Educational reform is nothing new in American society and in fact, we have a long history of educational reform movements dating back to the beginning of this century. As Terry Moe points out “Educational reform has become the new status quo. Every president aspires to be the education president, every governor the educational governor. The reform process has never ended because the reforms have typically led to disappointment—and to constant demands for still more reforms” (DaFour DaFour & Eaker, 2007. pg. 31). Yet despite the many attempts at reform, starting with John Dewey’s “new education movement” reform has not brought the systemic changes and improvements many had envisioned. To understand why educational reform has been stymied I believe we need to examine at the nature and structure of those reform movements and their results.
Dewey’s ideas of a child-centered education gained wide-spread support at the beginning of this century and proliferated across the country. Moving away from the factory model of education to a child-centered vision, which put the interests of the child first, was in my mind a monumental step forward for education. However, progressive education came under attack by counter revolutionary traditionalists for not providing the sustained growth it promised. Later models arising in the second half of the century including the “excellence movement” were also deemed inadequate because they failed to offer a clear direction. The reforms of the “excellence movement” simply called for an intensification of existing practices. The fact that they contained no new ideas may be at the root of our failed reform efforts (DaFour DaFour, & Eaker 2008).
The failure of the top down model of the “excellence movement” brought forward the “restructuring movement” a new model based upon establishing national goals and providing cite based local autonomy. The vision of the “restructuring movement” was articulated by George H. Bush when he called for, “decentralization of authority and decision making responsibility to the school site, so that educators are empowered to determine the means for accomplishing the goals and are to be held accountable for accomplishing them” (Bush 1989). This model while promoting local autonomy and setting national goals was also in my mind empty of real educational reform.
Research on the impact of Bush’s reform efforts found that school practitioners focused on marginal changes that did not address the quality of student learning. I believe the effort was doomed from the start because “teacher praxis” was not even on the radar of educational reform. We simply did not address “how we learn” and how “systemic change” is accomplished in order to be successful. The most recent reform efforts of the George W. Bush administration No Child Left Behind, (NCLB) made many of the same mistakes as his father’s reform efforts did. Setting high national standards, mandating change through top down structuring failed to change the way teachers teach. States were left to decide on their own standards, assessments were inadequate and flawed and the lack of federal funding for essential resources ended the efforts. Petrilli (2007) one of the Bush administrations ‘true believers’ wrote candidly, “Speaking personally, I’ve gradually and reluctantly come to the conclusion the NCLB as enacted is fundamentally flawed and probably beyond repair… I can’t pretend any longer that the law is ‘working’ or that a tweak and a tuck would make it work” (DaFour, DaFaur & Eaker 2008 pg. 43).
What then is necessary for lasting educational reform and real improvement in our educational system? For many educators including myself this raises the issue of what is authentic educational leadership and what are the steps we need to take in order move us in the right direction. DaFour’s detailed analysis of these failed reform efforts reveal a variety of problems, which need to be addressed. I believe his close review can provide us with a starting point in which to begin.
1) Unrealistic Expectations; for example demanding that every child reach 100% proficiency by 2014 is something no country has every achieved.2) The Complexity of the Task; Let us recognize as Fullan writes (1993), “The way that teachers are trained, the way the hierarchy operates, and the way that education is treated by political decision makers results in a system that is more likely to retain the status quo than change” (3).3) Lack of Clarity on Intended Results translated into educators focusing on methods and processes instead of on results. As educators, we need to have clear benchmarks for success and not vague and amorphous concepts.4) Most importantly Lack of Perseverance. Most educators who have been in the system talk about death by new initiative. Lack of continuity and an attitude of “this too shall pass” dooms most schools before they even start. Phil Schlechty (2005) argues persuasively that nothing has been more destructive to school reform than the inability to stay the course and reforms will continue to fail unless systems are put in place to support and sustain improvement. I could not agree more. Failure to understand the “change process,” often results in misguided and failed attempts at reform. Often divergence of opinion, conflict, and cultural differences are viewed as obstacles to change. I question whether we have truly understood the power of cultural conditioning, habituated and reactive thinking to undermine even the most promising of educational reform efforts.5) Lastly, Effective Leadership. All the research shows that without effective leadership no organization has succeeded. The question of what kind of leader or leadership style serves the organization the best has evolved significantly over the last 30 years. The question of whether principals function best when they are instructional leaders, transformational leaders, servant leaders, learning leaders or moral leaders is still a compelling question in educational reform today.
Regardless of the variety of leadership styles, which have evolved the common element among them, all is holding fast to the big idea or hedgehog concept. Level 5 leaders according to Collins “are ambitious first and foremost for the cause, the movement, the mission the work –not themselves-and they have the will to do whatever it takes (whatever it takes) to make good on that ambition” (Collins 2005 p. 11).
Understanding the reasons for failed educational reform in the past can help us inform our decision making today. But it is not enough. We need a clear vision and mission with realistic goals and a strong moral ethos in which to guide those initiatives. I believe we need not only a new model of reform but also a different kind of organizational structure.
The vast amount of research done on Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s) suggests this model has the intrinsic structure to sustain lasting reforms over time. In Breaking the Ranks in the Middle (2006) the NASP organizes 30 recommendations for improving middle schools into three general areas, the first of which calls for “collaborative leadership and professional learning communities” (p.23). However, while support for Professional Learning Communities is extensive and the research profoundly compelling even its main proponents DaFour DaFour & Eaker argue PLC’s have not been implemented in the manner intended. Whenever we seek change whether within ourselves or in organizations we confront the unenviable challenge of preconceived assumptions, reactive thinking and deeply held beliefs about what is right and wrong. John Maynard Keynes summarized my view succinctly, “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping old ones.”
I share Richard Elmore’s summary of the dilemma of school reform efforts when he described the challenge of changing school culture, “The pathology of American Schools is that they know how to change. They know how to change promiscuously and at the drop of the hat. What schools do not know how to do is improve, to engage in sustained and continuous progress toward a performance goal over time” (DaFour, DaFour & Eaker, 2008 p.89). The question of sustained change is not a top down structural issue, which often changes with the winds of new policy initiatives but a new approach to learning. Recent research has shown structural changes rarely impact teacher practice and thus is insufficient to improve schools. There is no magic bullet but there are some guiding principles, which I believe, are necessary for on going and sustained educational reform. Jim Collins argues in Good to Great that “the great organization is one that delivers superior performance and makes a distinctive impact over a long period of time” (Collins, 2005 p. 5). No organization can even begin this process until is can clearly define the overarching goals of its organization. One of the most important goals is building a sense of shared purpose and vision.
Sant Rajinder Singh a spiritual leader and scientist by training who has won many international awards for his new vision of education shared the essence of a guiding vision statement in the following words: “First we need to create a clear sense of mission and vision in which everyone is fully committed. Second, each of us individually needs to live that vision. Our daily thoughts, words and actions need to reflect that vision. Third, we need to share that vision. By share, we mean to actively engage others in conversation about that vision. Finally, each of us should begin to teach that vision.” I am not surprised by the significant body of research, which now corroborates the need for a shared sense of mission and purpose. Researches both within and without education routinely reference its significance both in the improvement process and as an essential element of an effective organization (Blanchard, 2007; Eastward and Seashore Louis, 1992; Fullan, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2006; Newmann & Wehlage, 1996; Schlechtly, 2005). Evidently, graduate schools are no exception in not embracing the importance of clear mission and vision statements as qualities of effective Leadership.