|
Home > Resources
>
Leadership > The Change Process
Possibilities and Realities: Facing the Obstacles to Change
Table of Contents:
Introduction
In April 1993 we made our fourth visit to Crossroads High School as
part of the School Change Study. The purpose of our visit was to produce
a "snapshot" of what is like to learn and teach at the school at this
point in its process of whole-school change.
Home to about eleven hundred students, Crossroads High School is located
in a culturally rich city in the beautiful southwest. For the most part,
Crossroads' students are drawn from the town's low-income population.
Seventy percent of the students are Hispanic, and another 3 percent come
from other minority groups.
We gave the school its pseudonym because we believed that it was at
a crucial point in its evolution: poised to become a vital, Essential
school or to follow the paths of so many American high schools and fail
in its efforts to tend to the diverse needs of its students. Although
created to be innovative, Crossroads has faced many serious challenges
that have held back its progress, including problems related to transitions
in leadership and staff, financial support, decision making, and lack
of a common vision.
Created five years ago to be an innovative school, Crossroads features
a multi-age, interdisciplinary Pathways program, with blocked periods,
cooperative learning, and assessment through Exhibitions of written, oral,
and visual presentations. A second innovative feature at Crossroads is
its Governing Council, in which students, a parent, teachers, and administrators
participate in shared decision making for the school.
In addition, since its creation Crossroads has been involved in Re:Learning,
a partnership between the Coalition of Essential Schools and the Education
Commission for the States. Through Re:Learning, Crossroads has received
funding and support for whole-school change efforts. Crossroads' mission
statement, drafted before the school's opening and adopted by the faculty
and Governing Council in May 1991, is the school's version of the nine
Common Principles of the Coalition. (See Appendix B for a listing of the
Principles.)
As part of the School Change Study, we produced a snapshot of our first
three visits to the school. These snapshots included classroom observations,
or "close-ups," as well as conversations with people in the school community:
students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Our conversations with
the people at Crossroads regarding the snapshots have left us convinced
that the first three snapshots were not as helpful to the school as we
had hoped. While some people at the school have found our comments to
be on target, others have been offended by our earlier descriptions, and
the most common response has been to ask whether we could offer more suggestions
about what to do about the conditions we were describing.
[Return to Table of Contents]
How This Snaphot Is Different From The Others
As a result, we have decided to make this fourth snapshot different from
the first three. We have added, largely in question form, some options
to be considered regarding possible directions for the school. In doing
so, we do not intend that the school adopt all the options we have listed
throughout the snapshot.
We have continued to resist prescribing a set of actions because we
believe that the only people who can really determine what, if anything,
needs to be done at the school are the people of Crossroads themselves.
Instead, we hope the snapshot, with these suggested options, will serve
as a reflective tool to help generate discussions among the people in
the school community about what should be done at the school.
This snapshot is different also in that it is based on three days of
observations and interviews by four people, rather than on five days of
information gathering, as was the case with the first three visits. During
this visit we talked with more than thirty students, visited sixteen classes,
spoke to twenty-two teachers and administrators, and interviewed a group
of ten parents. We also gathered information from teachers and administrators
at one of the junior highs whose students attend Crossroads.
We sought this information in order to be better informed about how
others in the community, particularly those teachers who are preparing
their students to attend the high school, view Crossroads. In addition,
we continued to review journals prepared monthly by two teachers and a
student and to review copies of minutes and other documents shared with
us during and between our visits.
While the previous snapshot focused greatly on classroom issues, this
snapshot concentrates on schoolwide issues. In particular it focuses on
those issues which seem to be having the most pervasive influence on the
experiences of adults and students at the school: the establishment of
a schoolwide vision and the development of leadership and cooperation
within the school community.
The final difference between this snapshot and earlier ones is that
it has been prepared in two parts. The first part reflects our view of
Crossroads as of April 1993. The second part was written mainly by a committee
at the school. It provides an indication of changes Crossroads intends
to make for the 1993-94 school year. Each part should encourage reflections
concerning the difficult tasks of whole-school reform based on principles
advocated by the Coalition of Essential Schools.
[Return to Table of Contents]
PART I
Current Progress and Problems at Crossroads
During the April 1993 visit, we posed a question to the adults of the
school community--teachers, administrators, and parents--concerning the
progress they believed the school was making. We gave them a chart describing
how a hypothetical school's patrons viewed its progress and asked them
to draw their own version of how Crossroads was coming along. Chart 1
reflects the general response to this question.
Ch 1: How Various Groups Viewed The School's Progress
While some drew their charts with more or less pronounced degrees of
change, almost all their charts followed the same pattern. They explained
their drawings in various ways:
My chart reveals that we started out rather confused, but things
started to happen: Governing Council, Pathways, etc. came into being
. . . but now we are headed downward.
The superintendent we had when we first opened had a vision for
this district. Many of us bought in. Lots happened to support student
learning in those early two years of Crossroads. . . .After he died,
the momentum was lost and the dream has slowly begun to die.
The reason for the up slope was the new school, vision, teachers
coming to Crossroads; down slope: . . . high teacher-student ratio,
low morale, money.
Progress was encouraged because of the new, fresh Re:Learning ideas.
We lost [our original principal] and other leaders. New teachers, little
staff training, and new superintendent have brought progress down.
The previous principal had a vision for CHS. If there was some resistance
from central administration, he fought for what he believed in and for
what we, as a faculty, wanted for our students. . . .We are at a standstill
more than a decline. . . .What has declined is probably the morale and
the excitement for what we are here for.
The early high points in progress were clearly related to enthusiasm
for a new venture and charismatic leadership from the district superintendent.
For a number of teachers, the leadership of the principal was also important.
By the end of the first three years, the superintendent was gone and the
factions within the school, including those who opposed the principal
and felt he played favorites, contributed to a general slowing, if not
decline.
The appointment of a new principal was followed by a stable period as
staff waited to see the direction he would provide. His first year finished
on an upward swing.1 However, teachers cited such reasons as turnover
of faculty, financial shortages, leadership problems, low morale, high
class size, lack of training, inadequate support from the central administration,
and bad conceptualization of needed changes as explanations for the downturn
during 1992-93.
The views of parents who took exception to the view contained in Chart
1 are depicted in Chart 2.
Ch 2: Dissenting Parents' View of Crossroads' Progress
This small but diverse group of parents, each of whom had been active
at Crossroads for several years, drew charts that were quite different
from those of the administrators and teachers at the school. All of these
parents drew the same general pattern. For some, the upward trend was
more abrupt than for others; but for all, the last two years reflected
considerable progress.
Their reasoning was remarkably similar: "The new principal deserves
the credit;" "The new principal has high expectations for kids;" "Chaos
is being diminished;" "Kids are more respectful." They acknowledged the
initial leadership from the superintendent, but then suggested that after
his death little progress was made until the new principal took over.
They stressed that there has been continuous progress since the principal's
arrival.
In neither case is the sample of people who drew graphs constructed
such that we can be confident it represents the entire population of parents
or teachers. Other parents or other teachers may see the school differently.
Still, there was remarkable consistency in both the drawings and explanations
offered within both groups.
When we first shared this snapshot with the people at Crossroads, we
included another chart, which follows, for the other parents and teachers
to complete. We suggest that the reader fill in the chart as well.
A Suggested Activity for the Staff and Reader
Given what you know about Crossroads, draw your own graph of progress
at the school in the space below. Then, make notes of your reasons for
completing the graph as you did.
Chart 3
Reader's View of Progress at Crossroads
[Return to Table of Contents]
Developing A Common Vision
A frequent theme of those who see Crossroads losing ground is that the
members of the school community do not have a common vision of what they
are trying to accomplish. During an interview one teacher commented,
The day I started teaching, [the superintendent] spoke to his vision
for this district, and I believed it and fought for it. I cried the
day I came into this district and I heard about his dreams and hopes
for us. Since he died, I think the dream is slowly dying.
As this teacher and a number of others at Crossroads observed, that vision
no longer seems to drive the school, let alone the district. As one teacher
put it,
I think I'm understanding what direction we're going--we're not
going anywhere. It's becoming "do your own thing" without any serious
direction about what we are trying to accomplish. We used to have a
vision; I don't know what it is now. . . .There is no direction for
the whole school.
Another teacher related her concern about the lack of a common vision
as it affects students:
Right now, I don't know that we're doing that much to find the ways
to keep kids in school. This year is the worst it's been. We're not
establishing our values as a school clearly enough to students.
Although the officially adopted school vision is expressed in a philosophy
statement which is a paraphrase of the nine Common Principles, during
this visit we heard comments such as the following:
The Coalition has been distracting. People emphasize the Coalition
more than they emphasize what is going on in the classroom.
Re:Learning is organizing and renaming methodologies that have been
in existence for a long time.
Re:Learning has less of a presence than it had before. . . .I think
they are hard workers, but quite often I have the feeling they are out
for spreading the gospel with new people and forgetting the people in
the trenches.
At our Pathways meeting it has been said that we do not want to
have any conversation with the Coalition or other stuff--we don't want
to bother with all that gobbledygook. . . .The trouble with the nine
Common Principles is that they are unattainable; the budget doesn't
allow for the student-teacher ratio. . . .
We are offering a critique of Re:Learning--it is nebulous. I think
"less is more" is horrific because, in fact, it's yielded less. It is
a disaster. Coalition of Essential Schools means absolutely nothing
to me.
A conversation between two teachers reveals strong feelings about the
teachers' roles in Coalition change efforts:
First teacher:
I think teacher-initiated change is really part of what the Coalition
is all about. . . .So maybe you don't think all these things are important,
but a lot of us do.
Second teacher:
All this stuff will have no effect, because we don't have enough
good teachers here.
First teacher:
Re:Learning helps us to connect with what's going on in the outside
world.
Not all faculty members and administrators with whom we spoke were rejecting
the Coalition in the vigorous terms quoted earlier. Also, rejection of
Coalition and Re:Learning activities does not automatically imply rejection
of the printed school philosophy. For example, several teachers shared
the view noted above that the nine Common Principles are just a renaming
of old ideas. Unfortunately, the next thing they were apt to say was that
some of the Principles, which are included in their philosophy statement,
make no sense.
For some teachers, Re:Learning is not a set of ideas, but a committee
which can be worked with if time permits. As one teacher said: "I'm on
Re:Learning and have only attended two meetings so [I have not been] talking
about this [the nine Common Principles] much. There is not much contact
with those people." In such instances, the Principles obviously are not
integral to the driving ideas of the school. However, in considering the
lack of common vision at Crossroads, we are concerned about more than
rejections of the Coalition or its Principles by some faculty members.
Differences in Envisioning Pathways
There is a similar problem with vision concerning the structure and content
of the Pathways program. Since Pathways has been at the core of efforts
to take the school in a new direction, these differences may be crucial.
Pathways enrolls all ninth-, tenth- and eleventh-graders in social studies
and English classes that are supposed to be multi-graded, heterogeneously
grouped, and designed around essential questions which guide each year's
instruction. One Pathways team received the go-ahead to teach only ninth-graders
next year and then to take that group through the next two years--a practice
which breaks the original multi-grade pattern.
The principal and one of the Pathways coordinators helped the group
gain an affirmative vote for the new program from most of the Pathways
teachers.
The originators of the new program place an emphasis on what they call
"a more demanding curriculum" that may prove worth considering by all
Pathways teachers. Since we were unable to discover the details of that
curriculum, we will have to wait for subsequent visits to know just how
challenging it will be for students.
Some faculty expressed concerns that the originators of this new program
are elitist and will end up working with only the best ninth-grade students.
They were also concerned that the teachers will not integrate subject
matters or engage the students in the kind of collaborative learning activities
advocated for Pathways students. On the other hand, the new Pathways unit
could pilot some ideas about personalization of instruction.
Those advocating the new program believe it will be stronger, because
over the two-year period they will get to know parents better and will
increase their ability to provide guidance to the students. In several
such ways this program could become a prototype for a much-improved Pathways.
However, the new effort is being led by people who tell us they want nothing
to do with the others in the school and who reject collaboration outside
their group.
Teachers' Withdrawal from the Change Efforts
While this team is insisting on separating itself from the others in Pathways,
a number of individuals are simply withdrawing from interactions in the
school. As one teacher put it, "Everyone is in their own little boxes."
When pushed to explain their reasons for withdrawing, faculty members
usually responded by indicating they were tired of fighting a battle without
getting any reward or recognition, or they simply indicated they had all
they could do to keep up with their classes without taking on "other people's
problems."
One teacher said, "I'm disappointed in the lack of leadership and direction.
We don't know where we stand, so we keep to ourselves." Another said,
"Some teachers are simply saying, 'What's the use?--it doesn't make any
difference.'" Finally, a teacher told us: "I can't feel like I exist to
the exclusion of everyone else, but it is coming down to that. I just
avoid spending time outside of my own class area."
The adults in the school do not have a common vision of where they are
headed. As we have noted, people reveal this absence of vision by rejecting
the stated philosophy of the school, by rejecting the idea of collaborating
with one another to strengthen basic reform elements, and/or by deciding
to retreat into their own departments and classrooms and ignore the task
of whole-school change.
In light of such problems, what can be done about this situation?
[Return to Table of Contents]
Vision: Suggestions For The Staff
We invited the staff to consider the following suggestions, and discuss
whether any of them would be helpful in strengthening the extent to which
there is a common vision within Crossroads.
- Would it be helpful to revisit the printed philosophy statement during
the August meetings prior to the start of the school year? Would there
be benefits to day- long discussions in small groups in which each group
discusses a particular issue? Should such discussions be to gain better
shared understanding of the existing document or to redesign the philosophy
statement to be satisfactory to the current school community?
- Is there work related to accreditation of Crossroads which could
be used as a basis for building a common
- Could the administrator assigned to the school from the central office
meet with the Governing Council to discuss ways of building faculty
consensus on a vision?
- Would the vision be strengthened if the school invited the school
board to meet at Crossroads next fall? During that meeting would the
board and the Crossroads community both benefit if elected members from
each department at the school explained to the board members how their
department contributed to the written aims of the school?
- Would there be benefits from inviting state Re:Learning representatives
to conduct a modified Trek for the faculty in the fall of 1993?2 Would
this help bring on board the many new people who have joined the faculty
since early conversations about the nine Common Principles?
- Could the state's Re:Learning staff meet with a random sample of
faculty in order to develop suggestions for forging common direction?
- What if Pathways students prepared a video about Crossroads from
the perspective of a broader, shared vision, which they could share
with incoming eighth graders whose teachers now say they know little
about the school? Could the video be structured to emphasize some values
that faculty members agree on?
- Could the teachers who are creating the new Pathways program agree
to monthly coffee sessions in which they discuss the progress they are
making with other Pathways teachers? Would it be helpful to establish
opportunities during the year for this group of teachers to meet with
non-Pathways teachers who may be interested in their progress?
- Could the Governing Council agree on an orientation plan for new
students at all grade levels for the fall of 1993-94 and then recruit
students, parents, and teachers to help carry out the plan? Would such
an orientation help build a common understanding of the school's direction?
- Are there other ideas which could be added to this list and then
discussed within the faculty?
[Return to Table of Contents]
Developing Leadership And Cooperation
While discussing issues related to the establishment of a common vision
at Crossroads, we have touched on our second theme: the status of leadership
and cooperation in the school. The two themes are obviously closely related,
since leaders help develop a common vision, and the sharing of goals is,
in itself, a cooperative act.
To us, leadership is the responsibility of faculty and administrators,
not a responsibility assigned solely to a principal or department head.
Moreover, cooperation has to exist throughout a school, not simply within
a teaching team or between a principal and a faculty. One teacher's comment
helps clarify the present conditions related to teacher engagement in
leadership and cooperation: "There are teachers who would take a leadership
role but they are so tired of fighting with everybody else that they have
just said 'to heck with it.'"
The matters of leadership and cooperation are often raised as finger-pointing
exercises in which teachers lament that they have no one up front showing
them the direction, and administrators express concerns about the unwillingness
of teachers to work together toward any common end. In this section however,
we wish to concentrate on these two matters as they relate to accomplishing
Coalition reforms.
In the spring of 1993, Crossroads teachers and administrators were considering
several important new activities. Senior projects were to be implemented
which, consistent with Coalition Principles, would serve as final Exhibitions
of student learning. Each student would be expected to construct a portfolio
which would reflect his or her academic progress. All students would enroll
in advisory classes where teachers would guide them in their academic
and personal growth. Block schedules would be implemented throughout the
school, giving other academic areas the advantages of extended time heretofore
allowed only for Pathways classes. Finally, Pathways classes would be
changed through the introduction of a new format by one of the teams.
This is a very ambitious reform agenda. Significant progress on such complex
items requires the presence of effective leadership from administrative
and teacher ranks and close cooperation among all elements of a school.
The last of these, the modification of the Pathways program, we have
already mentioned. Effective cooperation was required within the group
initiating this change in order for them to complete their design. Outside
their group, the principal and one of the Pathways coordinators, who crafted
the agreement about the conditions under which the new program could operate,
asserted their leadership to secure the vote of other Pathways teachers
to support it. There appeared to be agreement among all parties that the
new program would be implemented in the fall of 1993.
Unfortunately, at this point both leadership and cooperation appeared
to be breaking down. Some of the Pathways teachers who voted against the
implementation of the new program continued to speak out against it. Pathways
teachers absent when the vote was taken to modify the program spoke openly
against it.3 Teachers who were not part of the Pathways faculty expressed
their concerns about the new program in vigorous fashion, frequently attacking
it as elitist, and occasionally as racist.4 The teachers within the group
implementing the new program explained their unwillingness to cooperate
further with their peers by asserting that the other Pathways teachers
fail to conduct courses that are intellectually demanding or well taught.
Students and parents expressed confusion about the program, reflecting,
no doubt, the different stories about it that they had been hearing from
various faculty members.
Lack of Clarity about the Block Schedule
The implementation of a block schedule for 1993-94 is a topic about which
people were much less clear than the change in the Pathways program. As
we noted in previous snapshots, the faculty voted in the spring of 1992
to adopt a block schedule. The principal vetoed this action, indicating
that he believed there were too many teachers who could not use a single
period effectively, let alone a period two hours long. He also indicated
that he could not coordinate the proposed schedule with other schools
from which some teachers (mostly coaches) came to Crossroads to teach
the final period of the day. Moreover, he said, the proposed schedule
would not fit with the vocational programs offered off campus for some
Crossroads students.
For several months, the faculty members' only response to this veto
was anger over their wishes having been thwarted. However, in the spring
of 1993 a department chair, who also serves on the Governing Council,
proposed a new block schedule, which was the topic of conversation during
the April visit.5
Consider the following dialogue between two teachers:
Alice:
We are trying to handle student advisory, block scheduling, and
portfolios. Isn't that enough?
Nick:
[The principal] said he loved the block scheduling as proposed,
but we have seen no forward movement with this. [The principal has]
had it in his hand since before spring break, and we don't know when
our next in- service is.
Alice:
[A teacher] did the block schedule. I don't really know if everyone
likes it. . . .I think that with some of the teachers, block scheduling
will be a disaster.
Nick:
We had some consultants come in who had the statistics that show
that blocks really work. They have three subjects that they study for
one night; their concentration is more focused.
Alice:
My biggest worries are the teachers who can't do an hour. And again,
that's an administrative job, not mine.
We could list a number of other interview responses and conversations
that reveal basically the same feelings in many adults at the school.
However, the preceding conversation incorporates many of the typical concerns:
- The proposal itself and the benefits expected from it are not clear.
- Teachers and administrators are not sure of each other's views on
the proposal.
- The process for gaining clarity and understanding of each other's
views is not clear. ("We don't know when the next in-service will be.")
If anything is true about Crossroads, it is that processes for gaining
and maintaining agreement are not well designed or commonly understood.
- Teachers and administrators lack confidence in what some of their
colleagues can do.
- Teachers and administrators tend to see the job of making improvements
as someone else's. ("This is an administrative job, not mine," or "The
teachers have to assume responsibility.")
- Teachers are not sure of the principal's position on the proposal.
One teacher claimed that the principal had told him, while they were
both at an athletic event six weeks earlier, that there would be a secret
ballot on the proposal. Another teacher in the same discussion said,
"This was the first I have heard [about the block schedule] since last
year."
Students expressed some of the same confusion about the block proposal
that adults connected with the school expressed. One told us,
I think the block schedule will be one class for two hours, and
then you won't have that class the next day. The math and sciences want
that a lot because of the labs. Some of the teachers I have talked to
aren't real excited about this. They say that kids lose interest after
the first hour. I think that as long as the teacher can break things
up into intervals, it would be OK.
For most of the students, queries about what would be different next
year led to discussion of a seven- period schedule with shorter passing
times--a schedule that apparently reflects conversation about the proposed
addition of an advisory period. During our visit no one, student or adult,
linked the block schedule and advisory room proposal together except for
one teacher who said he thought the new proposal for a block schedule
had a once-a-week advisory period built into it.
Confusion about the Advisory Program
The students, however, are not the only ones confused about the proposed
addition of an advisory room program. Students' comments that passing
time will be three, five, or seven minutes reveal the different stories
they have been hearing from teachers about the impact of adding an advisory
period into their schedule. Some of the students talking about next year's
schedule were convinced the changes were being made simply so they would
not get into trouble by having such a long passing time. Teachers and
other adults in the school are in disagreement concerning who will conduct
the advisory section, with some noting that all professionals (including
administrators and counselors) are to have such groups and others saying
it will be just the teachers.
According to some teachers, a part of the confusion seems to have started
because after a decision had been made to initiate advisory periods, a
visit to another high school revealed problems with the proposed model.
The story of what has happened since the identification of these problems
varies depending on who was describing it. One group of teachers described
the advisory proposal with the following comments:
We're to meet with fifteen to sixteen students for twenty minutes
a day, between second and third. We're the conduit for relating to parents.
Other teachers can come and talk to us.
We are also supposed to be talking with students about portfolios
and making sure that there are credit checks and that they are in the
right classes.
There will be four students of each grade level and each teacher
will have an advisory.
I know that we voted on the daily advisory, but is that in stone?
I understood that there was a possibility that we wouldn't because it
didn't work. There were problems with it at [the high school visited
by some Crossroads faculty].
It will come up with Governing Council.
There must be someplace in between every day and only a few times
a year.
I think we are rushing it to start in the fall. I don't think we
are ready.
This conversation reveals another aspect of the problems of leadership
and cooperation detailed in the seven items listed concerning the discussion
of block scheduling: Once decisions are made at Crossroads, they are
understood variously by individuals and have a tendency to unravel.
Such was certainly the case during 1992-93 with the decisions made concerning
students who were tardy and those who were absent. In the spring of 1992,
the faculty worked out a consensus position on these issues. Several weeks
later the tardiness provisions in the policy were being implemented as
agreed upon, but disagreement was already evident within the faculty concerning
what their decision had been regarding attendance. By the spring of 1993,
the prior agreements on both aspects of student attendance appeared to
have vanished, and it was every teacher and administrator for him- or
herself.6
Such breakdowns in agreements seem to be a combination of unclear communication
from those in leadership positions and the deliberate rejection of agreements
by various faculty members. When these factors are played out over several
years, the high turnover of faculty and the failure to acquaint new faculty
with a clear set of expectations also contribute to the problem. In any
event, these communication breakdowns point to problems of leadership
and lack of cooperation within the school community.
Disagreement about Portfolios
Part of the confusion associated with the status of the advisory room
plan appears to be caused by disagreement about the closely related plan
to initiate portfolios for each student. Some teachers were convinced
that beginning in the fall of 1993, portfolios would be kept as part of
the new advisory room responsibilities; others thought the matter was
still subject to discussion. Students had obviously heard various interpretations
of this decision, since some of them indicated that teachers were already
requiring them to keep information in their portfolios that would be part
of their senior Exhibition.
One teacher's comment sums up the situation: "I don't know if that [particular
approach to portfolios] was approved. There's some multiple feelings that
we have talked this to death and others feel that we should do more. Everyone
agrees that it should happen." The response to this comment by another
teacher reveals that it is a situation not unlike the others we have been
discussing: "I'm surprised about the reactions in this group because I
thought this [decision regarding portfolios] was it."
Confusion about the Senior Project
Uncertainty about the decisions concerning the advisory and portfolio
initiatives is directly connected with the confusion concerning the senior
project. Some teachers believed that the senior project was to be the
ultimate outcome of the portfolio project and was to be implemented during
1993-94. Some students about to become seniors had the impression that
they would be required to complete a senior project in order to graduate;
others had not heard of such a project.
Students were also confused about what such a project was. One student
emphatically told us, "It sounds like a really stupid idea." He said faculty
members had been talking about such projects ever since his class were
freshmen. "An example they use every year," he said, "is building a canoe.
I think that building a canoe as the only way you get to graduate doesn't
make sense." When we asked this student whether the project was supposed
to be related to portfolios, he said he had never heard about portfolios
so he couldn't answer that. Unfortunately, the teachers' conversations
about advisory, portfolios, and senior projects suggest that they are
as bewildered as the student. Teachers' and administrators' failure to
cooperate produces confusion. The absence of leadership in the faculty
and administration perpetuates the confusion.
Disagreements about the Governing Council
In addition to the differences within the faculty and between the
faculty and administration with regard to each of the major innovations
being considered for next year, members of the school community continue
to disagree about the efficacy of the Governing Council. A new leader
has been chosen for the Council, and meetings have resumed on a once-a-
month basis for one hour during lunchtime. We observed meetings of this
group during our previous visits; during this visit we attended one operating
under the new leadership.
The April Governing Council meeting began with a discussion of whether
there was a quorum and of how many it took to achieve a quorum. The parent
and student representatives were not present. Most of the meeting was
devoted to debate over a proposal for a locker check to locate books.
Tension seemed unusually high in the room, considering the apparently
routine nature of the issue. Eventually the motion to have such a search
passed with ten favoring, one opposing, and one abstaining.
After the vote, discussion continued: "I don't think it will work--take
too long. . . ." "Did we just vote on this or not?" . . . "We're discussing
how . . ." After more discussion, two more votes were taken about the
details of implementation. In one sense this discussion is a micro- example
of the way the school seems to function on most major decisions: make
it, then discuss it, then end up confused about what was decided.
Following this discussion, the chair mentioned that he had a flow chart
that had been used to guide decision making at another Coalition high
school. He told the Council he would copy it and distribute it to them.
He asked for questions, but there were none.
The Council then turned to the upcoming Spring Fest and to concerns
that the senior class was not following procedures adopted earlier by
the Council. Ten members voted in favor of the senior class's being required
to follow the rules; one person abstained. The meeting closed with an
announcement of the showing of a school video all day on channel 4 and
an announcement of the date of the next meeting: May 5.
Teachers complained that the Governing Council does not have any authority--that
administrators veto actions. They also complained that it does not deal
with significant issues. Within the Council a few individuals dominate
the conversation. Discussion tends to be confrontational. Some longtime
faculty members told us they believe that the current Council members
do not really care about the Council.
During our visit, the status of the Council in relation to district
policy on school-based management was unclear. Subsequent to our April
visit, the school received authorization from the central administration
to assume more responsibility for dealing with budget issues through its
Governing Council. Whether this central recognition will really make a
difference in the school's view of its Council remains to be seen.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Missing The Opportunities For Collaboration
In a high school there are many possibilities for leadership and cooperation
that relate directly to the instructional program. The computer science
teacher did work with faculty committees and with individual teachers
to generate specific projects for her class. The librarian collaborated
with teachers in science as well as teachers in subjects more traditionally
associated with the library, such as social studies and English, to help
develop reference sources for major projects. Pathways teachers described
a project in which students studying social movements and environmental
issues did a tour of the building. On that tour they discovered a problem
with ventilation in industrial education classrooms. As a result of their
findings they decided to raise money for masks for students working in
the area.
Too often at Crossroads, these possibilities do not become realities.
Pathways teachers and the drama teacher told us of making use of student
productions such as Working, Our Town, and Into the Woods to
help each other develop students' literary and dramatic knowledge. But
when the drama department produced a musical which won rave reviews and
made more money than any other of its productions, we are told, there
was no collaboration with the strong music department or with visual arts.
Athletes had their most successful year, leading students to attend
tournaments during school time; yet we saw no evidence of any department's
taking advantage of this success. When chances were there for mathematics,
science, and English assignments that used student enthusiasm about their
peers' success, the teachers in these fields complained instead about
the interruptions to their classes. Teachers in mathematics and foreign
language classes demonstrated skills in a wide variety of instructional
techniques, but we have seen no evidence of the sharing of such skills
outside of departments. Drafting and vocational teachers received praise
from students, but we saw no evidence of cooperation with them when Pathways
teachers dealt with an essential question focused on work in America.
In fact, we have seen little evidence of collaboration of instructional
content or methodology among teachers in any segment of the school. Not
only did we find no examples of such cooperation, we saw no evidence of
leadership's creating forums for such sharing and cooperative planning.
Maybe, as some schools are concluding, the faculty of a comprehensive
high school is too large and diverse a group to expect authentic cooperation
without creating small houses or families which enable teachers to communicate
across grade levels and subject matters.
As we talked with teachers and administrators at the school, it became
more and more apparent that there are problems of leadership and cooperation:
- Faculty and administrative leaders have not been able to create consensus
around proposals to move ahead when that consensus has been required
across the faculty rather than within a teaching team.
- The Governing Council as an agency officially designed to help with
these tasks falls short of accomplishing its mission.
- Cooperation and leadership are also lacking when it comes to focusing
the curriculum and taking advantage of the many skills possessed by
different faculty members.
As we turn to possibilities for the future, we offer a variety of suggestions
for developing stronger leadership and cooperation. Many of the options
identified draw on strengths of the people of Crossroads.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Leadership: Suggestions For The Staff
We invited the staff to consider the following suggestions concerning
leadership. We asked them to discuss whether any of them would be helpful
in strengthening the quality of leadership and cooperation at Crossroads.
We asked them to be explicit in describing what would have to be done
to implement any one of them.
Among Administrators and Teachers
- What if each department in the school elected an individual who would
meet weekly with the principal to determine topics for all school faculty
meetings and establish priorities for Governing Council discussions?
- Would the principal benefit from convening a small group elected
by parents and teachers who could have monthly breakfast sessions with
him to review how matters are going at the school?
- Would the school benefit if the principal delegated more responsibility
for discipline and routine management to the assistant principals in
order to free himself to work with instructional teams?
- Does the district administration, Re:Learning, or the State Department
of Education have a process- oriented individual who could be invited
in to work with planning and carrying out meetings?
In the Governing Council
- Could Governing Council meetings be held twice a month, with every
other meeting being held in the evening to accommodate increased parent
participation and more extended discussion of significant issues?
- Could a member of the central administra-tion be encouraged to attend
the Governing Council meetings on a regular basis so the school would
have a better idea of support they could expect when they make decisions
that require district-level review?
- Would it be useful for the video class to videotape a Governing Council
meeting with the Council members committed to viewing the tape during
their next meeting as a means of helping them strengthen their processes?
Would having regular tapes available of each Governing Council meeting
increase knowledge of Council actions among faculty who are not on the
Council?
- On a Reform Agenda
- Would something be gained if the school decided to concentrate on
a single reform agenda for 1993-94? For example, would it be beneficial
if it focused only on trying to make a block schedule or advisory rooms
work? Could agreement on such an agenda be reached during a pre- school
planning retreat?
- For at least the first three months of the year, would the school
develop better understanding of the expectations concerning matters
such as block schedules and advisory rooms by holding one- period meetings
which each faculty member was required to attend during his or her free
period? If each member attended two such meetings twice a month for
three months, would there be better understanding of proposed initiatives
and expectations for cooperation regarding them?
- Could consideration be given to breaking the school into four families
of approximately three hundred students? Could the school allow each
family to determine, within parameters of a generally held schoolwide
vision, the extent to which it wished to block instruction and give
it discretion in how to implement ideas such as Exhibitions?
- Is there someone from one of the local colleges or from the nearby
state university who is an expert on portfolios and could be used, with
support from Re:Learning or district funds, to help the faculty learn
more about this approach to keeping track of student learning? Would
learning more enhance cooperation on portfolios?
- Could those teachers who want to adopt block schedules devise a plan
where they take leadership in helping teachers who may be fearful of
this approach? Could special mentoring arrangements be set up with these
teachers so they use the extended time to the benefit of students?
- Could music teachers and athletic coaches who have developed effective
parental support for their work share ideas with the faculty concerning
how this could be done with other programs?
- Could the journalism class take on the task of reporting, on video
and in writing, the results of school discussions ? For example, could
they do an interview program once a week where they talked with the
principal and the chair of the Governing Council about recent decisions
on matters such as the block schedule or tardy policies? Maybe this
show could be watched during the new advisory periods.
- Could the video class in the school be recruited to work with a group
of teachers in preparing tapes showing examples of senior projects,
so students and teachers alike could understand the potential power
of such events? Could this class or some other source be used to obtain
samples of projects in other schools that could serve as object lessons?
Building Cooperation into the Culture of the School
- Could each new teacher be assigned an experienced teacher as a mentor,
beginning the week prior to the opening of school in the fall? Could
a part of such mentoring be an orientation to the school's vision and
to new activities of the school such as advisory rooms or block schedules?
Would a pre-school- year meeting of mentors help them be consistent
in the suggestions they make to the new faculty members?
- Could teachers who are concerned that others in the school do not
understand the culture from which their students come help conduct informal
discussions that would expand this understanding?
- Could the Spanish teachers we watched, who tend to make good use of
class time with students engaged in a variety of learning activities,
share their approach with other teachers?
During each visit we have heard increasing complaints about morale at
the school. Much of the morale problem at Crossroads seems related to
salaries that are obviously too low. What if the faculty decided to conduct
summer seminars for other teachers throughout the nation? The community
is one which many people love to visit. Perhaps sessions could be developed
that would demonstrate how to work with advisory programs, how to conduct
good senior projects, how to make use of portfolios to guide student progress.
Teachers and administrators from elsewhere in the country could pay fees
to Crossroads to conduct the sessions.
Getting ready to conduct such sessions, teachers at Crossroads would
have to develop expertise and agreement among themselves. The connections
several teachers have with the local fine arts community could be used
to develop valuable cultural experiences for the visitors. A local college
could be invited to provide some staff and give credits to the educators
attending the sessions. Incoming ninth-graders could be used as students
for the program to give them an introduction to the expectations at Crossroads
before their school year begins.
Are there other options which should be added to this list and then
discussed within the school community?
[Return to Table of Contents]
Conclusion
During this visit the students shared with us their interpretations of
challenging classes. They gave us examples from math, science, Pathways,
music, drafting, Spanish, drama, and athletics. They told us stories of
teachers--good and bad. They expressed concerns about the turnover of
teachers, particularly in physics and English. They responded with facility
to open-ended questions, similar to those used in the new assessment process
in Kentucky. They shared their hopes and fears about the future.
In class, we watched them tangle with basic economic concepts, play
the stock market using a simulation developed by a nearby university,
and, in other cases, engage in many traditional learning activities. We
saw them celebrate as they received good report cards and mourn when the
grades were lower than expected.
Along with the students and many of the teachers at Crossroads, we continue
to worry about the large number of students who drop out and about the
attendance problems which interfere with learning. We also continue to
worry about the lack of solid information about these problems, and we
worry about comments from some adults in the school which suggest that
the student behaviors are all that can be expected from "this kind of
student."
If the adults associated with the school can develop a common vision
and agree on ways to strengthen leadership and cooperation, they will
have made progress in selecting the right road to constructive whole-school
change. The direction they choose will be vitally important to them and
to the students. The lives of all these students are too important to
allow them to receive less than the best possible education.
[Return to Table of Contents]
PART II
From the Crossroads School Change Committee
When early drafts of the first part of this snapshot were submitted
to the Crossroads faculty and administration for review, several responded
with copies of the material which makes up the bulk of Part 1. Following
the April visit, discussions continued at Crossroads regarding several
major reform initiatives, in addition to the move to increased autonomy
in budget making, which we mentioned earlier.
The School Change Committee, also known as the Re:Learning Committee,
provided impetus for these reform efforts. This group met for three days
following the school year and ironed out details about block scheduling
and advisory. Following these extra work days, the group sent to the faculty
the following memorandum. It is included here just as it was mailed, except
for the omission of names identifying people, groups, and places.
[Return to Table of Contents]
CROSSROADS HIGH SCHOOL
June 24. 1993
To: Crossroads Staff Members
From: School Change Committee
Re: Systemic Change
The following information is enclosed for your information:
- Block Schedule for the 1993-94 school year
- Schedule for the first two weeks of school
- Overview of Advisory
- Overview of Portfolios
- Horace article re: Advisory
Please review. If you have any questions, please contact one of the committee
members.
- Principal
- Governing Council Secretary
- Pathways Teacher
- State Re:Learning Consultant
- Former Governing Council Chairperson
- Counselor
- Librarian
- Pathways Teacher
Bring the enclosed materials and your ideas to the in-service on Wednesday,
August, 25, 1993. Thank you.
BLOCK SCHEDULE
| Mon/Wed |
Tue/Thur
|
Flex
Day |
1st
Period
8:10-9:15 |
1st
Period
8:10- 9:15 |
1st
Period
8:10- 9:15 |
Advisory
9:20-9:35 |
Advisory
9:20- 9:35 |
Advisory
9:20- 9:35 |
2nd Period
9:40- 11:30 |
3rd Period
9:40- 11:30 |
2nd
Period
9:35- 10:30 |
3rd
Period
10:35- 11:30 |
Lunch
11:30- 12:25 |
Lunch
11:30- 12:25 |
Lunch
11:30- 12:25 |
6th Period
12:25- 2:15 |
5th Period
12:25- 2:15 |
5th
Period
12:25- 1:20 |
6th
Period
1:25- 2:20 |
7th
Period
2:25-3:25 |
7th
Period
2:25- 3:25 |
7th
Period
2:25- 3:25 |
ADVISORY
1. Assignment to Advisory will be done by hand at registration
a. Freshmen - random
b. Sophomores, junior, seniors - choice of three (3)
2. Students will receive 1/4 credit annually for Advisory Period
(Subject to SFPS Board approval)
3. Full day Advisory will be held at least 4 days a year.
4. Advisees will be heterogeneously grouped.
FIRST WEEK
1. Monday, August 23, 1993
7:30 a.m. - Staff meeting - Small Gym
Registration:
Seniors - 8:10 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Juniors - 10:00 a.m. to completion
Lunch - 1 hour
P.M. - Classroom Readiness
2. Tuesday, August 24, 1993
District In-service - 8:00 a.m. [Crossroads] Activity Center
Lunch
Registration
Sophomores - 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Freshmen - 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Pick up schedules
ID pictures
Locker assignments
Advisory sign-up
3. Wednesday, August 25, 1993
Team Building
Professional Behavior
Implementation of Advisory
Introduction to Portfolio
4. Thursday, August 26, 1993 - 1st day of classes
Flex Schedule
5. Friday, August 27, 1993
Flex Schedule
6. Second Week
Block Schedule Mon/Tues/Wed/Thurs
Friday - full-day Advisory for parent orientation
ADVISORY
PURPOSE:
A. To develop community
B. Provide each student with an advocate/mentor
OBJECTIVES:
A. Personalization
B. Increase student success rate
C. Facilitate portfolio development/completion
D. Facilitate school business that otherwise comes out of academic instructional
time
CURRICULUM:
DAILY ADVISORY:
4 Year Plans
Schedule conflicts
Introduce students to school's vision
Student Handbook
Attendance Policy
Tardy Policy
Safety Issues
Services available:
Extra-curricular
Teen Wellness
Athletics
CHOICES (?)
Career/Guidance
Horizons
Personal inventory
Concurrent enrollment/Articulation w/ [local]
Community College
Tutorial/Study Hall
Surveys/forms
Elections
Portfolio Development
Goal Setting
Mediation Techniques
FULL DAY ADVISORY:
Community Service
Pre-registration
Parent Conference/Report Cards
DIPLOMA BY EXHIBITION -- PORTFOLIO
[Crossroads] High School's 1998 graduates will have successfully and
publicly presented their portfolios as authentic reflections of their
development of thoughtful habits of mind.
The portfolios give students a target to aim for, help them synthesize
and use knowledge across the disciplines, and give them opportunities
to apply concepts to real-life situations. This process bridges the gap
between student and adult roles as well as helps children contribute to
their own present and future well being and to that of the family, school,
and community to which they belong.
The portfolio will include the following nine performance areas:
1. Autobiography
Each year an aspect of the autobiography will be implemented:
Four Year Plan: Reading--Research--Remembering-Writing
9th Grade - Reading Autobiographies
10th Grade - Research--Cultural History/Family Tree
11th Grade - Remembering--Vis a vie--Journal
12th Grade - Writing--Autobiography
Objectives:
* Build self-esteem
* Synthesize life's experiences
* Communicate a sense of history
* Create a sense of family, community, and culture
* Establish lines of communication with extended family and community
* See evolution of self through choices they've made
* Prepare for their future role as a family/societal member
2. Resume
A resume provides an impression of preparedness, helps students identify
strengths and skills, provides a scope for a vision of what needs to be
developed throughout their secondary school years, and is an essential
tool for employment. The students will refine career goals, upgrade resumes,
acquire higher education goals and community service related to career
objectives, interview, and meet the format criteria for resumes.
3. Post-Secondary Component
The purpose of this component focuses on necessary exposure to preparation
for career plans after graduation.
Four-Year Plan:
9th Grade - Early career exposure and articulation of future goals
10th Grade - PSAT and PACT testing
11th Grade - Credit checks, school correspondence, interest inventory,
campus visits
12th Grade - Credit checks, SAT/ACT testing, reaffirmation of goals and
intent, final correspondence and commitment
4. Communications
The ability to write skillfully, read widely, and speak effectively is
a practical component of everyday life. Along with media literacy, these
survival skills combine interpretive and organizational abilities. Evidence
of developmental growth in these areas will be included for each high
school year and should be drawn from various scholastic disciplines.
5. Health Component
The purpose of this component is to increase awareness of health concerns.
Emphasis: help the students develop and maintain healthy lifestyles, including
recognition of nutrition, exercise and disease, awareness of school and
community services available that promote good health and treat disease.
Assessment will be generated from a student survey, projects and research
into healthy foods, physical education and teen issues.
6. Senior Projects
Beginning freshman year, students prepare to do a presentation around
an essential question of choice. This will include a research paper and
oral/visual components. A team of four from the school community will
advise and mentor the students' progress. Evidence of synthesis and organization
of information will exhibit thoughtful habits of mind through critical
use of knowledge.
7. Ecological Awareness
Environmental problems are the most compelling problems faced by modern
human society, and environmental science is a rapidly growing job field.
Many diverse problems of social organization have become environmental
in nature. Each student must choose an area of ecological awareness as
a research project. The criteria will require a research and a physical
model. The timeline for this component will require completion by the
end of the sophomore year.
8. Community Service
Community service projects will provide wholistic learning and allow
for community participation with the school and vice-versa. Each student
will select their sites and complete 25 hours per year. All hours will
be completed by the first semester of senior year.
Objectives:
* Build critical thinking skills
* Develop a service ethic
* Teach leadership skills
* Increase sense of social responsibility
* Provide career exploration
9. Growth Continuum
The growth continuum component is designed to facilitate educational
and career planning and goal setting on a personal level. The four-year
plan includes such elements as graduation requirements, a four-year
schedule, completion of tests (PACT, ACT, PSAT, SAT, etc.) and
interpretations, official transcripts, etc.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The School Change Committee Material: Questions For The Staff And Reader
We asked the staff to consider the following questions about the School
Change Committee material. We invite the reader of this snapshot to do
the same. Use the memo from the School Change Committee and pertinent
information in Part 1 to help you prepare your responses.
- If you were the principal or a faculty leader at Crossroads, what
would you do to be sure the moves to block schedules, advisory periods,
and student Exhibitions were explicitly tied to the school's philosophy?
- What questions remain to be answered concerning the innovations (block
schedule, advisory, portfolio) from the point of view of students? Of
parents? Of teachers?
- What process should be followed to answer questions which remain for
each group? To what extent does that process appear to be provided for
by the memo?
- If you were responsible for planning the full-day orientation for
parents on Friday of the first week of school, what would you include
on the agenda?
- To what extent do the central administration and board need to approve
the changes indicated in the memo? What process is needed to be sure
they are taken?
- How should the success of these changes be evaluated? Who should
be responsible for the evaluation?
- The Horace article referred to in the memo on page 15 is in
volume 7, number 1, for September 1990. What other resources might be
helpful to people asked to understand the proposed changes? (For example,
would reading the sample Exhibitions and other content in Ted Sizer's
Horace's School be helpful?)
- Although this memo has been mailed to all faculty, now that school
is nearly ready to start, some faculty believe the proposed block schedule
and the advisory period should be changed so that the advisory does
not meet as listed. Apparently, some believe such a session should be
longer, others think it should be less frequent, while some still are
not convinced it is a good idea. How should these views be processed
at the school?
- What is likely to be the biggest obstacle to successful implementation
of these innovations? What acts, by whom, are most apt to assure success?
- What other questions need to be considered?
[Return to Table of Contents]
Notes
- See Richard W. Clark, "Consensus- building: Progress and Problems:
Crossroads High School--July 1992," Studies on School Change (Crossroads
No. 2), for a discussion of the progress made at the end of 1991- 92.
- A Trek is a year-long change effort in which an Essential school
can choose to participate. In the spring, an interested school would
choose a Trek team, including faculty and administrators. The team attends
a week-long summer workship in school change, sponsored by the Coalition.
During the school year, the Trek teams, grouped in triads with "critical
friends" in other Trek teams, visit each other's schools to critique
and support the progress the schools have made over the year.
- In reviewing an early draft of this snapshot, one member of the team
asserted that a teacher who "was one of the most vocal of the teachers
had enrolled his/her own child in our block" and suggested to us that
such an action was "voting with your feet."
- The premise for the new program being elitist and racist is that
since it will be advertised as one in which students should only enroll
if they want to work hard, only a select group of students will enroll.
As it is expressed by some in the school who see the Hispanic culture
as opposing hard, academic work, this premise in itself has racial overtones.
- Following our visit, the Governing Council approved a specific motion
from this department chair for a 1993-94 schedule. Our information in
June 1993 suggests there is still confusion regarding what the final
schedule for the coming year will be.
- Every student and most teachers we interviewed in April 1993 identified
the breakdown of the tardy policy and of their accompanying hall sweeps
as "what was new" at Crossroads.
[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: CR4
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: 1993
Publisher: CES National
School Level: High
Focus Area: Leadership
STRAND: Leadership: the change process
|
|
