James W. Keefe and Eugene R. Howard

The leader committed to the development of a learning organization in the school
must become a change agent. School design or redesign is an exercise in change. Traditionally, schools have been resistant to comprehensive redesign efforts because well-defined processes for school improvement and suitable instruments for data collection and management have not been available. That is no longer true. The purpose of this publication is to outline and explain the proven change processes and instruments available to school leaders for systematic and systemic school improvement.

Traditional Approaches to Change -- Strengths and Limitations

For the past three decades the prevailing approach to change has been solely diagnostic and prescriptive. The process, which has been perceived as linear, has traditionally consisted of the steps depicted in Figure 3.1.

The first step of the process is intended to uncover the current strengths and weaknesses of the organization. This is followed by priority setting, defining which needs, problems, and/or strengths should be immediately addressed. Plans are then developed (Step 3) and implemented (Step 4). The effectiveness of the implementation effort is monitored (process evaluation) and plans modified as experience indicates. The outcomes of the process are then evaluated and reported.

New priorities for organizational improvement are identified, and the improvement cycle begins again.
Such a process can be effective in implementing incremental and piecemeal change. When focused on generally perceived needs or problems, the process can address the concerns of tile school's staff and the students whose needs are not being adequately met. Needs-generated and problems-generated change can be effective when used as a short-term management strategy. We can and should continue to use these processes for implementing limited change.

There are five reasons, however, why traditional approaches are not likely to result in comprehensive change:

1. The process is basically negative. It is based on the assumption that an effective way to improve a school is to find out what is wrong and then fix it.
2. The surveys used to collect the data for defining change are typically limited to criteria derived from the school effectiveness literature. These assessments often reflect how the school we have can be most effective. The question, "What are the characteristics of the school we need?" may not be adequately addressed.
3. The "needs and problems" approach tends to deemphasize successful practices or organizational characteristics. Focusing on needs or problems precludes the possibility of building peaks of excellence. (School leaders can address this shortcoming by including in their improvement plans a variety of projects aimed at the organization's strengths. One key question might be, "What are we doing that is working well and how can we do more of it and do it better?")
4. Problems, once solved, tend not to stay solved, especially if their basic causes are not addressed.
5. Traditional approaches to change do not address the systemic nature of organizations. The usual outcome of non-systemic change is the selection of interventions directed at one or two of the organization's (systemic) components. This narrow focus results in these components being "out of sync" with the others. When systemic components are "out of sync," missing, or operating ineffectively, the organization malfunctions. (For example, school leaders might choose to implement a block-of-time schedule--a major modification of a school's structure--but fail to adequately train teachers in the teaching strategies needed for the new schedule. Modifications needed in the physical setting may not be made. Curriculum integration may be overlooked.)

W. Edwards Deming (1993, p. 53), addresses these shortcomings in defining his concept of "optimization of a system." He writes:

"Optimization is a process of orchestrating the efforts of all (systemic) components towards the achievement of the stated aim.... Anything less than optimization of the whole system will bring eventual loss to every component in the system."

Systemic Thinking and Comprehensive Design-Based Change

Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline (1990a) describes how the design and production of the DC-3, the world's first commercially feasible passenger aircraft, was dependent on five new "component technologies":

• The variable-pitch propeller
• The retractable landing gear
• A type of light-weight molded body construction called "monocque"
• The radial, air-cooled engine
• Wing flaps.

All five of these systemic components, according to Senge, were essential to the success of the venture. He cites the failure of an earlier design, the Boeing 247, which was introduced with all the critical components but one. Without wing flaps, the plane was unstable on take-off and landing and the engine had to be downsized. It could not carry an adequate load for suitable distances. The later DC-3 design was successful because it provided for systemic integrity. All essential components were included and each component contributed to the effective performance of the others.
Well-defined systems are essential to successful designs, not only of aircraft, but of many kinds of complex products. Through systems thinking we are now able to design, develop, and manufacture highly sophisticated products with interactive, mutually reinforcing "component technologies." Two examples are automobiles with their power-generating, transmission, suspension, electrical, lubricating, braking, and control systems, and spacecraft with their sophisticated propulsion, navigational, control, life support, and communications systems.
Recently we have witnessed successful attempts to design and redesign complex business organizations to make them more productive and responsive to human needs. The time has come for us to apply systemic and strategic thinking to the redesign of schools.

Some Definitions

Deming (1993, p. 50) defines a "system" as a "network of interdependent components that work together to accomplish the aim of the system." All organizations, including schools, can be defined in terms of their interdependent components. Further defining the concept, Deming (1993, p. 51) writes that "A system must have an aim. Without an aim there is no system. The aim must be clear to everyone in the system."
School aims are defined in mission and vision statements and in statements of desired student outcomes. These are two of the "Basic Components" of a School Design Statement. A "design" is a document that defines all the systems in the desired state of an organization. A School Design Statement consists of:

• Basic components
• Systemic components
• Specifications for each systemic component.

"Specifications" are more detailed descriptions of each systemic component that define the elements essential to the school's successful operation. Principals and design team members will find information on which to base specifications in three key sources: CASE-IMS surveys and intervention suggestions (see Chapter 5); locally based literature searches, including the recommendations of national commission reports such as NASSP's Breaking Ranks (see Chapter 6); and the school design team's observations of current successful practices within the school that the team wishes to retain in the new design.

A Comprehensive Design-Based Change Process

A process for implementing design-based, strategic change is summarized in Figure 3.2. A design-based, systemic change process differs from the traditional process defined above in five important ways:

1. A new design is developed for the school; after that point (Step F in the change process), change is design-driven rather than needs or problems-driven.
2. The school's new design is based not only on an assessment of the organization's present state, but also on a literature search (environmental scanning) and other analyses. Information from these analyses is used to define specifications for the organization's design.
3. A strategic action plan is formulated to ensure the design will be realized.
4. The new design is implemented in such a way that all modifications are synchronized. All the design components are addressed systematically as the comprehensive change process is implemented. Priorities are set among the specifications (not the design components).
5. The evaluation process is both formative ("To what extent is the design being implemented'?") and summative ("To what extent are the anticipated outcome objectives being accomplished'?")

This process combines the most practical features of strategic thinking and systemic approaches to change management. The steps of this process are more interactive (less sequential) than the traditional process. Awareness activities (Step B) are usually continuous, accompanying each step of the process. Data collection typically continues as a part of task force activity (Step H) to support implementation efforts. Evaluation is ongoing.

The Design Statement -- Key to Systemic and Strategic Change

A key component of the change process outlined in Figure 3.2 is the School Design Statement, a set of specifications for a desired school of the future (see Figure 3.3). All components defined in such a statement are interdepedent and must be consistent with one another. The total design must be comprehensive; i.e., all components necessary for the operation of the school must be specified. The Design Statement provides the direction and focus for the school's systemic change process.

A comprehensive design consists of 11 components. The first 3 components are basic and must be accomplished. largely at the same time, before the 8 system components are defined (Steps E and F in Figure 3.2). All 11 components are essential to a successfully restructuring school. Figure 3.3 identifies the 3 basic components and 8 systemic components that form the structure of a Design Statement. The basic components define the conceptual base for the design, and the systemic components provide the structure for the action plan (Step G in Figure 3.2). Together they constitute a blueprint for the desired school of the future.

Descriptions of the Three Basic Components

The basic components of the Design Statement establish the conceptual foundation for change and provide the direction for defining the systemic components of the school.
I. Mission and Vision Statements--A mission statement is a relatively brief statement summarizing the purpose or, as Deming would say, the "aim" of the school. It is a succinct answer to the question, "Why do we exist as a school?" A vision statement is a brief statement summarizing the characteristics of the desired school of the future. It is a succinct answer to the question, "What do we want our school to do?" These vision characteristics are defined in detail in the system components of the Design Statement.
II. Culture/Climate Statements--A listing of the descriptors of the culture and climate of the desired school of the future.

A. Descriptors of Culture. Culture, according to Deal (1987, p. 7), "imbues life with meaning and through symbols creates a sense of efficacy and control." Stolp and Smith (1995, p. 11) define culture as "historically transmitted patterns of meaning that include the norms, beliefs, traditions, and myths understood, maybe in varying degrees, by members of the school community." Stolp and Smith also discuss cultural artifacts (including "daily rituals, ceremonies, and icons that are most conspicuous to the casual observer") and underlying assumptions, "the least tangible level of organizational culture" (pp. 29-31). We suggest that this section of a School Design Statement define the desired school culture in terms of three components: values, beliefs, and underlying assumptions; common practices and artifacts; and subcultures.

1. Values, beliefs, and underlying assumptions These descriptors are the belief and value statements and underlying assumptions about the nature of learners, learning, motivation, the purposes of schooling, and school organization that are considered basic to the school's design. These statements are compatible with but more detailed than the mission statement. These philosophical, psychological, and organizational assumptions may not be readily discernible but, nonetheless, strongly influence behavior.
The assumptions underlying the desired school of the future should be defined in a series of sentences or short paragraphs. For example:

• "The school values honesty, caring, fairness, integrity, and respect for each individual's rights in a democratic society."
• "It is a major purpose of the school to prepare students to learn systematically when they no longer have a school to assist them."
• "Students learn best what they select and plan themselves."
• "Learners are all different and have widely varying learning styles."
• "In our school of the future, the basic organizational unit should be the learning team."

2. Common practices and artifacts. These statements identify the common practices ("the way things are done around here") and artifacts (objects) that, in the desired school, define the most visible aspects of the culture. Practices and artifacts that should be identified include decision making procedures, daily routines, rituals, ceremonies, traditions, provisions for rewards and recognition (e.g., honor rolls, athletic letters), games, symbolic objects (e.g., trophies, mascots, photographs of heroes/heroines), and the school's logo. For example:

• "All ceremonies and rituals in the school will be designed to reinforce the value of learning as a means of achieving a satisfying and productive life."
• "Awards ceremonies will emphasize the major values to which the school is dedicated and recognize as many individuals and groups as feasible."

3. Subcultures. These statements define the desirable characteristics of subcultures that will function in the school. Typical school subcultures are student leaders, intellectuals, social groups("preppies"), religious groups, artists, club members, "jocks," "junkies," and gangs. The following characteristics of subcultures should he defined: admission requirements, ceremonies and rituals, customs and traditions, language, shared beliefs and values, dress and grooming, common practices and rules, music and art, symbols, turf, heroes and heroines, methods of governance, methods of transportation. For example: A descriptor for subculture "common practices and rules" might promote personal health, including abstaining from the use of harmful substances. A descriptor for subculture "dress and grooming" might encourage restraint and support schoolwide emblems and dress standards.

B. Descriptors of Climate. The NASSP Task Force on School Environments defined school climate as "the relatively enduring pattern of shared perceptions--by teachers, students, parents, and community members--of the characteristics of a school and of its members." Determinants of the school's climate should be identified and defined in this section. The NASSP School Climate Survey has 10 subscales that define various climate characteristics that should be addressed; e.g., Teacher-Student Relationships, Student Academic Orientation, Student Behavioral Values, Parent and Community-School Relationships., etc. (See the survey instrument for additional components.) For example:

• "Teachers are fair to students." (Teacher-Student Relationships)
• "Students here understand why they are in school." (Student Academic Orientation)
• "Most students would do their work even if the teacher stepped out of the classroom." (Student Behavioral Values)
• "Most people in the community help the school in one way or another." (Parent and Community-School Relationships).

III. Student Goals and Outcomes Statement--A listing of four to six broad competencies that are seen as essential for students to participate in the emerging 21st century society and economy. These outcomes describe the performance expectations of the school. A well-developed outcomes statement is the most effective vision statement for the school. The descriptors form the basis for the school's curriculum and assessment system. For example:

• "Graduates will be complex thinkers, able to use basic and higher order cognitive skills to solve everyday problems, to analyze, plan, and manage personal affairs, and to generate successful solutions to demanding challenges."

Descriptions of the Eight Systemic Components

The systemic components are the interdependent operations of the school--those organizational elements that must be present and functioning smoothly for the school to implement its three basic commitments: mission/vision, culture/climate, and student goals/outcomes. The systemic components are responsive to the question, "What are the operational characteristics of the school we want?" Each systemic component must be focused on operationalizing one or more of the basic components and must be compatible with all basic components. Each of the systemic components should be defined in short, descriptive paragraphs called specifications. These components of the School Design Statement are explained below and examples are given of typical implementation practices that would be written as specifications.

1. Curricula and Instructional Programs: Short, descriptive paragraphs defining the kinds of curriculum content and learning opportunities that will be offered. These descriptors must be consistent with the assumptions and the student outcomes statement. The design team should base its specifications on the best in educational research and practice and the recommendations of educational demographers and futurists. Content should be compatible with national or state published standards and district requirements. Example: The design team prepares a partial listing of the School's curriculum elements, i.e., concepts, processes, issues, skills, and selected content requisite to specified student outcomes. Prerequisite: A literature search.
2. Instructional Techniques: Short descriptive paragraphs defining those teaching techniques chosen by the school because research or best practice suggests they have been successful in accomplishing the desired student outcomes (see Keefe and Jenkins, 1996). These techniques must be consistent with the school's philosophical, psychological, and organizational assumptions. These descriptors should spell out the defined professional role of the teacher and recommended teaching methods and strategies. Technology uses should be included. Examples: Several nationally-recognized designs recommend elements of this component; e.g., the NASSP report, Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution (1996), the Carnegie Council's Turning Points (1989), the Coalition of Essential Schools' Common Principles (Sizer, 1989), the Learning Environments Consortium's Model of Personalized Education, and the University of Wisconsin Restructuring Center's Framework for School Restructuring. (See A Leaders Guide to School Restructuring, NASSP, 1992.)
3. School Structure and Organization: A section describing how the school will be structured so that the envisioned student outcomes can be accomplished. The structure of the school must support and facilitate all other components of the design. This section should include descriptors of the desired school schedule, calendar, curricular structure, cocurricular (activity) structure, guidance structure, and use of technology. Key specifications should make clear the nature of learning environments both within and outside the school and teacher planning arrangements. Examples: Block schedules, year-round calendar, continuous progress arrangements, community-based learning, interdisciplinary teaching teams, schools within the school, adviser-advisee structure, student activity program, computer and other technology accommodations, and interactive learning arrangements. (Some schools may choose to subdivide this component or to create a separate component for "student support services," to include guidance, discipline, and student activities.)
4. School Leadership, Management, and Budgeting: Descriptors defining how the planning, decision-making, and budgeting processes will be managed. Technology uses should be carefully specified. This section should include descriptions of how the school's site-based management will be expected to function. Examples: the functions of the school leadership team, the school improvement management team (SIMT) and/or the school design team; the school's decision-making model, particularly if a participative approach is used; school budgeting processes, including procedures for technology use and for staff, student, and parent/community input into budget setting.
5. School Staffing and Staff Development: Descriptors of the primary staffing roles, the teacher workplace, teacher hiring and induction policies, and staff development priorities and strategies. The descriptors should define the structures and processes of the learning organization needed to facilitate the continuing professional growth of all staff members (growth plans). Examples: staffing relationships such as faculty (teacher) roles vs. staff (everyone else) roles; mentorships; collaborative literature reviews; supportive teacher evaluation procedures; professional development and motivation strategies; and staff/student participation in teacher hiring.
6. Communication and Political Structures: Descriptions of the school's internal and external communication links. In addition to providing vertical and horizontal flowcharts outlining the internal relationships, this section should define articulation processes with sending and receiving schools, system relationships within the district and community, and connections with important political entities such as the local government, intermediate units, and the state department of education. Examples: School staff members provided with telephones, voice mail, and networking capabilities for enhanced communication; formation of a committee to develop a common core of learning that articulates the views of state, district, and building levels; agreements about support for the school's restructuring initiatives; school-business partnerships; defined working relationships between the school, health services, and social services agencies.
7. School Resources, Physical Plant, and Equipment: Descriptors of the envisioned physical plant, the equipment needed to support the planned curricular design, and the coordination of school and community resources, human and fiscal. Examples: Sketches and explanation of physical facilities such as teacher planning rooms or offices and student project areas required by the new programs; learning labs to facilitate active learning; seminar rooms; the technology needed for computer networks to support individualized record keeping; Prodigy, America Online, and/or Internet to enhance student access to learning resources.
8. Evaluation Plan: Specifications for evaluation and reporting systems that will inform all members of the school community about existing school and student characteristics and about the extent to which the design is being implemented and the desired student outcomes are being accomplished--a new accountability. A comprehensive plan is needed that integrates the school context, inputs, processes, and outcomes. Examples: program assessment based on NASSP's CASE-IMS (see Chapter 5); a supportive teacher performance appraisal system; a developmental or reflective practice model of supervision; student assessment and progress reporting options--authentic and performance assessment communicated by contract, by conferences, or by exhibitions and portfolios.

Text from Redesigning Schools for the New Century: A Systems Approach, Chapter 3, NASSP, Reston Virginia, 1997; used with permission of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. For more information about NASSP services/programs, call 703-860-0200, or visit www.principals.org

Top of Page