten program (12 sections all in my building) is totally "DAP." It
is an incredibly talented, creative, and experienced staff. Our first-grade
program ranges from some rooms very much DAP to not at all.
It is difficult for teachers to let go of past practices.
Work on foundations longer. Can be very hard for traditional staff members
to change.
W e wrote it into our Mission Statement.

173
It did take the better part of eight years at K-Center to learn and put DAP into
practice.
Teachers, once told we were creating an Early Childhood Center, became
more upbeat about the transition.
Teachers through the last three years have been one common focused
group.
New practices cannot be implemented in this school because two teachers
have "power" over the others and challenge every move they m ake-even
working against the administrators, building and central office. My staff is
divided.
This is our second year of developing appropriate practices for students. All
staff is aware of expectations, have received training, attended workshops,
read support materials, and have participated in developing the focus area
in our school improvement plan. Approximately 70% of the staff is "on
board," with the remaining staff sorting out their priorities.
Individual teachers have implemented DAP. Others have not.
W e have an outstanding program for young children (K-2 building).
W e will begin a new pilot program of looping in our building this fall. There
are six interested teachers wiling to begin this idea. It’s exciting.
Our sister school is DAP; however, some self-contained classrooms are off
on their own tangent.
Our current bargaining unit makes it very difficult and is very inflexible when
trying to change or expand programs. Past practices or precedent sets so
many expensive/one-sided pay scales.
MEA/LEA is a stumbling block.
Our school is just beginning to articulate a philosophy around D A P -it is a
long, slow struggle in a very traditional staff and community. We have a long
way to go, and I think some beliefs are not being truthfully shared at this time.
Much fear to conquer!
Actions of bargaining unit not supportive.

174

Teachers were initially reluctant as they had little background/information in
DAP. The few teachers who had the knowledge and served on the district
committee were very positive. Had the foundation taken place first, transition
would have been easier. Now that teachers have had much more training
and support, implementation is gong well. They are much more comfortable
and confident.
Not really a priority in our district. Early elementary committee was recently
dissolved.
Our staff is divided on the issue. Changing paradigms is a heart-wrenching
experience for many of our staff.
Our building has a strong developmentally appropriate component K-1.
When we get to second grade, the staff has resisted and still try to call
children lagging behind "special education." We continue to work with them
on this issue.

Organization and Resource Features
Start-up costs can be a problem.
An initiative was started in our district, but support was not maintained,
leaving continued work at the building level in a state of confusion.
The district began a thrust for developmentally appropriate education in K-1,
hoping to do 2-3 soon after and 4-5 to follow. It stopped at K-1. Money and
other initiatives got in the way.

Personnel Features
Several of our teachers are presenters at the Wayne County Early Childhood
Conference. Teachers attend the High Scope Registry.
DAP is a long-term, probably ongoing process.
All kindergarten teachers have a ZA endorsement. I only hire those with early
childhood background.
W e expect the implementation to take another 3+ years to get where we’d
like to be.

175
Our building is a teaming/multiage setup. I feel it is much easier to implement
DAP when everyone is working together in four-person teams versus selfcontained classrooms.

Classroom Practices
I believe all teachers in my building are in agreement conceptually with DAP,
but not all are regular practitioners of DAP.
I am finding the most difficult piece is consistent and valid assessment. We
are getting a portfolio started for our building, but being sure it’s age authentic
and developmentally appropriate is difficult.

Involvement of Parents
Most parents, according to parent surveys, are supportive.
Parents have been extremely supportive and very active on a daily basis.

Community Responsiveness
Having support of central office and the board is best.
[The district] made a commitment to DAP in the past seven years, and have
a fine early childhood curriculum as a result. The successful practices. . . are
more and more evident in upper elementary, and even junior and senior high
now!

Transitions for Children and Families
Our building is K-2, and the 3-5 building does not really understand DAP.

Maintaining Quality Control
Delay looking for mastery; don’t assess too early.
There seem to be some concerns as to appropriate time allocations for skills
to be mastered.

176
We have been caught in the struggle between improving MEAP scores and
DAP.
I am greatly concerned about an eroding of appropriate practice because of
MEAP pressure. DAP recognizes that all children can learn, but not
necessarily by the fourth week of fourth grade. Unfortunately, we are caught
in the trap of trying to force them to be ready whether they are or not. The
state’s heavy emphasis on MEAP takes preference and negatively impacts
DAP.
A key to DAP acceptance is being able to show the public positive results.
W e are in the dilemma that many LEA’s are -D o we push down the Michigan
Essential Skills in math, reading, writing and science, or do we allow kids to
grow at their own pace?

Professional Resources
W e have a great deal of assistance and support as we moved into
implementation. Now we have a highly trained staff that just "does business"
in a developmentally appropriate manner, and not as much district support is
there, nor needed.

Administrative Practices
DAP has been a very high priority for me.
Upper-grade teachers not supportive.
It should have been a K-5 implementation and training. The concepts and
practices are good for all, not just K-2.

APPENDIX F

RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE INTERVIEW S

177
Responses to the Follow-Up Telephone Interviews

Alternative. Programs
The program is a "political hot potato." It is a "Transition First" class that was
only supposed to continue for one year after the implementation of DAP.
However, the Board of Education supports the program and it is going to
continue.
The alternative classroom is a contradiction in practices. Students going into
the program tend to be low social-economic boys or students that later qualify
for special education.
"My district pioneered DK in the 70’s and we feel we are very successful."
Another principal commented, "There has to be some options because of the
state law that allows children to come to school if five by December 1."
Further comment was made that the district has a Board policy that
encourages children to stay at home if born after June 30.
DK is totally conceptual, not structured around the curriculum; instead, it is kid
centered. We are pleased with it and are not ready to give it up. "DAP has
moved us into looking at what is good for kids." "It has been wonderful to see
the transformation in the building."
The alternative program was needed because students are coming to school
with no skills, and there has been a total breakdown of the family. "Parents
don’t seem to be aware of anything they should be doing to get their kids
ready for school."
"This building would really like to have a full-day Transition First because we
have students with parents that want and need a full-day program their
second year of school, and therefore parents will not agree to have their child
placed in a DK program.” Subsequently, the respondent stated, "There are
many retentions in the first grade." "If a child is young, they will be young
forever; we give them a growth year."
There is not an implementation of DAP in the district, and the only program
the superintendent could have been thinking of would have been the
Developmental K program for young five year olds.

178
Teachers Not Supporting
R esponses to Question 1:
Differences in the amount of training, preservice as well as inservice that
teachers at different levels receive. When the whole system isn’t involved,
there are many problems.
Upper grades have a much more teacher-directed format, and they are
getting students that don’t fit the mold.
Much harder sell at upper grades. DAP wasn’t talked about for all levels.
It is easy to blame DAP; staff morale is not good. Grades 3-5 have not been
brought into DAP.
Teachers are critical of others’ practices if they don’t understand them.
Teachers with more than 20 years of teaching experience do not want to
change. Many misunderstandings. A lot of blame is being placed on the
kids.
Not enough information to everybody. Nonsupportive teachers have been
fierce. Cruel things have been said.
Moving to 3-5 grades is meeting with great resistance.
The unknown
expectations.

philosophy of DAP, and

different child development

R esponses to Question 2:
Encourage multiage grouping at the upper levels.
Have some teachers retire.
Train teachers in alternative assessment practices.
Share more of the outcomes; give upper grades the opportunity to learn more
about the philosophy. Teach upper grades how to be more flexible.
Don’t limit who can participate.
everybody.

Make everything interactive and open to

179
Adopt a curriculum and train teachers to implement it in a developmentally
appropriate manner across all grade levels.
Have a principal that believes in DAP and provides the leadership and
support to sustain the momentum from the teachers.
Have a Board of Education policy so teachers know they do not have a
choice.
Leadership of the principal. Combine DAP with other practices that we know
are good for kids, like Quality Schools, Integrated Thematic Instruction, braincompatible classrooms. Keep pointing out what schools should be doing for
kids.
Improve the manner in which information is transferred from a committee of
a few to the entire district.
Hire teachers with a ZA (early childhood) endorsement.
Have K-3 meetings to share the literature and clear up some of the confusion.

Bargaining Unit Support
W e have taken a lot of flack. Leadership in the union is from the secondary
level. Teachers get heat because they plan on their own time, or implement
something and don’t get extra pay. If you do something good, somebody else
may have to do it. Negative union mentality.
W e can’t find the time to train teachers on school time. Some disagreement
with the curriculum content.
Academic freedom is part of the contract; therefore, you can’t require a
certain approach to teaching.
They have done nothing to support professional development.
Not supporting smaller class size. Doesn’t like to have a group of teachers
treated differently.
Therefore, did not support a four-day, full-day
kindergarten with a day for planning and parent visits. Does not want anyone
forced to do something they don’t want to do.
Our teachers are told not to attend any professional development outside of
the school day.

180
Concerns Regarding Implementation
Are we confusing DAP with not having high enough academic standards?
W e need to look at balance—what should children have?
Other priorities; new superintendent may change everything.
Turnover in staff is a problem.
Many misunderstandings. Much confusion about the term (n = 2).
Teachers thinking they are self-employed and can choose what practices
they use in their classrooms.
It was a mistake not to include more teachers initially and not going to the
Board of Education to formalize the implementation.
None. It is institutionalized in my building. We have embraced it as a district.
We are hoping for K-12 (n = 3).
Change is really hard. Moving to 3-5 is meeting with great resistance.
Lack of funds.
Parents don’t seem to be aware of anything they should be doing to get their
kids ready for school.
Teachers will get comfortable with something and not really change. There
is a push to be more academic.

Principals See the Following Changes Happening
in DAP in the Next Three to Five Years
New research will be integrated into what teachers are currently doing.
Hopefully, we will push it up through the grades with school improvement.
More work in assessment practices (n = 2).
K-5 implementation.
W e will probably go back to being a little more academic.

181
Looking at nongraded programs.
There will be a variety of schools, and parents will be given a choice. Some
will be traditional; others will be very developmentally appropriate-outcome
will be what the community wants.
W e will try not to use the DAP term anymore because it is a buzz word and
people can shoot at it.
All-day kindergarten, looking at extended year.
DAP for all grade levels.

APPENDIX G

APPROVAL LETTER FROM UCRIHS

182

M IC H IG A N STATE
U N I V E R S I T Y
May 3, 1995
TOi

O m a n 5. Zeigler
3569 5 round Rd
Rd.
Richmond, Mi. 4 8 0 6 2

RX!

IRBfi
TITLE»

REVISION REQUESTEDi
CATEGORYx
APPROVAL DATE:

95-305
A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATUS
or CRITICAL COMPONENTS AND THE BUILDING
PRINCIPAL'S PERCEPTIONS O r THEIR ROLE AS A
CHANGE FACILITATOR IN THE SUSTAINING OP
EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS
N/A
l-A.C
05/03/95

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS)
raviau of this project ia complete. I am pleased to advise that the
rlghta and welfare of tha human aubjecte appaar to ba adequately
?rotected and mat hod a to obtain Interned coneor.t are appropriate
herefore, the UCRIHS approved this project and any revision lie tad
above.

IF r!C £ OF

RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUOIES

IhtlvtnityCommittM on

RENEWALi

'JCRIHS approval la valid for one calendar year, beginning with
tha approval date ahown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with tne original approval letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek updated certification. There is a
maximum ef four such expedited renewals 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 tr.a change. If this is dona ac
tha time of
it rannawai, pleaee use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at any other time during the ya
send your written request to the L'CRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB 0 and title. Include
in your request a description cf Che change and any revised
instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

rXOBLEMS/
OUUfOESt

Should either of the following arise during the course of tho
work, investigators must notify UCRIHS promptlyi
(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 wnen the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to contact us
at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517)356-1171.

R a i l l i c t Involving

Hamm Sul|td>
(UCAIH!

ihr/rjiy

M 'c n g m S u
131 F c m in h 'jjt o i t a ilin g

F ist Lansirg. M in g in

*Ef24 1046
5i7,3!5-?ia0
Fax. 517.032.1:7’.

h
' r y-c*!^»7 S ^Jr t ’.T.xpi-MV

K tA 3 «EtPw*3,w Cfwrty

i.nz.ef-'i ■'Ain*

yjw•?*)

UCRIHS Chair
DEWipjm
cci Sanual Hoore

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Barbour, N. H., & Seefeldt, C. (1993). Developmental continuity across
preschool and primary grades; ImplicationS-fbLieaehfiis. Wheaton, MD:
Association for Childhood Education International.
Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. Teachers, parents, and
principals can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge.
New York: Perennial Library, Harper & Row.
Brandt, R. (1993, October). On restructuring roles and relationships: A
conversation with Phil Schlechty. Educational Leadership, pp. 8-11.
Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1986). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs serving children from birth through age eight.
Washington, DC: National Association of Education of Young Children.
Bredekamp, S. (1991). Redeveloping early childhood education: A response to
Kessler. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 6, 199-209.
Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant (Eds.). (1992). Reaching potentials: Appropriate
curriculum and assessment for young chidlren (Vol. 1). Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bryant, D. M., Clifford, R. M., & Peisner, E. L. (1991, Winter). Best practices for
beginners: Developmental appropriateness in kindergarten. American
Educational Research Journal. 2fi(4), 783-803.
Conley, D. T. (1991, February). Restructuring schools: Educators adapt to a
changing world. In Trends and issues. Eugene: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management, University of Oregon.

183

184
Corbett, H. D., Dawson, J. A., & Firestone, W. A. (1984). School context and
school change: Implications for effective planning. Philadelphia, :AP
Research for Better Schools.
Cox, P. L., French, L. C., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1987, July). Getting the princip;
off the hotseat: Configuring leadership and support for school
improvement. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational
Improvement of the Northeast and Islands. (ERIC Document Reproduc­
tion Service No. ED 290-231)
Cuban, L. (1992). What happens to reforms that last? The case of the junior
high school. American Educational Research Journal. 23(2), 227-251.
David, J. L. (1991). What it takes to restructure education. Educational
Leadership. 48(8), 11-15.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983, February). Culture and school
performance. Educational Leadership. 40, 14-15.
Elkind, D. (1988). A resource guide to public school earlv childhood programs.
(Edited by C. Warger). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Elkind, D. (1993). Resistance to developmental^ appropriate practice: A case
study of educational inertia. In Images of the young child. Collected
essays on development and education (pp. 55-64). Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Espinosa, L. (1993). The process of change: The Redwood City story. In S.
Bredekamp & T. Rosegrant (Eds.), Reading potentials: Appropriate
curriculum and assessment for young children (Vol. 1). Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Evans, R. (1993, September). The human face of reform. Educational
Leadership. £1(1), 19-23.
Forman, G., & Kuschner, D. (1983). The child’s construction of knowledge:
Piaget for teaching children. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Fullan, M. G. (1988). What's worth fighting for in the principalship? Strategics
for taking charge in the elementary school principalship. Andover, MA:
Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and
Islands.

185
Fullan, M. G. (1990). Staff development, innovation, and institutional
development. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff
development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Glickman, C. (1991, May). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational
Leadership. 48(8). 4-9.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future (A study of
schooling in the United States! New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodman, L. V. (1984). Standards for quality elementary schools, kindergarten
through eighth grade. Reston, VA: National Association of Elementary
School Principals.
Goodman, L. V. (1986). Proficiencies for principals, kindergarten through eighth
grade. Reston, VA: National Association of Elementary Principals.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Holzman, M. (1983, September). What /s systemic change? Educational
Leadership. 51(1).
Hord, S., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking
charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Huling, L. L„ Hall, G. E., Hord, S. M., & Rutherford, W. L. (1983). A
multidimensional approach for assessing implementation success. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.
Huse, E. F., & Cummings, T. G. (1985). Organization development and change
(3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
Initiating change in schools. (1990, April). Research Roundup (NAESP), 6(3).
Jewett, J. (1992a). Effective strategies for school-based early childhood centers.
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

186
Jewett, J. (1992b, November). School-based early childhood centers: Options
for local policy action. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Kessler, S. A. (1991). Alternative perspectives on early childhood education.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 6, 183-197.
Kostelnik, M. J. (1992). Myths associated with developmental^ appropriate
programs. Young Children. 4Z(4), 17-23.
Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., & Whiren, A. P. (1993). Developmentally
appropriate programs in early childhood education. New York: Merrill.
Latham, G. (1988, September). The birth and death cycles of educational
innovations. Principal. 68(1), 41-43.
Lay-Dopyera, M., & Dopyera, J. (1986). Strategies for teaching. In C. Seefeldt
(Ed.), Early childhood curriculum: A review of current research. New
York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). A framework for planned
educational change: Application to the assessment of program
implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 4(2).
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small
school. Boston: Beacon Press.
Michaels, K. (1988, February). Caution: Second-wave reform taking place.
Educational Leadership. 45(5), 3.
Michigan State Board of Education, Early Childhood Education, Parenting, and
Comprehensive School Health Unit. (1992, November). Earlv childhood
standards of quality for pre-kindergarten through second grade. Lansing:
Author.
Miles, M. (1983). Unraveling the mystery of institutionalization. Educational
Leadership. 41(3). 14-19.
NASBE Task Force on Early Childhood Education. (1988). Right from the start.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
Newman, F. M. (1993, January). What is a restructured school? Educational
Leadership, Z2(3). 5-8.

187
O ’Neil, J. (1989, November). Piecing together the restructuring puzzle.
Educational Leadership. 4-10.
Patterson, J. L. (1993). Leadership for tomorrow’s schools. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos. Handbook for a management revolution.
New York: Harper & Row.
Phillips, M. (1992). The effect of board policy on changing classroom practices.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.
Rutherford, W. L., Hord, S. M., Huling, L. L„ & Hall, G. E. (1983, April). Change
facilitators: In search of understanding their role (Report No. 3159).
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Sarason, S. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sarason, S. B. (1991). The predictable failure of educational reform. Can we
change course before it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1987). The theoretical basis for cultural leadership. In
L. T. Sheive & M. B. Schoenheit (Eds.), Leadership: Examining the
elusive (pp. 116-127) (ASCD Yearbook). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Smith, W. (1989). Steps to successful advocacy. INFO-LINE. Alexandria, VA:
American Society for Training and Development.
Smith, W. F., & Andrews, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals
make a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Wagner, T. (1993, September). Systemic change: Rethinking the purpose of
school. Educational Leadership. 51(1), 24-28.
Willis, S. (Ed.). (1993, November). Teaching young children. Curriculum Update
(ASCD), p. 1.