Innovation and change in Education
Like thisNote: The essay examples we publish on UK Essays have been submitted to us by students. The essays are the student's work and are not examples of our expert essay writers' work. We never publish the work produced by our expert writers as their work is unique to the customer that ordered it.
Thank you to all the students that have submitted essays to us. Please use the essay below to inspire and help you with your own studies, but please ensure you reference the essay if you quote it in your own work.
Innovation and change in Education
This paper looks at the context for change in education, reviews the literature on change theory and innovation, and discusses as a central element in the effort to increase student achievement, the dialogue of transformation that is needed to take place between teaching and learning, and among system leaders. This piece examines common elements among change theories and attempts to shed some light on those factors that are most likely to succeed where resistance to change is high.
Context for Change
The common issue that educational authorities in states, districts, schools and classrooms face is that, everything about teaching and learning has changed, and continues to change for that matter. There are changes in the types and amounts of knowledge required in order to be functional citizens in the present American society. Teachers are no longer dealing with the same population of students as they did few decades ago; rather, more knowledge and more resources are needed to effectively respond to the ever-changing needs of all student groups across the United States. The globalization of the world economy has put added burden on the US education system to produce citizens that are competitive on a global level. They are required not only to have relevant knowledge about the US, but they must also learn about other nations. With ever increasing pressure from policymakers and the public, education administrators are being asked to show evidence that their programs are yielding intended results.
All these changes come together at a time when the rate of technological advances is at an unprecedented level, widening the gap between wealthy districts and poor districts, thus making it impossible for all students in public schools to compete on an even playing field. What should be the role of the superintendent, the principal or the classroom teacher in responding to the challenges facing education and ensure that truly “no child is left behind”. The answers proposed in the literature suggest that all school actors must take the lead in their respective spheres of influence, working collaboratively and coherently in developing a school culture where positive change can take place, (Boyd, 1992; Donahoe, 1993).
Literature Review
Change Theories
Kurt Lewin is one of the pioneers of change theory. In 1951, he introduced the three-step change model. According to Lewin, human behavior is a dynamic balance of forces often working at divergent directions. He contends that when these forces are driven towards a desired direction, they facilitate behavior change. Also, when the forces are hindered, change rarely takes place. Lewin's three-step model can be applied in order to tilt the balance in the direction of a desired change. The first step in Lewin's model is the “unfreezing” of the situation or the status quo. It is considered that the current situation or status quo is at the equilibrium level. Therefore, “unfreezing” the situation is necessary according to Lewin, in order to surmount the difficulties inherent in individual resistance. To unfreeze the status quo, driving forces have to be increased and restraining forces decreased. Also, a combination of both techniques can be employed to achieve desired results.
The second step in Lewin's change model is movement of individual's behavior towards a new level of equilibrium. According to Lewin, when these individuals are persuaded to appreciate the value and the benefits of the proposed change from a new perspective, the desired change can take place. Finally, the third step in Lewin's change model is “refreezing”. Once the desired change has been effected and in order for the new equilibrium to be maintained and sustained, refreezing is needed. Refreezing can be achieved by implementing new policies with the hope of institutionalizing the change.
In 1958, Lippitt, Watson, and Westley expanded Kurt Lewin's three-step change theory to a seven-step framework, focusing on the change agent's role in the process of change. They established that there is an interchange of information during the whole process between the agent and object of change. Their work identified the following steps:
1. Analysis and diagnosis of the problem.
2. Determine the level of motivation and the capacity for change.
3. Appraise the resources needed and the level motivation of the change agent.
4. Work with progressive change objects and draw-up appropriate plan of action.
5. Change objects and agents should be clear on the roles to be played and accepted by all.
6. Communication is essential in maintaining change.
7. The facilitative role of the change agent should be gradually withdrawn once the change has become institutionalized.
Michael Fullan is one of the most recognizable names in theories of change in school reform. He has published many books and articles on the topic making him an expert on the issue of school change. Fullan (1991) views the change process as a three-phase interrelated and overlapping concept: initiation, implementation and institutionalization. This linear approach soon gave way to more systemic approach and the view that a linear model is not practical in approaching change since change does not necessarily happen in sequence. In 1992, Michael Fullan and Mathew Miles revealed in their publication, the contexts or conditions within which reform or change is bound to fail or succeed. These include “faulty maps of change” or guidelines that fail to capture the real essence of the situation or those which over-simplify the issues. Without more accurate plan or guideline, failure is more certain. The authors contend that when problems are too complex, it is unrealistic to think they can be solved within a short time.
Following Fullan and Miles' 1992 article about systemic change, Anderson in 1993 developed a model based on a continuum of system change. In Anderson's continuum, he identified stages of change such as: “maintenance of old system, awareness, exploration, transition, emergence of new infrastructure and predominance of new system” (1993). According to Anderson, there are elements of change such as vision, political support, teaching changes, etc, that as they move along the continuum, are also affected. In educational setting, Anderson suggested that the continuum can be used in system reform process. It will help to establish a framework of the change process as well as articulate the common goal of stakeholders. This he maintained will help ensure understanding and participation in the system reform. The continuum will facilitate the development of a strategic plan as well as an evaluation instrument for the reform process.
Michael Fullan (2001) evolves his theory of change to embrace school culture and “meaning-making”. He contends that all learning, whether individual or organizational is a continuous dialogue of “meaning-making”. This moves his theory away from its earlier linear structure to a more fluid idea of culture, relationships and values as defined in small organizational units such as schools and classrooms.
Innovations
In a 1995 publication, Everett Rogers synthesized over 3800 works on diffusion theory in what he titled Diffusion of Innovations. Though his theory is mostly from rural sociology, it has been used widely as a model in many disciplines such as education and public health. He defines innovation as newness or the adoption of a new idea. He states that innovation is not static and therefore it interrelates with, and within the context of the organization. He explains that it is through understanding of the change process that we can begin to explore ways of dealing with change in an institution.
In 2002, Dundon published a book on innovations, providing a step-by-step explanation on how to generate and support innovation in an organization. She discusses a nine-step model which is designed to help strengthen organizations towards innovation. Elaine Dundon suggests that leaders can teach, nurture and improve innovative thinking. Compatible with Fullan's theory of creating collaborative and cooperative environment where positive change can place, Dundon also asserts that fostering concepts like creativity and innovation is only possible in a non-threatening context that is collegial and supportive.
Discussion
The problem of accountability in most states as posed today stems mostly from the production-function model that seeks to measure school results in relation to inputs. However, this model fails to explain all the different and complex characteristics of the learning process, and most especially of the learner himself. For state education authorities, establishing a fair and reasonable model of accountability presents a real leadership challenge. Results-based accountability model allows policymakers to focus less on inputs and to focus more on results.
Schools operate in many different contexts within any school system. The school location, size, demographic trends, staff profile, legal status, pupil background, culture and ethos are only some of the many characteristics that may give particular schools their uniqueness. The context of each school defines their specific set of challenges and leaders in those schools are expected to meet the challenges they encounter responsibly.
Teacher Leadership
Teacher leadership is agreed to be a necessary evolution in the present challenges faced by the school system and that if teachers help to lead issues that they are most related to, then there will be an improvement in children's learning (Richardson & Anders, 1994). There are many barriers preventing teachers from taking the lead, however teachers have started to lead in matters directly related to the classroom, but school management and important school level decision making are still out of the reach of teachers. In order for teachers' experience and knowledge of students and the learning process to have greater effect, they must be able to use this knowledge to impact curricular and management decisions at the school level.
Another barrier to teacher leadership is the very manner in which they are being prepared. Often the training received is disconnected from what teachers find in the school or classroom. Teachers must receive training on issues that are prevalent in schools today and allowed to participate directly in school programs in order to give them practical experience. In addition to professional development, it is suggested that teachers benefit also from participating in professional conferences, as this will keep them connected to other professionals, (Austen, 2006).
Teachers are caught up in day to day demands of teaching and dealing with individual students and their parents. Often, the challenges of the job deter teachers from looking beyond the scope of their jobs. For teachers, leadership roles are not as easy as one might imagine. However, Fullan (2002) maintains that teachers need to work together in order to develop better relationships for professional collaboration and cooperation. The tendency to work in isolation does not favor teaching improvements, change or innovation, as teachers are more likely to fall into what Fullan referred to as the “ceiling effect”.
Principal Leadership
School principal leadership is affected first by the recruitment process. In as much as the role of the principal is critical in school leadership (Newmann et al, 2001), superintendents should be involved, but are rarely part of school principal's recruitment. District human resource department is in charge of recruiting school principals and could perhaps play a more determinant role in principal leadership. However they are constantly reacting to new priorities and do not have the time to take on such responsibility. In fact, Institute for Educational Leadership suggests that district human resource departments are often too weak to play an important role in principal leadership, (IEL, 2000).
Many problems are listed as affecting principal leadership and recruitment - included are race and gender issues; inadequate training and preparation; lack of uniform licensure standards; unresponsive retirement system; teaching requirement that limits nontraditional candidates; lack of on-the-job support and relevant professional development programs; and the general lack of information about the problems faced by school principals, (IEL, 2000).
District Leadership
District leadership is affected by a whole myriad of factors including changing national and state education priorities. When priorities change, districts must shift their focus to reflect directions set by higher authorities. Also, districts deal with important issues concurrently. These issues may distract from their basic responsibility of ensuring that students meet required academic standards. Another factor that is of considerable challenge to districts is that of demographic change in many districts. However, there is little diversity on school boards and in currently serving superintendents. Affecting district leadership also is the complex nature of the roles and responsibilities of superintendents and school boards. It is recommended that there should be increased representation of stakeholders on school boards and participation in district level decision making.
Resistance to change
Lewin's model is well structured, rational and, goal and plan oriented. The theory does not take personal factors into consideration even though these are factors are expected to affect change. While Lewin's theory makes rational sense, applicability to school environment and learning dynamics is rather limited. Lippitt's ‘Phases of Change' extends Lewin work by focusing on the change agent as opposed to change itself. Lewin's change theory seeks to analyze the driving forces of change as well as its restraining forces.
While Lippitt embraces the change agent, it is Michael Fullan's voice in the discourse that focuses specifically on school reform and school leadership. Fullan addresses the issues of accountability for student achievement and the need for all school actors to lead change. Michael Fullan sees teacher resistance as an expected phenomenon but believes that meaningful change can be achieved given the right set of actions and leadership.
Elaine Dundon (2002) contends that innovation can be taught, nurtured and improved in an environment of trust and collaboration. Teachers that are more resistant to change can be encouraged to share their unique experiences and discuss ways they have coped with challenges in their classrooms. By creating and supporting learning communities within the school, principals can increase student achievement that comes through innovation and positive change, (ERS, 2000).
Michael Fullan's theory puts a premium on professional cooperation and collaboration as a means of ensuring change, in a manner that makes it easy for teachers to adopt reform. Through cooperation and collaboration, teachers who often are educating students in isolation can gain valuable knowledge from interaction with other teachers. Under the leadership of the principal, each teacher can offer different insights based on their own unique experiences which when shared in a community of other teachers can give practical support to struggling teachers, and particularly those that are more resistant to change.
Fullan (2002) advances in his article The Change Leader, that the principal can contribute substantially to improving student achievement, when he or she embraces his or her role as the instructional leader. By mobilizing “the energy and capacities”, and by giving teachers the support they require, principals can create a positive collegial environment needed to sustain school reform. Fullan's theory I believe, presents practical examples that can offer the ‘safety' needed by teachers who are set in their ways, to venture out into a world of change that is both unknown and uncertain. The principal can minimize the level of uncertainty inherent in change and work purposefully to communicate the vision of the school to build a culture based on their common goals.
References
Austen, D. (2006). Enriching and extending teaching through professional conferences. In Stone, R., & Cuper, P. Best practices for teacher leadership (p. 102-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Boyd, V. (1992). Creating a context for change. Issues about Change, 2 (2). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Donahoe, T. (1993). Finding the way: Structure, time, and culture in school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(4), 298-305.
Dundon, E. (2002). The seeds of innovation: Cultivating the synergy that fosters new ideas. AMACOM: New York.
Educational Research Service. (2000). “The principal, keystone of a high-achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need.” For the National Association of Elementary School Principals and National Association of Secondary School Principals. Washington, D.C.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The meaning of educational change. In M. G. Fullan, The new meaning of educational change (pp. 30-46). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 745-752.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: San Francisco.
Fullan, M. (2002). Educational reform as continuous improvement. In W.D. Hawley & D.L. Rollie (Eds.), The keys to effective schools: Educational reform as continuous improvement (pp. 1–9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Institute of Educational Leadership (October, 2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the Principalship. School leadership for the 21st Century Initiative, A Report of the task Force on the Principalship. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Sciences. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951.
Lippitt, R., Watson, J. and Westley, B. The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1958.
Newmann, F., King, B. & Youngs, P. (2001). Professional development that addresses school capacity . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Richardson, V., & Anders, P. L. (1994). A theory of change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process (pp. 199-216). New York: Teachers College Press.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press.
