|
Home > Resources
>
Leadership > The Change Process
Consensus-Building: Progress and Problems
Table of Contents:
Introduction
This was our second visit to Crossroads High School as part of the School
Change Study. We were interested in finding out what it is like to learn
and to teach in a school undergoing whole-school change.
Located at the edge of a culturally rich southwestern city, Crossroads
is a middle-size high school with eleven hundred students. For the most
part, its students come from the town's low-income population. Seventy
percent are Hispanic and 3 percent are from other minority groups. Crossroads
has many features of a traditional high school: a normal schedule of six
fifty-five-minute periods a day, a wide range of extracurricular activities
and support services, and a strong athletics program. According to the
students at Crossroads, school spirit and sports are its finest features.
Crossroads' Innovative Features
In addition to its traditional features, Crossroads has some innovative
characteristics. One of these is the Pathways program, a multi-age, interdisciplinary
humanities program in which all ninth,- tenth-, and eleventh-grade students
enroll. Pathways teachers use common themes drawn from world and American
history to link history and English. The Pathways class is blocked so
that students may have a longer time with one or both of their Pathways
teachers. A second innovative feature is the Governing Council. Led by
a teacher, the Council involves teachers, a parent, students, and administrators
in critical decisions. In the summer before Crossroads opened, faculty
attended a week-long training session in shared decision-making practices,
run by the Panasonic Foundation, so that the Governing Council could begin
to function when the school opened.
In addition to these two features, Crossroads has been committed to
innovation since its creation through its connection with the Coalition
of Essential Schools and Re:Learning, a partnership between the Coalition
of Essential Schools and the Education Commission of the States. Re:Learning
provides Crossroads with funding and support for Essential school reform.
When it joined the Coalition, Crossroads made a commitment to use the
nine Common Principles as guideposts for improving student learning. (See
Appendix B for a list of the Principles.)
Crossroads' Competing Possibilities
We gave the school its pseudonym of "Crossroads" because of the contradictions
and competing possibilities we observed during our first visit in fall
1991. We understood that Crossroads had made a great deal of progress
in its first three years as a school because its staff had worked very
hard.
During our first visit we saw a new principal seeking to understand
the school and to gain the support of the actors in it. On the other hand,
we saw that Crossroads was faced with serious challenges. We saw dedicated
professionals working without adequate funding for either their salaries
or the instructional materials and equipment they needed. We saw the creative
Pathways program, designed with interdisciplinary, multi-aged groupings
of students, being implemented by teams of teachers whose instruction
was mainly traditional. We saw a school with innovative decision-making
structures which was deeply divided--one where individuals claimed colleagues
had threatened them because of their participation in change efforts.
Official statements of goals at Crossroads and actions of teachers and
administrators appeared to be at odds with each other. For example, we
saw expressions of caring about students offset by adults' actions that
clearly ignored student problems.
At the conclusion of this visit, we recorded what we saw and heard,
shared the case study which summarized our understanding, and read the
statements by faculty at Crossroads who agreed and disagreed with our
perceptions.
After our first visit to Crossroads, we were filled with more questions
than when our team arrived to begin our three-year study.1 When we approached
the school in the spring for our second visit, we were particularly curious
to see how, if at all, the school had changed since the fall. To find
out about Crossroads' progress and problems, we had conversations with
students, teachers, administrators, and parents, and we visited in some
classes. We hope the following "snapshot," based mainly on the conversations
we had during our visit, will reflect what Crossroads was like at the
time we visited for the people who learn and teach there.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Conversations
When we came for our second visit, we met with students, faculty, administrators,
and parents, to learn about Crossroads from their perspective.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Progress: The Product of Consensus
We asked the students, "What has changed?" and they said:
"The tardy policy has changed. If you are late you either go to
the cafeteria or you're suspended."
"If you're tardy, you go to the cafeteria, and if you don't have
an excuse, then it is an inexcused absence because you can't go to class.
If you get nine, then you're kicked out of school."
"Nothing much has changed except the tardy policy. It only affects
my fifth-period class."
"With our new tardy policy, we are sent to the cafeteria if
we are late. The teachers sweep the halls. You have to have a pass to
be in the halls for any reason. First they call your parents, and then,
if it happens again, you get suspended."
"They just did it one day and there were 250 kids in the cafeteria.
The halls are clear and there is less noise. Classes start on time."
One student commented on the value of the new policy by asking a rhetorical
question: "Why be the first one to class, if you have to hear instructions
more than once?" In other words, under the previous conditions, when students
loitered in the halls after the tardy bell, late students could count
on teachers to repeat instructions for them.
Not all student voices were as positive about the changed tardy policy.
One curled her lip and asked, "What do you 'sweep?'" After a brief pause
for effect, she answered her own question: "Dirt!" Another suggested that
"people are leaving school because of this [tardy policy]."
Still, most commented positively about the policy--even many of those
who also criticized it. For example, one student said, "Not all of the
students feel negative about the new policy because we have seen the effect.
It has changed the school from a hangout to a place where kids expect
to learn."
We asked the teachers, "What has changed?" and they said:
We have a new tardy policy, and I guess that's the first time in
a long time where I felt the faculty really voiced their concerns, and
the administration tried to follow through on something that we worked
through together and suggested as a change in policy.
Teachers are talking more with each other because of the policy,
because of the duties we now have. . . . The administration has been
participating; they have been committing themselves to this too. This
is really good for morale. This one rule has permeated so much of the
school.
I think that student and faculty morale has changed. We seem to
have a better grip on things, the principal seems to have a better grip
on management issues, discipline, a better grasp of what is going on.
The tardy policy is great; I'm sure that it's sending really positive
messages to the kids about us caring and also meaning what we say.
The [tardy] policy has been here for a long time. The first day
we just enforced it. I don't think [the students] can object because
the policy was already in place. It was meant to display and demonstrate
what the consequences would be.
I am a big fan of challenging people and using discipline to do
it, but I would not have guessed that a policy I felt was overly strict
to students would yield the results we have gotten. Rah for an accident!
Our kids go to class on time and this has changed the tone of the
school. We used to spend a lot of energy tracking a kid.
The school has gotten in better shape, it is cleaner. Our collective
self-image is better. . . . Now that we have the sweeps, we are more
cooperative.
There is a civility among the teachers, and students say things
are calmer. This is all due to something relatively trivial [the new
tardy policy] that caused a big stink, yet when solved, it had a positive
impact and the stink went away. The amount of graffiti was reduced and
courtesy broke out.
We asked the administration, "What has changed?" and they said:
We have implemented a new tardy policy. . . . It has really made
a difference. There are very few students around without a pass. This
is what the teachers wanted. They said this was their biggest concern.
Some of the students thought we were unfair in the beginning, but most
have come around.
Teachers say this has changed what does go on in the classroom.
Classes aren't as disrupted, kids seem more attentive and ready to go
when class starts on time. So, it's a major change.
We asked, "What happens to students sent to the cafeteria?" The administrator
explained:
For the first two weeks we sent students to the cafeteria and kept
them there. Then, we had a meeting after school for a couple of hours
and a committee stayed for another two hours hammering out procedure--on
the first occasion, tardy students would be warned and sent to the cafeteria.
There an administrator could go in and decide if the student had a valid
excuse such as an illness or a doctor's appointment.
At the beginning we had several complaints. . . . We had one parent
call the fire marshal and complain that we were locking students in
class. The fire marshal came and we explained. [The fire marshals] checked
classes and saw we were in compliance with the code.
We notify parents on the second infraction by a student, then suspend
for a day if there is another one. Now parent reaction has settled down.
Another administrator commented,
We have a new tardy policy and as a result the school is cleaner,
vandalism is down 100 percent, and the parking lot is clear. Commodes
are no longer plugged and there is no graffiti. Visitors have even asked
if we are in session! This is a dramatic improvement.
Observed Changes at Crossroads
Our own observations correspond to these administrative comments. Students
were not in the hallways during class periods and the school was cleaner.
An administrator told us the new policy was having a direct effect on
instruction: "Teachers are starting on time. Interruptions are limited
or rare and so students are on track for fifty minutes. . . . Teachers
are so pleased that this one thing has made a change in climate."
Again, our observations tended to confirm these administrative comments.
Minutes after we arrived in both the band and choral classes on three
different occasions, students were energetically on task. Students in
a science classroom arrived and, while roll was being taken, began to
obtain the grasshoppers they would be dissecting. Students in an advanced
placement science class began collaborating with their teacher as they
tackled difficult problems from their text shortly after the period began.
Another class met and dived into a favorite poem of a teacher which
was used to help students consider symbolism, allusions, rhyme, and figurative
language. Several classes started quickly with teachers asking students
to take out homework from the previous day. A class, which in the fall
had begun twenty minutes into the period as students wandered in, started
on time with one late student turned away for lack of a pass. Even on
April 1, a science teacher with a sense of humor instructed the students,
just as the tardy bell rang, to "get out paper and number it one to ten," and then, before panic set in, assured them it was an "April Fool's" comment
and launched into a preview of the day's activities.
The Response from the Central Office
In a few instances, lack of purposeful activity still dominated the first
part of the class period. Students chatted idly, and teachers engaged
in extended conversations with classes and students about matters apparently
unrelated to the subject or to the interests of students.
Central office administrators were also aware of the changed policy
that has become the center of attention at the school. One commented,
The first day, I think, they had a sweep of about four hundred students
who were tardy, and the last sweep that I heard about they had two.
So obviously they're doing something right. The teachers were also very
concerned that we were not going to support them in that change. And
I told [the principal], I said, I will support you because this is important.
. . .
And so I did have some parents call to complain and told them, you
know, we are trying to make the students responsible. . . . We're not
going to be unfair to the kids; if they have some legitimate excuse,
we're going to listen.
But we did get some parents complaining that they thought it was
too severe. Oh, and we had one who turned us in to the fire department
because we were locking the kids up. . . . You know, you're never locked
in. And that's what the fire department looked at. And I tried to explain
it to the parent, and he was just furious because his daughter had been
caught. . . . And then I explained to him that if the kids aren't in
class they can't learn and he seemed to be happy with that answer--after
about forty-five minutes.
Another central administrator saw the tardy procedure as evidence that
the principal recognized the need to create "teammanship" and get the
entire faculty working together on details of student behavior problems.
Central administrators also spoke of the positive article in the local
paper about the principal at Crossroads. The article had described the
sweep as an example of the new principal's finding his "voice" as a result
of analyzing the needs of the school. These central administrators were
pleased with the evidence of collaborative leadership the paper reported.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Origins of Progress: How Consensus Was Built
The tardy policy, which seemed to be the focus of everyone's attention,
is a simple, one-page statement consisting of three parts: procedure,
teacher responsibilities, and student responsibilities. We asked how the
new policy was created.
One teacher said, "We were all getting fed up." Another joined in with
the observation: "We had an in-service and it emerged there."
Still another described how he and a fellow teacher took it on themselves
to begin stopping kids for hall passes:
We counted 166 kids in the halls--a combination of kids not going
to class, getting out early. I confronted forty-eight kids coming toward
me and stopped them. They didn't have a pass. So, they started avoiding
our hallway. We locked everyone out--cheerleaders, football players,
it didn't matter.
One teacher, explaining another origin of the policy, observed, "Some
teachers went to Baltimore and reported what they saw. Every kid had a
hall pass and the doors were locked." However there is evidence that the
visit to Baltimore was not the first time faculty were aware of this approach.
Another teacher commented, "Personally I couldn't be happier with this
policy. . . . We wanted to implement this same policy two years ago but
. . . our old principal was against it. I really must let him know how
well it works!"
Apparently, the earlier proposal had been one of several "tough love" approaches to discipline that had been suggested but then rejected, even
though it had been supported by a teacher who had experienced it at her
former school.
We asked an administrator, "Who initiated the change?" He responded,
Teachers did. We were at in-service and teachers kept complaining
and they came up with the idea of not allowing students to enter and
that is the way it came about. At that time I didn't think it would
work because some would not follow that procedure, but they proved me
wrong.
Another administrator offered still another version of the origin of
the change, telling us, "The tardy policy came as a result of the snapshot
[the first case study in this series]. The snapshot showed that teachers
were being inconsistent."
Observing that there seemed to be more agreement on the implementation
of this new policy than on some other issues in the school, we asked an
administrator, "Why the consistency on this one?" He responded, "[The
teachers] were mad. It was an open discussion. Teachers challenging each
other to be united. . . . Teachers are beginning to trust [the principal];
if he says he will support them, they know he will support them."
Some students viewed the beginning of the changed approach to tardiness
differently from most of the adults in the school. "They just sprang it
on us," said a junior. A sophomore commented, "They subjected us to it
without warning or without our say in it." While students generally were
positive about the effects of the policy, it was common to hear them say,
as one student did, "I didn't appreciate the way it was implemented."
This student view had some support from teachers. One teacher, responding
to our general question about change, said:
[There is now] a fairly high degree of faculty involvement. For
example, the new policy concerning students coming to class late seems
to be working well even though it was initiated in an underhanded and
inappropriate way by beginning on Monday without telling [the students]
about the new policy. As a faculty we decided that this advanced warning
wasn't needed. If kids had been told, it would have been better. Trust
will be higher if you tell people in advance. It was unfortunate we
resorted to such tactics, but it is working. It is going backwards in
some ways, but it is nice not to have kids walking into class late.
After the policy had been in place for a while, students were invited
to a meeting to share their views about it. Teachers and administrators
offered various versions of that meeting. Some suggested that the involvement
of students was not ideal:
When we had a discussion with some of the students, a student said
something and was attacked. It was embarrassing when a teacher yelled,
"Bullshit!" at one boy. After we had done the sweep for a week, teachers
gave the students a bad time. We are all teachers and we are supposed
to draw from students--at least be courteous. We attacked this ninth-grader.
If I had not brought the student into a conversation, [the other teachers]
would have just ignored him. Another student I was concerned about felt
we were more concerned about the affairs of teachers and administrators
than of students.
Disagreements over the meeting with students led to some name-calling
among teachers. Another teacher, commenting about the follow-up to the
decision, said:
Some of us were upset that some of the students were warned ahead
of time by a few of the faculty--they made phone calls over the weekend
before the plan was implemented on Monday morning--and so a few kids
knew about it, but most didn't. It doesn't seem fair to a lot of us
that some faculty would abuse this agreed-upon procedure like this.
We are getting tired of the coaches who seem to run everything here,
and who always seem to get it their way. It's just not fair to a lot
of us or to a lot of the kids.
Several staff members disputed the charge that it was the coaches who
called students. In spite of such differences, most adults were positive
about the new policy as an example of their ability to reach and hold
on to a consensus. Even students were not universal in their condemnation
of the process and were generally positive in their reaction to its outcomes.
As one student commented,
I didn't appreciate the way it was implemented, but attitudes have
changed. . . . It used to be anarchy in the halls. Even people who wanted
to learn, couldn't. Now with the policies, it has been more positive
for everyone.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Lack of Progress: Problems in Gaining Consensus
While the tardy policy dominated many of our conversations, it was not
the only issue people at Crossroads faced between our visits. During the
planning for the school, three years earlier, teachers and administrators
spent much time talking about alternative schedules for instructional
time. The Pathways program's two-period block was, in part, a product
of these early discussions. Since then, some individuals in other departments
have been seeking opportunities to have extended periods. When we first
visited the school in the fall of 1991, the Governing Council was considering
a policy on block scheduling. When we returned in the spring, confusion
reigned concerning that proposal.
Decision Making Regarding the Block Schedule
Prior to our spring 1992 visit, a faculty discussion about block scheduling
had ended in a vote which supported the proposal to change, with sixteen
faculty opposing and forty-seven endorsing the proposal. One view was
that those who opposed it were the coaches who were afraid of losing their
last period PE classes (during which turnouts began for a number of sports.)
One teacher indicated that what had bothered him most about the decision
was the way in which the principal handled the issue. This teacher complained,
As a faculty we voted . . . and I was so excited, because this is
what I have been waiting and working for now for four years. But . .
. the majority of the sixteen . . . voted against this because it would
interrupt their last period of the day. . . . And so here we have most
of the faculty who want to try this, and now the administration says
we are going to wait. . . . The teacher who was chair of the committee
to investigate this whole thing feels that we have just been railroaded.
We've even suggested that a few of us be allowed to try the block scheduling
if we want.
But now the administration is taking the position that there are
teachers who can't even teach for one hour, so how could they do two
in a row? So, they are now saying that we have to address issues of
faculty incompetence first, before we can move ahead.
First of all, I find it disgusting that they would talk publicly
about faculty like that. I'm not saying that maybe some faculty don't
have problems, but these are things that should be addressed in evaluations,
in-services, staff development plans for the individuals involved. Isn't
this why we would want to move to peer coaching, or something like that,
as part of our Coalition effort? So here they use the faculty again--like
it's our fault that we can't move ahead on a Coalition-like thing such
as block scheduling to allow us to do more integrated teaching.
Concerning the outcome of this discussion of block scheduling, a teacher
noted,
I was excited when the faculty could talk and agree on the tardy
policy--it felt like it was the first action we had taken since we opened
where we really had a voice. But now, with the block scheduling being
blocked, I have real serious questions about our leadership. I just
don't know how they can justify ignoring the majority wishes.
Another side of this issue is revealed by the teacher who told us,
I have great respect for [the principal]. He's not flashy, but effective.
I like his kind of leadership. . . . [For example, the staff was investigating
the possibility of creating math and science blocks that would take
two hours.] I felt that this would disassemble the school, because not
all teachers were on board. In the end, [the principal] made the decision
not to go forward with the idea. I like that kind of leadership. I hope
I'm as happy if I don't win, but I didn't feel that I had to argue as
much.
Disagreements Concerning the Block Schedule
Some comments about this issue tend to turn the discussion of the block
schedule into a dispute about whether the principal was right or wrong
in refusing to allow the change in schedule. Others point out that it
is more complex than that. They call attention to the problems of scheduling
assignments for part-time teachers who also teach at other schools and
for teachers whose only teaching contract is for the last period of the
day. Moreover, comments from various teachers leave an unclear picture
of the extent to which alternative approaches to gaining extended instructional
time were debated.
Generally speaking, faculty expressed confusion concerning the status
of the block scheduling proposal. Frequently their conversations revealed
a win-lose approach to the question rather than a searching for agreement.
In a focus group, teachers conversed about the faculty's earlier discussion
of block scheduling:
"I was deeply depressed after the last in-service."
We asked why.
The teacher replied, "Something about having had to participate in it
made me feel bad. I had real vague, unpleasant feelings when [the principal]
said he will not consider the block schedule."
Another commented, "Sounded like we were catering to the incompetent."
The conversation continued with various people chiming in:
Herb:
Yeah, he made that clear when he said he had sixteen who could not
teach for two hours.
Alice:
What they should do is help those teachers, not make all of us
conform.
Allen:
We are doing tardy sweeps because there are people who do not get
started.
Alice:
Yeah, but the tardy sweep has changed the tone . . .; it is cleaner
and quieter. . . . I do not have to do battle to get class underway.
Allen:
You start your class. I get mine going right away.
Herb:
You have to change the way you think--[the principal] is saying
some teachers cannot handle students for thirty minutes--but they are
handling the same kids for all day in the same amount of kid-contact
time.
"So," we asked, "the solution is to get rid of the incompetent teachers?" And Herb said,
Well, eventually. The other thing mentioned is peer pressure--using
it to confront them. As I keep hearing that, it makes me concoct scenarios
in my mind. We need to be spending more time in each other's classrooms.
During another interview a teacher said,
I think that the block scheduling will be an issue for a long time.
Some teachers can't keep a class busy for fifty-five minutes. But I
would welcome the opportunity for a longer period. I think right now
the problem is people are magnifying it--we either have it or we don't.
They're making a mountain out of a molehill. We always have two factions,
it seems. So why can't we just try it for a while?
Apparently lobbied by some of their teachers to support their point of
view, students have been drawn into the discussion of blocking. For example,
one girl remarked:
Math is the only one stopping [the block scheduling proposal]. Others
may be doing it, but they are not being stubborn. . . . [The teacher]
thinks that the only ones who can affect the administration is the kids,
because parents and teachers have already talked to him about this plan.
Some students had their own views concerning the proposed schedule with
longer periods. With regard to the schedule, which she understood would
mean three classes a day, every day except Friday, one girl said, "I don't
know what's going on. I think that this would be good for some classes
but for others I don't even want to dream about being there for
two hours!"
Other students told us of their teachers' complaints about the decision
not to use a block schedule. One noted that his teacher had "been working
four years for things that need to be done and still there are no changes." Another told us, "I have a lot of teachers who disagree with my others
. . ."
Administrators and teachers shared with us their different understandings
of the current status of the discussion. Administrators indicated there
would be more conversations during the remainder of the spring and that
there would be opportunities for piloting. Some teachers said the item
had been killed permanently. Others said it had been killed for this year
and that they had been told they could not take it up again until next
year.
The Problem of Dissensus
However, neither agreement or disagreement about the block schedule, nor
recruitment of support from students in the debate, nor even common understanding
about the status of the discussion seems to be the main issue here. Whereas
the tardy policy revealed a school united and making headway because of
its unity, the deliberations concerning block scheduling revealed a school
unable to make progress because of dissensus. While the discussion of
the tardy policy seemed to rely on information, including models from
other locales, the consideration of block scheduling seemed mired in name-calling
and in the maneuvering of different interest groups within the school.
While students, administration, faculty, and central administration shared
a generally common understanding of the tardy policy, there were as many
different views concerning block scheduling as there were people interviewed.
Disagreement among members of a faculty is not bad. Without differences
of opinion, no one will be introduced to new ideas or helped to examine
alternatives as efforts are made to solve problems. The ability to achieve
coherence in the instructional program rests in reaching sufficient consensus
among the actors in the school to keep them headed in roughly the same
direction. Consensus becomes most powerful when reflected in the daily
life of the classroom. Such consensus seems particularly needed in a school
which takes pride in its Pathways teaching teams, which focus on agreed-upon
essential questions.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Pathways: Progress and Problems in Seeking Consensus on Program
Ninth-, tenth- and eleventh-grade students enroll in Pathways classes
for their English and social studies credits. Each Pathways team of four
teachers uses a common theme for organizing instruction for a year.
During this visit some students described Pathways classes as great
and told of "writing bills," "doing rallies," "studying a Greek tragedy
by proving one of the characters was a tragic hero," "teaching ourselves," "doing battle plans," "making handouts for a topic we had researched," and "writing a screenplay and publishing it." One student told of having
"just finished a mock trial" based on Twelve Angry Men.
Another student described the extensive research he had done in order
to prepare to participate in a student congress. In contrast, his friend,
commenting on a bill she was supposed to have researched for her congress
(with a different group of teachers), explained as follows the basis for
her bill:
I'm taking a wild guess. It's based on nothing, really. I don't
have time to do research. Our teacher said to pretend to know what we
are talking about. I'm to get a firm estimate off the top of my head.
Ms. Saxon gave me a cost figure of $100,000, and I have no idea how
she came up with that, but I'm going to use it.
A member of our team, watching Ms. Saxon in action, confirmed this student's
description of the expectation for research and noted the contrast between
that teacher and several of the other members of the same Pathways team.
We conclude that in Pathways classes, students will interact, research
questions, or listen and learn depending on the teachers. There is no
common agreement among all of the teachers of the program about how they
will approach learning.
One student described her experiences in a class where she was involved
in making posters and speeches for a rally; another student commented,
"I've never done anything like that." A third student said simply, "Things
depend on the teacher."
Teachers are aware of these discrepancies. One teacher told us:
There are not enough group meetings. I just see how I've grown;
my program has changed and been fine-tuned. . . . There needs to be
more time for Pathways people to talk. . . . Sometimes I feel overwhelmed
that we should be doing more than cooperative learning. We need more
time to talk about changes. I see some people getting slack. Some people
have fallen away. . . . We don't have meetings to know what works and
what's wrong and [to find out] about other people's programs. Last year
we did team and self-evaluations, but we're not doing that this year.
When we meet, it is a frantic zap, zap, zap and nothing is accomplished.
Students' Concerns about Competencies
Consider the following conversation between Yancy and Olga. Yancy raised
the question of whether Pathways is addressing the notion of competencies.
Olga responded to this by saying that she felt teachers vacillated on
the essential questions they were using to organize instruction: "The
biggest joke of all is when the students register. You can see the teachers
waving back and forth on themes and how they address world history, etc." In short, Olga contended, teachers are more worried about their popularity
than about the issues on which they focus.
This worried Yancy, who reminded Olga, "The origins of Pathways was
based on the notion of competencies and opening the gates for them as
they progressed through the competencies. Where has that notion gone?"
Olga:
And when I brought that [original concept of Pathways] up to the
other Pathways members, I got a lot of flack. They said I was going
back to the traditional stuff. . . . There's no coordination, just arbitrary
decisions about themes . . . the whole year. They are thinking that
we are trying to bring back the traditional stuff, but we are just concerned
about these issues. I don't think that as a staff body we have been
addressing the "essential questions" or "less is more" at all.
Yancy:
But I think I see lots more of "student as worker" and "teacher
as coach" here than in any other place I've been. When they come into
the MRC [media resource center], I see "student as worker." I say it
happens a lot. But there are teachers who don't come as much, and maybe
they aren't doing as much of "student as worker." It's happening much
more through Pathways than any place else here.
Similar conversations took place among members of another Pathways team.
Conversations within this group revealed concerns and differences about
the extent to which the Pathways program should be inclusive for all students
(as opposed to being tracked), the extent to which teachers should become
close to students, and the specific methodologies they should use in their
teaching.
Roger, a long-time leader in the program, said, "There is no time to
share with the other Pathways teachers. I feel ill at ease. If we could
move across the themes, that would be good."
Milieu commented, "We do need to coordinate vertically. There is no
assurance that there won't be repetition in materials or skills." Yet,
at other times Milieu has made it clear that what she wants to do is shut
the door and teach the way she wants to without any need to coordinate
with others.
Such conversations are about matters which must be addressed if schools
are to grow in their ability to educate. Unfortunately, the conversations
also provide evidence that such dialogue is not characteristic of the
daily life of Crossroads. When conversations do occur, they seem to reflect
the same disdain for research and sound information that the student reported
her teacher had about the bill she was writing for her class.
But not all problems are internal. . . .
[Return to Table of Contents]
The Attendance Policy: Progress Thwarted by Outsiders
Schools' difficulties in setting new directions sometimes appear to be
significantly attributable to outside forces. During the week of our visit,
disagreements and misunderstandings were apparent with regard to the attendance
policy. While people at Crossroads agreed that students had to get to
class on time, the staff had widely different views concerning what happened
if students were late or if they missed class altogether. Some teachers
believed a new policy had been instituted which mandated automatic expulsion
after nine absences during the school year. One teacher took up fifteen
minutes of class time reading names of students and the number of days
absence they had in relation to the "nine-absence" policy. Others thought
that the nine-absence policy involved absences since the mid-year discussion
of the policy. Some thought it was a new policy that was to go into effect
next year.
Teachers were also uncertain regarding the effects of field trips and
other school-related absences. A quickly called faculty meeting during
our visit seemed to add confusion for some of the teachers. As a parent
said during a Governing Council meeting discussion of the policy, "Parents
and students are very confused. If kids are getting suspended on attendance,
or some classroom is using the old policy and some are using the new,
it's not fair."
A teacher responded to the parent by saying, "At an in-service it was
decided, and kind of decided but not clear."
In a focus group, one teacher commented,
The attendance policy is a joke. We have really dropped the ball
on this one. We have a set number of absences. But kids don't know if
they are excused or not. Kids who don't show up don't do well anyway.
Another responded, "It seems that every year we come back and we have
a new attendance policy. I'm confused." And another stated:
Half the faculty are using the old policy, half the new. So now
we have to figure out what policy we are under. . . . Somehow wires
got crossed, and we were never given the go-ahead to use this policy.
It was this failure to "get the go-ahead" which appears to be at the
root of the problem. At first, listening to the conversations, we thought
that the problem was lack of clarity in the construction of the policy.
However, the school's attendance policy is as clearly written as the new
tardy policy which has been so consistently implemented. Apparently, according
to comments by both the principal and a central administrator, much of
the confusion at the school derives from insistence by the district that
the school's new attendance policy be approved by the board, thus delaying
implementation. This was in contrast to the tardy policy, which was within
the school's decision-making authority. Such insistence on external approval
seems odd in light of the avowed district commitment to school-based management.
Another explanation was offered by some teachers who expressed beliefs
that the disagreements were associated with building administrators' unwillingness
to follow through on removal of students. Such views did not seem to us
to be borne out by administrative comments. They may reveal the divisiveness
that can be generated between school administrators and teachers within
a building by lack of clarity regarding respective roles of schools and
central district decision makers. That is, people may assume that the
source of problems lies within their setting when the explanation may
lie outside of it.
Whatever the source of the difficulty in enacting a common approach
to student attendance, the policy proposals and conversation about them
suggest a problem that may be more critical for the school than just its
ability to obtain and articulate clear consensus on policy. It raises
an issue that cuts to the heart of the school's stated desire to be a
place known for caring about its students.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Pushouts and Dropouts: A Problem Needing Informed Decision Making
The problem of pushouts and dropouts has a number of dimensions. We heard
teachers, parents, and students expressing concern about whether students
are going to receive an education. We saw a school faced with a serious
problem but lacking the information or the deliberative processes required
to begin solving the problem.
The problem raises two issues. One is the extent to which all students
are receiving an education at Crossroads. Nationally, dropout figures
for Hispanics are higher than for any other ethnic group.3 With Crossroads' population being largely Hispanic, the question of dropouts and pushouts
is clearly a significant one.
Lack of Sufficient Data for Decision Making
The second issue is even more ubiquitous. The lack of good data regarding
dropouts is just one example of the general absence of accurate information
available for decision making. While the faculty relied on considerable
information in making its decision to implement a new means of dealing
with tardiness, such does not seem to be the case for other decision making.
The official dropout rates for 1990-1991 of 11.5 percent for the district
give it the seventy-eighth worst dropout rate of the eighty-eight districts
in the state.4 This appears to mean that the dropout rate of a class of
students could be estimated at 39 percent over the four years the class
was in school.
The principal claimed that for the prior year, dropout figures reported
to the state had shown big improvements at Crossroads over the previous
year (district-wide dropouts had increased from an annual rate of 10 percent).
But upon his assuming responsibility for the school, he discovered that
many students were reported as having "moved," without there being a record
of where they had moved.5 As a consequence, he recognized that figures
for the current year would look bad.
We seem to be doing more to keep kids in school; students feel that
more is not being done to keep kids in school. In parents' and students' minds [some things were done] to get rid of kids, but this is not proving
to be so. Unfortunately, I don't have the statistics, and don't know
how many students have been suspended.
We tried to learn more about the extent of the problem. We asked about
specific numbers: How many students were failing courses? How many students
were dropping out? Were students being pushed out? Generally, the data
were not available.
We appear not to be the only ones without information about the extent
of the problem at Crossroads. For example, when we asked a school board
member about it, he indicated he had not seen any figures for the school,
but thought that it had improved. He commented,
I don't know the numbers at Crossroads High School. I haven't looked
at them yet. We should have gotten them from first semester, but I haven't
asked for those yet. We [board members] should have those. That is a
strong indicator of how well a school is doing.
Who Is to Blame?
Several parents shared stories of students who were either in danger of
dropping out or who had already dropped out. They blamed teachers who
failed 50 percent of the students in English classes, teachers who failed
to provide extra help, and teachers who did not communicate to them that
their children were in trouble. One parent who, when interviewed in the
fall, had spoken positively of the experience his child was having, explained
that he supported the boy's decision to leave school because the people
at the school were not caring for him. Some of the parents acknowledged
that they had not kept abreast of what was happening to their kids.
Several teachers commented on having lost students during the course
of the year. One of the most dramatic of such observations came from a
teacher who had considered her class "awful" in the fall; she said it
was made up of "very difficult" students. Now she said of the class,
[It] is down to eight to ten students. The dropouts didn't have
a chance, with their home life. In fact, one of the kids told me that
he was being taken away from his home just prior to spring break and
was going to a boy's ranch. Of the eight to ten remaining, only a few
are going to pass. I feel sorry for them.
Another teacher described a girl who was engaging in a project with the
class as a dropout. I asked how she could be a dropout and still be attending
class. The teacher explained that she had come back because she was interested
in finishing a particular activity. Although the girl was a gifted student,
the parents were moving and did not want to have to support her any longer,
so they had told her to leave school and find work--about three months
short of graduation. "Maybe she will take the GED," the teacher commented.
Federal and state funds flow to a non-profit organization which operates
a program to encourage Crossroads students to stay in school and graduate.
According to the state-prepared manual for the program, it is a performance-
and competency-based instructional program. The manual for the course
indicates it has been initiated in this community because this district
has the third highest dropout rate in the state. During class some students
worked intently at writing letters, and some were slouched in their seats
only engaging in the assigned task halfway into the period.
The report on the success of the program is optimistic but vague in
terms of results which have been achieved during its several years of
existence. Teachers throughout the school seemed unaware of this special
project. Moreover, there is little evidence of efforts to link it philosophically
with the school's goal statements, which repeat in slightly different
wording the nine Common Principles.
The challenge such programs face become more evident when one listens
to faculty talk. During a focus group, a teacher said,
I would like to weed out unmotivated students who do nothing but raise
hell--kids who do not even bother to turn in the final exam. I have
a student who has a 0 percent average, yet he is there every day. He
does not cause me any problems. Mandatory education does not work.
This teacher apparently did not recognize the lack of connection between
his concern about students who raise hell and the example he gave of a
student who is there every day without causing any problems.
Another teacher voiced her concerns about non-performing students:
The class that I had in the student lounge is unbelievable. You
need to do some weeding out. Refer them and refer them and eventually
they leave. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If
we do not try to weed out the kids who do nothing, we are doing nothing
for the kids who want to learn.
To which a teacher responded,
In England and Japan, those schools--if you do not pass fourth grade,
you do not go to fifth grade. There has to be a safety net to pick them
up later. The community college here does that a lot.
A third teacher said:
There were some kids suspended [because of the tardy policy]--but,
hey. And we have lost some kids because of this, but I don't care. They
were never here anyway. . . . Sometimes parents come in and complain
and say they weren't notified. What about the report cards? Don't they
pay attention?
Students also expressed concerns as they told of friends who had left
the school and of their own plans to leave. Several worried that students
would be kicked out of school because the new attendance policy failed
to discriminate between excused and non-excused absences.
[Return to Table of Contents] Informed Decision Making: A Precursor to Consensus
No teachers, school administrators, or central administrators interviewed
could give an example of ever using information about student performance
to help them make decisions concerning what changes should be made at
Crossroads. When asked questions related to this, several identified the
evaluation of last year's Pathways program as an example. Others criticized
the report as containing inaccurate information.
When asked what decisions had been influenced by this evaluation, none
could cite an example. Similarly, no one could identify the results students
were achieving on the state-mandated competency exams, let alone talk
about how such results were being used to help faculty make instructional
decisions.
Consider the following dialogue from a teacher focus group:
Marie:
I had 50 percent F's in one of my classes first semester. What
is the failure rate here?
Efren:
First period class they all got A's; two bad kids came in and now
I have 50 percent failures.
Larry:
I saw the same thing change my best class to my worst class. I
hear, Marie, that you send a lot to Choices [the student disciplinary
management program]. I am beginning to think we should send everyone
to Choices. I am terrible about letting kids be jerks for too long.
I have been using the old name-on-the-board routine.
The failure rate being tossed around in conversation is similar to that
alleged by several parents during discussions, yet no one seems to be
sure just how many students are failing. Moreover, no one seems to view
the information as necessary for the inquiry concerning the need for changes
in instructional programs or practices.
A central administrator commented:
Teachers have always felt like they teach, they give a test, and
then they give grades. And I'm not sure that there's been a whole lot
of effort (and our district is going to be deeply involved in that .
. . ) of what do test results mean and whether or not [teachers] can
look at a test and does that test reflect--test--what they have taught?
Does it test, in ways that kids can do their best, what they taught?
And then, [does it test] whether or not the programs that they are teaching
are even effective for kids?
And I'll give you a good example . . . : A social studies teacher
will tell me, "I've got the same curriculum I've had for twenty years,
and years ago the kids used to do real well, and nowadays I've got a
50 percent failure rate." And they'll say, "I don't know what's happened
to the kids." And I say, very simply, "Has something happened to the
kids or has something not happened with you? Are you teaching? Is your
teaching and what they are learning, or what you're trying to get them
to learn, appropriate and effective? And what are your test scores or
what are they telling you?" . . .
When a lot of teachers look at the success rate of the class and
at student achievement, and it's low, they automatically, or they initially,
assume there's something wrong with the kids: the kids don't study;
they're not doing their homework. And they don't look at asking what
they're teaching and whether or not they are exciting kids about learning.
Since this was the third time we had heard someone make reference to
a 50 percent failure rate, we asked if this administrator had data on
the failure rate in various courses at Crossroads. The response was, "I
don't have that information."
However, the administrator did describe an investigation of a specific
new program at another high school in the district which had revealed
a high failure rate. When she reported the failures to the administrators
of the school, they were surprised because they had been unaware of the
data.
Aside from the use of information to help in creating the new tardy
policy, perhaps the most encouraging indication of the school's willingness
to use data in decision making was the response of the faculty and administration
to the first snapshot they received. The Governing Council used it to
help determine future activities. The principal identified it as having
been used in deciding to change policy. Even though the snapshot raised
some difficult issues, the school faculty as a whole voted to allow it
to be used by state officials engaged in a Re:Learning-sponsored workshop.
Such activities suggest to us that the problem is not the willingness
of the faculty to use information as much as it is the lack of adequate
data, the time to consider it, and the need to develop processes and skills
for analyzing information once it is obtained.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Other Signs of Progress
While they continue to struggle for agreement on vital issues, the people
at Crossroads are making progress. For one thing, there are signs of greater
acceptance of the school by the community. We interviewed a group of parents
who had high praise for the school. One described elementary children
with whom he worked in Little League as no longer being interested in
going to the other schools in the district, but instead, wanting to attend
Crossroads. Parents felt this was an example of their belief that the
initial developmental years were behind the school and that spirit was
high now and students were proud to be participating in life at Crossroads.
Many students described their classes with greater enthusiasm than during
our first visit. They were less inclined to complain about an over-emphasis
on cooperative learning, and more likely to identify specific activities
in classes which they had found challenging and enjoyable.
We saw signs of more variety in instructional practices. Attention to
non-traditional means of assessing student progress was evident in several
of the Pathways classes. For example, we obtained a video prepared by
a student team to demonstrate their understanding of Hamlet,
and we heard descriptions of math teachers working with Pathways students
to statistically analyze findings of surveys. Reportedly, teachers were
planning to engage in more training related to student assessment.
Teachers, parents, and central administrators were generally in agreement
that the new principal was exerting positive leadership. He had obtained
faculty commitment to continued involvement with Re:Learning, even though
teacher comments revealed considerable differences in the depth of understanding
at the school of the nine Common Principles which underlie that collaborative
effort.
Following the February visit to the school of Yale scholar Seymour Sarason,
school faculty acknowledged the need to develop greater agreement concerning
its mission and had held some discussions in that regard.
After analyzing the first snapshot, the Governing Council joined with
the principal in prioritizing attention to conflict resolution and peer
coaching as topics for forthcoming in-services. The Council had submitted
its proposal for designating Crossroads as a site-based management school
under the district's new policy.
The school has received more money from Re:Learning than any other school
in its state. It has benefited from a major statewide grant to support
its efforts to become a "21st Century School," from access to national
consultants supported by the Panasonic Foundation, and from lesser grants
from local, state, and national foundations.
Activity moves forward on many fronts. While faculty remain split concerning
how fast to change, as well as the direction change should take, change
is evident throughout the school.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Conclusions
At Crossroads, a consensus decision based on substantial information
led to successful implementation of a new tardiness policy. In the process
of creating and implementing this new tardy policy, several things occurred
which may prove to be more important in the life of Crossroads than just
the immediate effects of the policy:
- Information was used to make the decision. Decision makers combined
data from the earlier snapshot and from teachers' experiences with
tardiness with information obtained from a visitation by a small group
to another Essential school.
- Divisions within the faculty gave way to a collaborative effort
to solve a common problem.
- Faculty and administration approached a common problem and, after
extended dialogue, reached a solution to which they were willing to
hold each other accountable. Even those who criticized the policy
and the approach to making it, spoke of it as something "we" decided.
- Central administration supported the school's adoption of a policy
that was controversial with some parents. [This raises a question
about the potential power that could be achieved if representatives
of this office were a part of the decision-making process on critical
issues.]
- Faculty, parents, students, central administration, the media,
and the new school administration itself expressed increased confidence
in the administrators at Crossroads for their role in consensus-building
and implementation of the policy.
However, lack of consensus and failure to have and use an accurate information
base have kept the school from adopting a new block schedule. These factors
have also contributed to the school's apparently ineffective dealing with
problems of dropouts and pushouts. Lack of consensus and failure to use
the information that is available have also combined with
lack of district-level support to stir up confusion regarding a new attendance
policy.
Generally, the faculty and administration approached other instructional
issues without having complete and accurate information available and
by paying relatively little attention to that information which is available.
The Pathways program, which represents the core of the change effort,
has made progress, but struggles with too little communication within
and between the various thematic teams.
The overarching question for the year ahead, one of the questions we
will be seeking to answer when we return for our third visit in the fall
of 1992, is whether the power of consensus derived from decisions based
on information will propel the school forward, or whether dissensus and
lack of information will prevail.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Notes
- This first visit is recorded in Richard Clark, "Challenges and Incongruities," Studies on School Change (Crossroads High School, Fall 1991), Coalition
of Essential Schools, Brown University, February 1992.
- The frailty of human memory concerning emotionally charged issues
is evidenced by another report of the same meeting, which says that
the epitaph was hurled at a fellow teacher by one teacher who felt students
had a right to be late returning to class from lunch because the former
teacher returns late from lunch himself.
- Newsweek, August 19, 1991, page 60. The article reports
that "Hispanics have the highest school dropout rates of any major nationality
or ethnic group--about 43%."
- [School district] public schools, 1990-91 Accountability Report contained
in the local newspaper on Friday, April 3, 1992. Similar data for individual
schools were not available.
- Improvements in dropout rates were cited in several evaluations of
change efforts at Crossroads. For example, a report submitted to the
state on a dropout reduction project conducted in the school claimed
that Crossroads' dropout rate in 1989-90 was 6.6 percent, compared with
12.96 percent at one of the other schools in the district and 19.25
percent at another. The school with the highest dropout rate is also
the school to which many pregnant students transfer to complete their
schooling because it has a child-care program.
- Unfortunately, the answer to this teacher's question may be no. One
parent with whom we talked was quite angry about lack of notification
of problems developing with his child but did not know even how frequently
report cards were issued, let alone what early report cards had said
about his son's performance.
[Return to Table of Contents] The Crossroads research team was headed by Richard W. Clark, senior associate
at the University of Washington Center for Educational Renewal and the
former deputy superintendent of the Bellevue (WA) School District. The
other members of the Crossroads team were Janet Miller, professor at National-Louis
University (formerly National Teachers College) at the Beloit (WI) Academic
Center and author of Creating Spaces and Finding Voices: Teachers
Collaborating for Empowerment (1990); and Vicky Murray, who has
worked as a teacher and administrator in Seattle and has done extensive
work across the country on school renewal for the Panasonic Foundation.
Price: $6
Code: CR2
To order a hard copy of this resource you will need the title, price, and code to fill out your order form.
This resource last updated: June 11, 2002
Database Information:
|
Publication Year: 1992
Publisher: CES National
School Level: High
Focus Area: Leadership
STRAND: Leadership: the change process
|
|
