The program is supported by school faculty, administrators, and staff.

Introduction

The focus of Component Five is the importance of approaching a comprehensive reform effort from within a school culture that nurtures student, teacher, and administrator growth. As a roadmap to guide a school through this transformation, we draw from new research to outline the roles of district, principal, teachers, and staff.

The District Office Sets the Stage

Current studies show that teachers are the key to true reform and that this leadership role depends on district staff's ability to act as a service organization (Evaluation Brief, March 2000, p. 4) and a principal's ability to be a "leader of leaders" or a "teacher of leaders" (Nancy Mohr, private communication). Evidence shows "that structural reforms can work, but only when human and social resources are organized to provide particular forms of support for schools and students" (Newmann and Wehlage, 1995).

The fifth component of the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) project reflects the widely held assumption (based on research, e.g., Fullan) that teachers and other stakeholders must buy into a reform if it is to work. Yet, in its recent evaluation of the demonstration and test stage of the New American Schools project, researchers from RAND learned that at the majority of sites, staffs chose a reform because "the principal wanted it; we got the message." Furthermore, most staffs were "looking for gain, not recognizing the effort needed to reform " (Bodilly, 1996, p. 314). So there is evidence that the New American Schools reforms that RAND is studying are taking hold despite the lack of initial understanding and buy-in. It must be noted, however, that those involved agree that implementation would have been smoother had there been more participant understanding at the outset.

How could this have been accomplished? Current research indicates district leadership is key.

The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) (1998) argues that it is the district leadership's role to create a sense of urgency for change. They insist districts will have to learn how to operate in new ways. For instance, CPRE researchers indicate that the district must provide the infrastructure to support and encourage the implementation of comprehensive school plans, including such processes as professional development, school improvement planning, teacher and administrator evaluation, and budgeting. In this way, school personnel perceive district leadership as valuing school change leading to improved student learning, rather than maintaining the status quo.

In its ongoing research that accompanies work with low-performing schools—both those receiving funds from the Comprehensive School Reform program and its other improvement initiatives—the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction concurs with CPRE that reform-minded district leadership communicates "a compelling need to change." They identified districts "where both white and black students have made the highest gains in the state, regardless of percent of poor and minority students in the district." In these districts, they found practices similar to the nine components of comprehensive school reform, such as

• Focused and Strategic Planning: District goals and plans provide a framework for school improvement plans, which in turn are carried to the department and classroom level.
• Aligned and Pervasive Academic Focus: The written, taught, and tested curricula are consistent.
• Use of Assessment Information: Frequent and diagnostic use of assessment data (state and local assessments) is critical and is used to create a sense of urgency as well as to direct planning and instruction.
• An Empirical Basis for Practice: Instruction that follows research-based practices is most likely to yield powerful results.
• Coherent and Consistent Professional Development: Professional development is based on long-term goals and research-based practice, builds school and district capacity, focuses on content and instruction, and is aligned with the overall direction and initiatives in the school and district.
• The District Staff as a Service Organization: Central office personnel in some of these districts see themselves as a "technical assistance team" to the schools.
• Flexible and Creative Use of Funding: Collaborative planning among schools and the district for use of categorical funds and personnel may lead to more efficient use of and greater impact from these resources.

The district provides the flexibility of resources, time, and structure for improving schools. And from this foundation, principal and teacher ownership emerges. "The purpose of leadership is the improvement of instructional practice and performance, regardless of role" (Elmore, 2000, p. 20). But once a strong district gives schools the freedom to learn and change in a collaborative manner, how does a principal build a culture that propels the school to continuous improvement? Or, if a district does not support and encourage reform, what can a principal who refuses to wait do inside a school? "[I]t is possible for middle managers [principals] to shape, if not create, organizations that they believe in, even in the midst of the nonrational world" (Fullan, 1997, p.10).

Districts have an important role to play in helping schools support change and helping teachers with reform efforts.

More successful schools and schools embodying more successful initiatives for school improvement possess greater degrees of cohesion and more collaborative structures. Teachers, principals, and central offices need to have an emphasis on "co-leadership." Schoolwide implementation of instructional and curriculum initiatives are virtually impossible without facilitation and support from the district. District offices not closely connected to teachers and schools are unable to create the conditions to support change (Joyce, Wolf, Calhoun, 1993).

One of the concerns of model developers has been providing opportunities to service the remote areas. Jim Meza of Accelerated Schools said, "I feel, personally, that the district role and state role is just as critical as the designer, in terms of trying to service the remote areas. If we can build capacity at the state and district levels, too, we can begin a shared responsibility. If schools depend totally on the designer, schoolwide reform won't happen."

Districts could offer positive assistance to schools by taking the following actions:

• Address the needs and resources required for additional time and space to provide adequately for programs and activities.
• Research and develop plans to expand facilities to enhance the educational opportunities of all students. Creative and more flexible scheduling alternatives and better student-teacher ratios should be investigated to meet the diverse needs and interests of students.
• Examine "change of use" requests for noninstructional areas.
• Keep in mind that school boards must be brought along throughout the entire process. (Excerpted, with permission, from State Education Leader, Vol. 16, No.3).

The following links provide more information on the role of districts in support of comprehensive school reform:

• EdWeek article "Annenberg Task Force Will Take a Fresh Look at Districts" 
• Education Commission of the States publication, Progress of Reform, information on district support
• Areas for the role of district support available in Appendix E of "A Guide to Working with Model Developers."
• Examples of the role some states and districts play in creating the capacity, vision, and commitment needed to improve schools
• A compilation of district profiles  

The Principal as Teacher of Leaders

Another widely held assumption about the change process is that schools always have a few people who are the true believers, those who stay committed to a reform. According to this theory, the loyal group and the principal must spend an inordinate amount of their time battling resisters. However, this assumption was also called into question by the RAND results. Bodilly (1996, p. 320) says that virtually everyone's commitment waned after the first few weeks or months. It was only as the development teams worked with the teachers, coaching and modeling, that commitment budded, developed, and thrived. This is what Michael Fullan (1997, p. 26) means when he advises, "start small; think big." A bias for action that leads to achieving high quality learning allows a school to show progress. Progress, or success, breeds success.

It is important to note that this phenomenon did not depend on the nature of the design. The designs in the RAND study are all very different says Susan Bodilly; yet "teachers were fairly consistent in what they felt was needed to promote changes, regardless of the design." Following is her list of the processes and activities that those involved said would get reforms off to a good start and continuously build commitment:

1. A compelling or at least clear introduction to the design written by the team and provided to all teachers
2. Relevant training provided to all administrators and teachers with behavioral changes or new processes modeled
3. Concrete materials and models to use in classrooms, committees, or other forums for reform
4. Presence of the design team members to help them or presence of a facilitator to aid in their understanding on a day-to-day basis
5. Teacher teaming to work on design issues or curriculum development
6. Participatory governance to ensure continued teacher support of the design
7. Teacher time for curriculum development, teacher-to-teacher interactions, and adapting to new behaviors (time for practice at the individual and school level)
8. Exposure to new ideas (1996, p. 320)

Katie Walter and Bryan Hassel's Guide to Working with Model Providers (2000) provides clear guidelines and tools for a school staff to set up the conditions for numbers one through three above. They stress (p. 15) that each party "make clear what it needs, what it expects, and what it can provide for the implementation of the model." They also provide other resources for selecting an appropriate comprehensive school reform model.  Another tool to help district staff reflect on their key role in the support of comprehensive school reform and identify areas needing improvement is Tool 1, District Self-Assessment Guide. 

Other emerging research from the Comprehensive School Reform program (CSRD in the Field) and the RAND study are building knowledge of the capabilities of different model providers so that in the future schools will be able to make better informed choices. There are distinct, rational steps to take as a school staff begins creating its comprehensive plan, but the issue remains of getting school people engaged and encouraging them to take leadership roles. Does the principal of a school successfully engaged in comprehensive reform have to be a visionary hero?

Dedicated principals are working against the grain, but current research indicates the new kind of principal's work is difficult but reasonable (Goldring and Rallis, 1993). Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker (1992) stress that changing schools is improving people, including the principal. Fullan (1997, p. 9) says leaders must craft their own theories of change and test them against their own experience.

Attention to the knowledge, skill, and professional development needs of principals has been a central feature of District #2 [New York City] strategy from its beginning some ten years ago· [These include] principals working in support groups and formal mentoring arrangements between more senior or highly skilled principals and newer principals or those who are judged by district administrators to need work in specific areas. Group meetings of principals in District #2 are focused almost entirely on instructional improvement issues and professional development. Monthly principals' conferences, for example, last all day; they are frequently held in schools and involve classroom visits and discussions of practice. (Elmore and Burney, 2000, p. 4)

Ellen Goldring and Sharon Rallis (1993), reporting on their case studies of good schools, describe Lee, a "principal-in-charge":

Lee motivates, coordinates, and legitimizes the work of the teachers by taking a stand and then by manipulating time, space, resources, and personnel to enable them to join in moving toward that position. Lee does not empower; rather, Lee works to establish an atmosphere in which the teachers empower themselves to press for improvement and growth. (p. 37)

It is important to note that their principal-in-charge does not empower nor does Lee "get teachers to do what it is that the principal wants and have them enjoy it at the same time." Instead, "the principals they studied were much less concerned with controlling what people did and how they did it and much more concerned with controlling the conditions that enabled others to function in ways that increased the likelihood shared goals would be reached" (Goldring and Rallis, 1993, p. viii). The leader's role is to ask people constantly what he or she can do to support their work—and then do it.

Almost every national reform advocate calls for the principal to enunciate a vision of the school and of objectives embodied in any new effort, in order to help teachers set priorities. As long as he or she doesn't deny obstacles and realities, such rhetoric can help everyone maintain commitment. Henry Levine describes this role as "keeper of the dream". A principal's actions will be read very carefully as school change initiative proceeds. The principal who protects the faculty from arbitrary district rules or bends a few to help a project along will prove his/her commitment. The principal must model the attitudes the rest of the staff should adopt, learning new concepts to strengthen his or her understanding of effective curriculum and instruction along with everyone else (Zemelman, Daniels, Hyde, 1998).

Richard Elmore (2000, p. 35-36) calls for a "redefinition of leadership, away from role-based conceptions and toward distributed views; large scale improvement requires concerted action among people with different areas of expertise and mutual respect that stems from the knowledge and skill requirements of different roles." Those at the top are dependent on those at the bottom. Michael Fullan and Andy Hargreaves suggest that true reform requires "trust in expertise and in processes of collaboration and continuous improvement" (1996, p.100) rather than a certain individual or the leader.

Further, the researchers talk about the importance of being open to conflicting views (DuFour and Eaker, 1992, and Fullan, 1997). The successful school reaches a point where "the way we've always done it" or "the way we're most comfortable" is open to question. True collaboration, like sustained improvement, can be uncomfortable and risky. Since many schools are places "primarily devoted to management, not to learning—places devoted to order" (Ellis and Fouts, 1994, p. 21), principals and teachers have to be sure they are ready to undertake a messy, often confusing process. Following are questions to ask to gauge readiness:

1. Is everyone on staff "on the same page" about the need and direction for reform?
2. Is everyone involved in the process of exploring reform options and selection of the best approach?
3. Has everyone defined what this reform will look like in his or her classroom?
4. Have staff members discussed the time, space, and other resources their efforts will require?
5. Has everyone been given a responsibility for implementing some aspect of reform?

At its best, comprehensive school reform can become what J. W. Little calls "joint work," or the strongest form of collaboration. "Joint work implies and creates stronger interdependence, shared responsibility, collective commitment and improvement and greater readiness to participate in the difficult business of review and critique·." She stresses that neither cliques, nor administratively imposed structures, nor mere conviviality constitute collaboration. These sorts of easy human interactions are present in most schools and do not contribute to fundamental change (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1996, p. 47-57).

In Rio Rancho, New Mexico, the 90 educators break into small groups known as "Critical Friends Groups" and Mr. Bass, Principal, indicates to the staff, who have been to so many workshops and talked about model programs and best practices, that they now need to "use ourselves to help ourselves grow."

Utilizing existing staff in new and critical roles, such as on-site facilitators, is emerging as an important part of the reform process. The facilitators "protected and maintained the integrity of the models" and often took the brunt of people's fatigue and frustration with all the change. It is highly important, therefore, that the people chosen for these roles are skilled communicators and capable of inspiring trust of teachers. According to a building principal, the human factor can really make a difference in implementing a plan for reform. Interpersonal relationships are the key to staff buy-in; getting everyone to feel like part of the team makes the changes happen (Davis, Hagans, and Sagmiller).

Just as it is important—if teachers are to be the leaders of school change—to keep in mind that school improvement is about human dynamics, it is equally vital to keep in mind why a school is undergoing change. As Newmann and Wehlage (1995) indicate, preoccupation with implementation of a reform "often diverts attention from the more fundamental question: How is the new structural tool or practice likely to improve our school's human and social resources to increase student learning?" Improving human and social resources means being sure that relationships are authentic and founded on mutual respect and are not administratively imposed. Thus, students who are, after all, the reason for a school's existence, must be an integral part of planning and implementation, not just as passive recipients, but instead, as partners in improving their school and as people responsible for their own learning.

To facilitate student involvement in school improvement efforts, the national education laboratory network, in collaboration with K-12 school partners, conducted research into what happens when students are brought into the change process in meaningful ways. The Listening to Student Voices researchers developed four flexible self-study tools that go beyond including students on committees or inviting them to meetings. These researchers say, "[w]ith their unique perspective, students and students' school work can give a staff new strategies and new motivation for improving a school and learning." School staffs can learn more about these tools and decide how they might incorporate them (and their students) into their comprehensive plan on the website.