EDCI 566 EDUCATIONAL CHANGE (IMPLEMENTING NEW POLICIES, PROGRAMS, ROLES AND MATERIALS) W. Werner (822-5289; Scarfe 2330; wwemer@unixg.ubc.ca) Educational policies, school programs and curriculum materials are subject to constant criticism and change. But what do schools actually do with these reforms? How are they interpreted and used by teachers? This focus on implementation — or what happens in practice - leads us into various perspectives and issues related to educational change. Also discussed in the seminar are some of the implications of these perspectives and issues for planning, researching and evaluating different kinds of change - policies, programs, roles, materials, resources — within the school and district. Activities include lectures, discussions, and some small group work and presentations. Participants have freedom to pursue their own professional and academic interests through the course assignments. TOPICS (The seminar primarily focuses on topics 1.0 and 2.0) 1 .0 DEFINING CHANGE AND IMPLEMENTATION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2 .0 Innovation “Aspects” of Change (development, adoption, dissemination, implementation and continuation) Assumptions (fidelity, reinvention, and mutual adaptation)(change and reform) Sources of Change (planned and unplanned) PERSPECTIVES ON CHANGE AND IMPLEMENTATION The major purpose of the seminar is to discuss selected concepts and approaches to implemention of change within our educational institutions. As time allows, we will examine change from selected perspectives that help us consider why planned change efforts are or are not successful within our contexts. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3 .0 Multifactor Views Interpretive Views Institutional Culture Views Technical Views Adult Learning Views Change Capacity Views (individual and institutional capacities) Political Views Economic Views ISSUES IN CHANGE AND IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Appropriate uses of research findings Ethics of implementation Implementation accountability: for what? to whom? with what evidence? Reproduction of inequalities (class, gender, ethnicity) through implementation Planning change and implementation Evaluating change and implementation (e.g., standards, roles, designs) Legacy of former approaches to school reform (e.g., “School improvement,” “School effectiveness,” “School restructuring”) 3.8 Reforming schools through policy changes (e.g, curriculum standards) and testing 3.9 Action Research and institutional change 3.10 Teachers’ “practical knowledge,” reflection and collaboration 3.11 Other issues 1 feds minutes • Jibola - emphasized the importance of grad students attending ECS Windows workshops so they will continue... 3. SCETs Discussion • Chris raised issue of instructors receiving students' handwritten comments on teacher evaluations. Implications - risk to students and compromises validity of evaluations. • FEDS to draft letter to Frank Echols, SCET coordinator (sent out last week. In file) • Discussion followed regarding issues of property of SCET data, use of data in research, committee composition. 4. FEDS will look at Minutes of Graduate Curriculum Advisory Committee minutes (distributed after meeting). 5. Next meeting. December 9, 1999. Scarfe 2619, 12:15-l:20pm of 2 01/12/99 9:41 PM RESOURCES • • • • • • • Fullan. The New Meaning of Educational Change. Toronto: OISE Press, 1991. (LB 1027 F845) Fullan. Change Forces. London: Falmer, 1993. Hargreaves. Changing Teachers, Changing Times. Toronto: OISE Press, 1994. Hargreaves and M. Fullan (Eds.). Understanding Teacher Development. New York: Teachers College Press, 1992. Werner and R. Case. Collaborative Assessment of School-Based Projects. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press, 1991. Jackson (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: Macmillan, 1992. Selected articles will be assigned as pre-reading for seminars (there is a photocopy/copyright cost). OUTLINE (tentative) Seminar#! — topics 1.1 —1.4 #2 & 3 — Over the course we will examine perspectives on Change/implementation (emphasis will be given to 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). We start off with the most common perspective (what I am calling “multifactor views”— 2.1) used to understand and plan change/implementation. These multifactor views rest on three assumptions: (a) Educational change/implementation is facilitated or inhibited by factors that can be isolated and defined (hence researchers go “looking” for factors); (b) these factors mutually interact in a system; (c) once we identify the important factors associated with change/implementation, we can use them to plan change in our schools and districts. Michael Fullan is one of the best known writers on educational change and implementation from the multifactor view (he is dean of the faculty of education, University of Toronto). Read chapter 5 from his book The New Meaning of Educational Change (Toronto: OISE Press, 1991) with the following questions in mind: - Chapter 5 outlines his theory of change/implementation. Note that he identifies a number of factors/themes that explain the success or lack of success of change/implementation. What does he mean by “factors/themes”? What claims does he make for his theory (pp. 66-68)? Do you consider this to be an adequate theory of change/implementation? (That is, do you think he has missed important factors/themes?) Multifactor views of change/implementation are widely used in British Columbia by the ministry, districts, schools and the BCTF. The Taylor/Wemer article (School District Planning of Curriculum Implementation. Victoria: Ministry of Education, 1989) is an example of a multifactor perspective in the province. Briefly look over the factors listed in the article, and ask yourself: What factors have Taylor/Wemer missed? How are these factors related to Fullan’s factors/themes? (Note that the Taylor/Wemer article takes a district, not school, perspective.) #4 -2.2 #5 - 2.2 #6 - 2.3 #7 - 2.3 #8 - 2.3 (Group 1) #9 - 2.4 (Group 2) #10- 2.5 (Group 3) #11- 2.6 (Group 4) #12- 2.7 & 2.8 (Group 5) Edward O Wilson Consilience ASSIGNMENTS The assignments allow each participant to appy/extend the course readings and discussions to his or her own subject area, professional interests and context. These assignments are suggested rather than prescribed; Carl Segan negotiate them with the instructor. 30 Group seminar presentation (three members; up to one hour) on one of the following: • role/viewpoint of teachers in educational change/implementation (e.g., Fullan 1991, ch.7) • role/viewpoint of parents/community in educational change/implementation (Fullan 12) • role/viewpoint of students in educational change/implementation (Fullan 9) • role/viewpoint of administrators in educational change/implementation (Fullan 8, 10, role/viewpoint of educational change/implementation role of gender in educational change/implementation a concern or issue in defining, planning, evaluating, or researching implementation (e.g., from outline 3.0) • time (Hargreaves 1994, chs. 5-6) • individualism and collaboration (Hargreaves 8-9) • balkanization (Hargreaves 10) advocacy (characteristics, types, etc.) -— • other (check with the instructor) The presentation should be very focused, and allow for audience questions and discussion. • • • AND 30 Formulate and justify a set of questions that could be used to guide the implementation of change in your context. This task is a synthesis of course readings/seminars around your professional interest. Define the stance or point of view that gives coherence to your questions (e.g., the innovator, principal, evaluator,. researcher, department head; a specific innovation; a theoretical perspective or model; etc.); justify each ‘ cluster of questions; and specify the relevant literature. (Maximum of 7 pages; be very concise and focused.)• | AND 40 Written paper on topic or issue chosen in consultation with instructor. (Be concise and focused because maximum length is 9 pages.) For example: • Identify a proposed change within your school or district. Devise and justify a plan for implementation that takes into account principles and factors of implementation. Use and specify relevant literature. • Outline a set of principles that could be used to guide, and some strategies to facilitate, the implementation of a change in your context. Formulate the principles, describe the innovation, identify some of the relevant “capacities/vulnerabilities” in your context, and specify some strategies to enhance the capacities and minimize the vulnerabilities. Use and specify relevant literature. • Critically review a recent book on change and implementation. (Check with the instructor). This gives you an opportunity to examine literature more specific to your subject area or research interest. Identify the author’s thesis and argument, judge the coherence and adequacy of the argument, and identify salient issues/implications in terms of your interests. • Respond to the following challenge from Sarason: “Imagine a situation where you are empowered to initiate one change, and only one, in a school system. There is but one restriction: the change cannot cost discernibly more money than is now available. What would that change be and why would you choose that one from the universe of alternatives? If you start with some conception of the nature of a school system, you will not quickly arrive at an answer because there is, one can safely assume, a surfeit of changes you deem necessary. But, as you can make only one change, on what basis should your decision rest? Obviously, you will seek that change which, if appropriately implemented (quite an assumption!), will have over time desirable percolating effects on other problems in other parts of the system. The important point is that you do not choose a change because it addresses an important problem - of which there are many - but because what you seek to change is so embedded in a system of interacting parts that if it is changed, then changes elsewhere are likely to occur.” Seymour Sarason. The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990, 1516. (emphasis added) • Other (check with the instructor) 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROCESS Assignments are rated on the following criteria: 1. Clarity of communication/writing - Is the writing clear and concise? - Are the ideas focused and organized? 2. Development of argument - Are the ideas developed in depth? - Is the argument coherent? thoughtful? analytical? critical? 3. Understanding of course content - Is there evidence of understanding the course reading and lectures? - Were the ideas synthesized, extended, or applied? - Is there an appreciation of complexity? The process for arriving at marks is as follows. Every paper is read twice before comments are added. Where most students do similar assignments, the papers are then ranked based upon the three criteria. In short, assignments are marked comparatively on the three criteria. The following definitions of letter grade categories are outlined by the Faculty of Education and the Registrar’s Office: 1. Work of outstanding quality A+ (90-100%); exceptional work that greatly exceeds course expectations A (85-89); very high level of performance on all criteria A- (80-84); high quality of performance, no problems of any significance 2. Work of good quality with no major weaknesses (B: 68-79). Performance in the B category is adequate but does not demonstrate the level of quality that is clearly distinguished relative to that of peers in class. (B+: 76-79; B: 72-75; B-: 68-71) 3. Work of poor quality (C: 60-67) (A minimum of 60% must be achieved in all course work taken for graduate credit.) If you have any concerns about the process of evaluation, or the assignment of a particular mark, talk to the instructor. SELECTED BOOKS The range of journal articles on implementation is too extensive to list here. Check with me concerning authors who may be relevant to your interests. Also remember that the library contains theses/dissertations related to our provincial context. The following bibliography is just a sample of available books. Barth, R. (1991). Improving Schools from Within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The Teacher-Curriculum Encounter. New York: SUNY. Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions, Making the Most of Change. Redding, MS: Addison-Wesley. Cawelti, G. (Ed.)(1993). Challenges and Achievements of American Education. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Cawelti, G. (Ed.)(l 995). Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achivement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Clandinin, J. (1986). Classroom Practice: Teacher Images in Action. London: Falmer. Claxton, G. (1989). Being a Teacher, A Positive Approach to Change and Stress. London: Cassell. Crawley, M. (1995). Schoolyard Bullies, Messing With British Columbia’s Education System. Victoria, BC: Orca Book Publishers. Cuban, L. (1993). How Teachers Taught. Constancy and Change in American Classrooms, 1880-1990. (Second Edition). New York: Teachers College Press. Dalin, P. (1993). Changing the School Culture. New York: Cassell. Darling-Hammand, L. et al. (1994). Transforming School Reform: Policies and Practices for Democratic Schools, New York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and Teaching. Driscoll, D. (Ed.)(1989). Implementing Change: A Cooperative Approach. Vancouver, BC:Teacher-Librarians’ Association. Dryden, K. (1995). In School. Toronto, ON: McClelland. Eisner, E. (1998). The Kind of Schools We Need. Toronto, ON: Irwin. Elbaz, F.M. (1983). Teacher Thinking. London: Croom Helm. Epstein, D. (1993). Changing Classroom Cultures. London: Trentham Books. Evans, R. (1996). The Human Side of School Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Firestone, W. & H. Corbett (1987). Planned Organizational Change. Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. (Second Edition). Toronto, ON: OISE Press. (LB 1027 F845) Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces. London: Falmer. Fullan, M. (1991). Productive Educational Change. New York: Falmer. Fullan, M. (1992). Successful School Improvement. London: Open University Press. Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1991). What’s Worth Fighting for in Your School. Toronto, ON: Ontario Public School Teachers Federation. Ghosh, R. and Ray, D. (Ed.)(1995). Social Change and Education in Canada. (Third Edition). Toronto, ON: Harcourt Brace. Glickman, C. (1993). Renewing America’s Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad. J. (1983). A Place Called School. New York: McGraw Hill. Goodlad, J. (Ed.)(1987). The Ecology of School Renewal. Chicago, II: University of Chicago Press. Goodlad, J. (Ed.)(1990). The Moral Dimensions of Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad, J. (1993). Educational Renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodson, I. (1995). The Making of Curriculum (Second Edition). London: Falmer. Goodson, I. (1993). School Subjects and Curriculum Change (Third Edition). London: Falmer. Goodson, I. (1994). Studying Curriculum. Buchingham: Open University Press. Grundy, T. (1993). Implementing Strategic Change. London: Kogan Page. Guskey, T. andHuberman, M. (1995). Professional Development in Education, New Paradigms and Practices. New York: Teachers College Press. (LB 1731 P7274 EL) Hall, G. and Hord, S. (1987). Change in Schools. Albany, NY: Suny. 5 Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (Eds.)(1992). Understanding Teacher Development and Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (1998). What’s Worth Fighting For Out There. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. (1993). Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. Toronto, ON: OISE Press. Hargreaves, A. (Ed.)(1997). Rethinking Education Change With Heart and Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Havelock, R. (1995). The Change Agent’s Guide. (Second Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Pubheations. Heckman, P. (1996). The Courage to Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Herman, J. (Ed.)(1987). Program Evaluation Kit (Second Edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hord, S. (1987). Evaluating Educational Innovation. New York: Croom Helm. Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling-Austin, L. and Hall, G. (1987). Taking Charge of Change. Alexandria, Va: ASCD. House, E. (1974). The Politics of Educational Innovation. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Huberman, A.M. and Miles, M. (1984). Innovation Up Close. New York: Plenum. Huberman, M. (1993). The Lives of Teachers. New York: Teachers College Press. Jackson, P. (Ed.)(1992). Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: MacMillan. (LB 1570 H264) Joyce, B. (1983). The Structure of Educational Change. New York: Longman. Joyce. B., Wolf, J. and Calhoun, E. (1993). The Self-Renewing School. Alexandria, Va.: ASCD. Lehming, R. and Kane, M. (Eds.)(1981). Improving Schools: Using What We Know. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Leithwood, K. (Ed.)(1982). Studies in Curriculum Decision Making. Toronto, ON: OISE Press. Leithwood, K. (1986). Planned Educational Change. Toronto, ON: OISE Press. Lewy, A. (Ed.)(1991). The International Encyclopedia of Curriculum. New York: Pergamon. Lieberman, A. and Miller, L. (1984). Teachers, Their World, and Their Work: Implications for School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Lieberman. A. (1988). Building a Professional Culture in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Lieberman, A. (Ed.)(1990). Schools as Collaborative Cultures. New York: Falmer. Lieberman, A. (Ed.)(1995). The Work of Restructuring Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Louis, K.S. and Miles, M. (1990). Improving the Urban High School. New York: Teachers College Press. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McLaughlin, Talbert, M., J. & Bascia, N. (1990). The Contexts of Teaching in Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. McNeil, L. (1988). Contradictions of Control. School Structure and School Knowledge. New York: Routledge. 6 Measor, L. & Woods, P. (1984). Changing Schools. London: Open University Press. Newmann, F. and Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful School Restructuring. Madison, Wis: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Newton, C. & Tarrant, T. (1992). Managing Change in Schools. New York: Routledge. Newton, E. & Knight, D. (1993). Understanding Change in Education, Rural and Remote Regions of Canada. Calgary, AB: Detselig. Olson, J. (Ed.)(1982). Innovation in the Science Curriculum. London: Croom Helm. Perkins, D. (1992). Smart Schools. New York: The Free Press. Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding Curriculum. New York: Peter Lange. (Ch. 13). Riecken, T. & Court, D. (Eds.)(1993). Dilemmas in Educational Change. Calgary, AB: Detselig. Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (Third Edition). New York: Free Press. Rosenholtz, S. (1991). Teachers’ Workplace. The Social Organization of Schools. Toronto, ON: OISE. Rudduck, J. (1991). Innovation and Change. London: Open University Press. Sarason, S. (1982). The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change (Second Edition). Boston, MS: Allyn and Bacon. Sarason. S. (1993). The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sarason. S. (1993). The Case for Change.Rethinking the Preparation of Educators. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. (LB 1715 S24) Sarason, S. (1996). Barometers of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sarason, S. (1998). Political Leadership and Educational Failure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sergioranni, T. (1992). Moral Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shor. I. (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sirotnik, A. and Goodlad, J. (Eds.)(1988). School-University Partnerships in Action. New York: Teachers College Press. r her Siskin, L. (1994). Realms of Knowledge: Academic Departments in Secondary Schools. Washington, DC: Falmer. ' Siskin. L. and Little J. (Eds.)(1995). The Subjects in Question-Departmental Organization and the High School. New York: Teachers College Press. Sizer, T. (1992). Horace’s School: Redesigning the American High School. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Skilbeck, M. (1990). Curriculum Reform. An Overview of Trends. Paris: OECD. Slowey, M. (Ed.)(1994). Implementing Change from Within Universities and Colleges. London: Kogan Page. Smith, L. et al. (1986). Educational Innovators: Then and Now. London: Falmer. Taylor, A. and Werner, W. (1989). School District Planning of Curriculum Implementation. Victoria, BC: Queen’s Printer. 7 feds minutes Subject: feds minutes Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 19:49:48 -0800 From: feds@interchange.ubc.ca To: ed-grads@interchange.ubc.ca Hi all, Minutes of last meeting -- next meeting Dec. 9 12:15-1:20 in Scarfe 2619. Please let me know if anything for next meeting. Thanks, Helen FEDS Meeting November 18, 1999 12: 15-1: 20pm, Scarfe 2619 Minutes Regrets: Lisa Kihl (EDST), Winnifred Tang (ECPS) 1. Ajibola provided a report on the last meeting/ business of the Education Computing Advisory Committee (ECAC). Discussion followed concerning the following issues discussed at the ECAC meeting. • Jibola explained that issue of the Education Library's CD-Rom collection is outdated/ insufficiently catalogued. • Question arose at ECAC whether this would be an issue (re: resources) for Faculty of Ed. Or UBC Library. Under whose purview? 2. Ajibola reported upon the ECAC's discussion of issue of technological competency requirement for Teacher ed. Students at UBC. As it stands no tech. Competency is required. Discussion followed re: ■ Unofficial avenues to learning computer skills • Checklist for competencies for students (re: basic tasks) • ECS as resource (e.g., minimum competency questionnaire/ minimum competency certificate...) • Marcia recounted experiences in Tech Ed. Area of teacher education, and students' lack of computer competencies. • Helen raised question: "If all students accessed ECS resources, would there be enough equipment?" • Questions to be raised at next ECAC by FEDS: ■ What are the roles of ECS personnel? • Students need to be able to access outreach/ services/ need to know roles of ECS staff • Lab assistants need to be easily identified/ available for students • Need for more printing hours/ access during peak times • Need for more dial-in time - allocation issues • Printers in same room as PCs - security issues • End-Note - need for this program in ECS - Bibliography program.. Implications for FEDS ■ How comfortable are the grad students teaching in the teacher ed. Program with the responsibility of imparting computer skills to our students ■ Do we need to put on workshops/ access TAG workshops, etc. • Chris --Suggestion - John Egan, workshop on setting up Word Processing program for UBC thesis requirement compatibility. of'2 0112-99 9:41 PM Tyack, D. and Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering Towards Utopia; A Century of Public School Reform. Wasley, P., Hampel, R. and Clark, R. (1997). Kids and School Reform. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass. Weil, S. (Ed. )( 1994).Introducing Change from the Top in Universities and Colleges. London: Kogan Page. Wells, G. (Ed.)(1994).Changing Schools from Within, Creating Communities of Inquiry. Toronto, ON: OISE Press,. Wideen, M. and Courtland, M. (Eds.)(1996). The Struggle for Curriculum. Education, the State, and the Corporate Sector. Burnaby, BC: Institute for Studies in Teacher Education (SFU) and the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies. Werner, W. (1982). Guidelines for Planning Program Implementation. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Education. Whitaker, P. (1993). Managing Change in Schools, London: Open University Press. Wittrock, M. (Ed.)(1986). Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd). New York: MacMillan. (Chapter 18) Wyner, N. (Ed.)(1991). Current Perspectives on the Culture of Schools. Boston, MS: Brookline Books.