The Change Process
Restructuring programs and reallocating resources constitute a complex, large-scale change process. Each school studied underwent a fairly comprehensive change process involving many different players. Below we describe the steps that schools, districts, and state and federal policymakers go through in this process.
Step One: Recognizing the Need for Change
The recognition that school change is necessary occurs at many different levels. At the state and federal levels, policy-makers who recognize that changes must be made thrust educational issues to the top of their agendas, promoting standards-based reform and comprehensive school reform through the creation of new incentives and programs for local educators. At the federal level, the changes in Title I "schoolwide" regulations and the new Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program are good examples of this type of effort. Policymakers continually repeat their message that student achievement levels are far too low and changes must be made to raise the achievement level of all students. Both governmental levels seem to understand that within a standards-and-accountability framework, there can be different school strategies all focused on producing greater student performance (Ross, Sanders & Stringfield, 1998). The combination of a consistent message from state and federal policymakers and the creation of new incentives and programs plays an important part in the change process by spurring educational change at the local level.
The combination of a consistent message from state and federal policymakers and the creation of new incentives and programs plays an important part in the change process by spurring educational change at the local level.
At the district level, administrators hear these messages, and, in many cases, the messages serve to reinforce their own concerns about the level of achievement in their district. They begin to take state standards more seriously and may even create new district standards. In any case, they recognize that standards-based reform demands a more rigorous curriculum and begin to either investigate a new district curriculum or encourage schools to revamp their own curriculums. Many districts are recognizing that in order to make these changes, schools need more control over their budgets. Concern over the need to raise achievement levels, coupled with this devolution of authority to school sites, often prompts districts to create new accountability systems and new methods of measuring progress.
At the same time, school administrators are feeling the pressure from state and federal policymakers as they cope with new directives from the district. In many cases, these schools are frustrated with their own achievement levels and are ready to make a change. They recognize that in order to achieve the new goals, they need a stronger curriculum and may need to restructure the school in other ways as well. For example, schools are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with traditional strategies for serving special-needs students students from low-income backgrounds, students with limited English proficiency, and students with mild learning disabilities. They often conclude that pull-out, remedial strategies are ineffective, especially given the more ambitious goals of standards-based reform. As Gary Burtless states on the tapes that accompany this booklet, we have an obligation to educate these children, and schools are beginning to look for new ways of doing that.
In sum, increasing numbers of schools around the country have become energized to dramatically improve their students' performance. They share a common context where rigorous standards are set by state and local policymakers, restructuring agendas are encouraged by all levels, and budgetary authority is being decentralized, making reallocation possible. In addition, there seems to be an understanding that dramatic school improvement (within a state and district standards-and-accountability framework) is up to the individual school.
