Component Two:
Comprehensive Design with Aligned Components

The program has a comprehensive design for effective school functioning, including instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental involvement, and school management, that aligns the school's curriculum, technology, and professional development into a schoolwide reform plan designed to enable all students—including children from low-income families, children with limited English proficiency, and children with disabilities—to meet challenging State content and performance standards and addresses needs identified through a school needs assessment.

Introduction

Comprehensive school change can be compared to constructing a stone arch where the placement of every piece of stone is important. No one stone may be removed or neglected without consequence. But one special stone at the apex of the arch, known as the keystone, is the most critical. While each of the other stones supports those above it, the keystone exerts pressure down both sides and holds the entire arch together. Similarly, each of the eleven components of comprehensive school reform is important in its own right; to neglect any component affects the entire plan. Component Two is the keystone, reminding us that all the components should be aligned.

According to Michael Fullan, “The greatest problem faced by school districts and schools is not resistance to innovation, but the fragmentation, overload, and incoherence resulting from the uncritical acceptance of too many different innovations.” The Early Report from the Field counsels, “It is important for schools to understand the implementation of models as part of a coherent and broader reform plan,” (6) not as a substitute for a schoolwide reform plan. This component illustrates a process for creating a broad and coherent plan, incorporating a selected comprehensive reform model. Using this process, a school staff can create a plan that supercedes all previous ones while meshing the best of what they are presently doing with new school and district strategies. “Comprehensive” and “focus” do not have to be mutually exclusive. The motto can be, “Think globally; act locally.”

Why Comprehensive?

True comprehensive reform is about moving towards continual improvement from a broad-spectrum plan based on a needs assessment and aligned with local and state standards. All components of the plan are aligned to support each other in pursuit of school goals. Teachers, administrators, and others in the school community understand the plan as a roadmap for change in the way they do business. This change in thinking, conducting classes, and running schools requires professional development as an ongoing system of inquiry, discussion, and support across and among the school staff. One of the major goals of the professional development process is how to relocate resources, both internally and externally. This is a shift from the notion of improvement as a result of a new textbook or a classroom set of high-tech equipment.

In traditional, piecemeal change, the improvement process looks like this:

Focusing on	Schools hope to get
Standards OR Goals OR Benchmarks OR a Specific Strategy	Higher Quality Student Learning

Comprehensive reform calls for a multi-step process:

Focusing on	To change	And change	And change	For
Standards aligned with Goals aligned with Benchmarks	Curriculum	Instruction	Teacher Behaviors	Higher Quality Student Learning

In order to effect positive, lasting change, every new strategy is reviewed in terms of its alignment in the overall plan and its expected impact on adult behavior in light of the ultimate and most important intended result: higher quality student learning.

A Plan for Creating a Plan

It is often good to look at why something did not work in order to see what to do next time. Tables 1-4 can assist in studying previous and current plans in order to determine what to retain, what to abandon, and gaps to be addressed. This activity is directed toward formative evaluation as discussed in Component 8.

1. A staff committee might begin using its own data by completing Table 1.
2. Results from Table 1 provide the information needed for Table 2.
3. Elements ending up in categories A and B of Table 2 are placed in Column 1 of Table 3.
4. Everything in Category C of Table 2 belongs in either Column 2 or 3 of Table 3. Reminder: placement is based on data, not opinion.
5. The information in Table 2, Column D is further researched using an action plan like Table 4.

Staff-researchers completing Table 4 are looking for the following sorts of information to learn why the reform was not implemented and if the same obstacles stymie many of the school’s improvement efforts:

• Is the failure due to a lack of follow-through, a lack of time, a lack of other resources?
• Do initiatives begin well but falter as interest fades? (implementation dip)
• Is there cross-school representation on committees?
• Are committees diverse in other sorts of ways? For instance, a technology plan needs technophobes as well as technophiles.
• Is there a mechanism for pulling in the community? District staff?

The assessment of previous efforts puts a school in a position to:

• get around barriers that have stopped previous efforts.
• mesh new strategies with old—and successful—strategies.
• build a comprehensive plan.

The next step is to create a checklist of components that should be included.

Horizontal Alignment

Focus on Student Learning
School Goals
Benchmarks
Classroom Strategies
Professional Development
School Governance
Curriculum
Instruction
Assessment
Technology
Allocation of Resources
External Technical Assistance
Monitoring and Evaluation

Aligning technology, professional development, and school governance with strategies addressing curriculum and instruction across a school means a multi-year commitment focusing time, money, and energy on only the endeavors in the comprehensive plan. This means sometimes saying “No.” For example, the desire to purchase computer hardware and software in year three will be weighed against how its use will dovetail with specific curriculum and instructional strategies outlined in the plan. Likewise, new professional development from the district will be scrutinized for its fit with stated goals and strategies.

This does not preclude flexibility; a good comprehensive plan is organic, a natural, evolving process. It is a blueprint, not a mandate (Johnson & McDonald 284). The key is for all staff to remain focused on the one plan. Everything is measured against where individual staff members are on a continuum of implementation. Nothing new is started unless the staff has the time and energy to succeed and is ready to implement the innovation. Everyone remains focused on strategies that are clearly aligned with the overall goals. The various stages of implementation are:

• Awareness
• Selection
• Initiation
• Implementation
• Evaluation
• Institutionalization

Horizontal alignment of the components is similar to the actions required for sailing. Working the lines, letting the sails in and out, and steering with the keel all in unison are necessary to stay the course. Although at times the boat may not be pointed directly at the target and must tack from left to right, it is always headed generally toward the same ultimate goal. In a calm sea (political stability) with a good breeze (plenty of resources and external assistance), staff can focus on aligning all the activities to sail the boat quickly to its destination (high quality student learning). Political stability is rare, however. How does a school weather less-than-calm seas? Less-than-calm seas require adherence to vertical alignment.

Vertical Alignment

National Goals
Federal Requirements
State Standards and Accountability Systems
State Mandates
District Goals
District Curriculum
District Mandates
School Vision, Mission, & Goals
Grade-Level and/or Subject-Level Curriculum
Teaching and Learning in the Classroom

Vertical alignment makes it possible to sail calm or turbulent waters. A school staff takes into account not only the sails and lines, but also the external forces: wind, waves, and shallows. Shifts in politics at the national, state, and local level can bring new district or state accountability systems, high stakes tests, and mandated curricula. A school’s horizontal alignment can either work with or against outside forces, with the wind or against. How does a school prepare for the voyage?

District officials are critical to the success of a school’s plan and model. They can be invaluable for understanding and meeting outside requirements and in securing waivers when necessary. They can bring supplementary resources to the school. In short, fully supportive of reform efforts, they would be the most important and best of allies. U.S. Department of Education researchers stress, “The issue of ‘matching’ is not only about the relationship between schools and their chosen reform models. As important is the fit between the school’s plan for reform and district and state priorities.”

However, it is not as simple as it might seem. For example, the comprehensive reform models call for changes that require autonomy at the school level. For instance, the Modern Red Schoolhouse says, “Schools...should be free to choose the services provided by districts and state offices” (149). Another, the Los Angeles Learning Community, states that educators along with students and parents will “have the opportunity, authority and responsibility for making instructional and governance decisions (including budget)...” (Johnson and McDonald 262). Spokespeople for a third model say, “Expeditionary Learning seeks to place the locus of control for decision making and action as close to the work of teaching and learning as possible” (Campbell et al. 129).

Yet according to researchers, autonomy remains a difficult challenge, mostly because it is a new concept for principals and district leaders. One comprehensive reform model’s design team reports, “Even when there was strong support at the district level, neither district administrators nor school administrators comprehended the full implications of what autonomy could and should be” (Heady and Kilgore 149).

Researchers say that comprehensive reform begins at the central office. It brings a need for training in shifting roles (Asayesh). It is a move toward shared control, from directing to supporting; “The primary functions of central office administrators and staff developers will shift from initiation and organization to support and facilitation at the school site” (Middleton et al. 11). A school staff might want to ask the following questions (and others like them) in order to prepare for the decisions they will need to make as implementation proceeds. The implementation of the comprehensive plan will look very different, depending on whether the answer to a question is “at the school level” or “at the district level.”

• Where are staffing decisions made, that is, decisions on student-to-teacher ratios, the number of counselors, the number of support staff?
• Where are various budget decisions, including personnel costs, made?
• How does the school routinely access funds for purchases of goods and services?
• Where are decisions made on staff development content and scheduling?

Schools need to define roles and get agreements in writing. And it takes more than written agreements; it takes deep understanding on everyone’s part. One district formed a panel composed of central office and school-based administrators, teachers, and parents.

"The Reform Panel reviews initiatives directed at the improvement of teaching and learning conditions in the district that require waivers from school board policy and/ or contract language. It authorizes the creation and modification of educational programs and recommends to the Board of Education waivers to board policy and contract language.” (Middleton et al. 8)

The enthusiasm for transformation can only be sustained by close communication and continued shared learning. Just as school staffs commit to learning and changing to reach their goal of higher achievement for all students, so district staff can join in their planning, implementation, and learning. No one is exempt. As one design team puts it,

"Teachers learn to work together in the same way that their students will learn and work together. Once they have grasped how effectively they can brainstorm, research, and implement a purpose together, they have taken a major step toward believing in empowering their students to do the same thing." (Cohen and Jordan 49)

Jim Meza of Accelerated Schools said, “I feel, personally, that the district role and state role is just as critical as the designer . . . . 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.” (State Education Leader)

"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 et al.)

Conclusion

This Component outlines a process for using past improvement efforts as the basis for the all-inclusive plan that necessarily accompanies the initiation of any comprehensive reform model. The process builds on current strengths and makes use of the talents and expertise in a school and district. Delineation of the process includes a discussion of alignment, both horizontal—across a school—and vertical—from schoolhouse to White House. We also stress the importance of forming an alliance with district-level staff.

References

Asayesh, G. (1994b). The changing role of central office and its implications for staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 15(3), 2-5.

Campbell, M., & al. (1996). The Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound Design. In S. R. Springfield, S., Smith, L. (Ed.), Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools Designs (pp. 109-138). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erhlbaum Associates.

Cohen, A., & Jordan, J. (1996). Audrey Cohen College System of Education. In Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools Designs (pp. 25-51). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erhlbaum Associates.

Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program in the field: An early report. U.S. Department of Education. (2000a). Retrieved from www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/compreform/whatsnew.html

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? (2nd Edition). New York: Teachers' College Press.

Heady, R. &. Kilgore, S. (1996). The Modern Red Schoolhouse. In S. R. Springfield, S., Smith, L. (Ed.), Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools Designs (pp. 139-178). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erhlbaum Associates.

Johnson, J., & McDonald, J. (1996). Los Angeles Learning Centers: An initiative of Los Angeles Unified School District, United Teachers Los Angeles, and Los Angeles Educational Partnership. In S. R. Springfield, S., Smith, L. (Ed.), Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools Designs (pp. 261-288). Mayway, NJ: Lawrence Erhlbaum Associates.

Joyce, B., Wolf, J., & Calhoun, E. (1993). The self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Klein, M., & Perez-Ferreiro. Fitting the pieces, studies of education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Middleton, J. A., Smith A. M., & Williams, D. (1994c). From directing to supporting school initiatives: One district's efforts. Journal of Staff Development, 15(3), 6-9.

Middleton, V. (2000b). A community of learners. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 51-57.

Overcoming barriers to school reform. (1994).Tallahassee, FL: SERVE.

Return to top of page