Darlene Y. Bruner
Associate Professor
and
Bobbie J. Greenlee
Assistant Professor
Abstract - This
paper used the metaphor of "grafting" to describe the relationship of
comprehensive school reform designs to the work culture of the schools. This
study focused on the characteristics of school work culture that embrace
external school reform models. One school reform model that has widespread
implementation is the Success for All (SFA) reading program. The new practice provided in the SFA
reading program offered a compatible "graft" onto the existing
culture found in low achieving schools. Schools adopt reform programs that offer procedural or curricular
changes that fit within their existing systems. However, when the school
culture becomes the catalyst for change and expertise for innovation is
centered in the school, then schools can design interventions that work better
than external school reform models.
Analysis of School Work Culture in Schools
That Implement
Schools have been struggling for decades to prepare
students for the world of work, as well as to meet the ever-changing demands of
the political agendas at the local, state and national levels that govern
schooling decisions (Sarason, 1990). Schools are faced with the almost impossible challenge of educating
a growing at-risk population. The social demands placed on schools raise
questions about the feasibility of current programs and services. Programs and
services are coming under scrutiny as schools attempt to meet the achievement
levels set by their states. Consequently, more schools are looking to outside
experts for help in meeting those demands
Schools have been in a state of restructuring or
reform since the 1980s. The target of change and reform has been the structure
of the schools (Deal & Peterson, 1994).
Some reform efforts work to improve structural variables, such as
governance and assignment of personnel, while others work on procedures like
schedules and learning environment. Still others focus on instruction by
working on content and teaching strategies. Many of these efforts overlook the
fact that change requires cultural transitions and transformations in addition
to the technical challenge of change.
Technical approaches help manage what is happening on the surface. The impact of change on cultural patterns is often not considered as the technological and managerial
changes are applauded. The changes made in schools have been incremental, are
not linked to student success and do not last (Patterson, 2000). These changes
barely disturb the conventional roles and practices found in the work culture
of schools.
Whole school reform models are relatively new to
public education. Most have come about within the last decade and vary in their
approaches. Comprehensive school reform focuses simultaneously on all elements
of a school’s environment and aligns them with a central, guiding vision for
school improvement (Keltner, 1998). With increasingly
more schools "shopping" around for the best model, we must ask, “what
is it about the culture of a school that embraces externally developed
comprehensive school reform models to improve student achievement?” Do schools choose reform models that are most
compatible with their existing work culture? If the selected model itself
promotes a culture of conformity and compliance in low achieving schools might
it sustain low student performance?
The primary purposes of this paper were: 1) to explore
the characteristics of school work culture that embrace external school reform
models; 2) to examine if schools choose reform models that are most compatible
with their existing work culture; and 3) to consider the possibility that the
selected model itself promotes a culture of conformity and compliance in low
achieving schools and therefore sustains low student performance. This
investigation looks at the comprehensive school reform model Success for All
(SFA) and the work culture of six elementary schools. In the school year following the study on
school work culture, the three low achieving schools implemented the SFA
program.
School work culture is defined as the psychological
and social forces that influence the direction and the quality of work of the
adults within the school. Bruner and Greenlee (2000) found that schools grouped
by student achievement have significantly different work cultures. High
achieving schools were found to be more collaborative than low achieving
schools and had environments that supported the design and redesign of programs
to meet the needs of students.
We use the metaphor of "grafting" to describe
the relationship of comprehensive school reform designs to the established work
culture of the schools. A metaphor is a figure
of speech where a comparison is made between two
seemingly unrelated objects. It is transference of one object’s characteristics
onto another. Metaphors are used to actively construct meaning and influence
thinking. Several works in qualitative research methodology (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000; Janesick, 2000) mention the importance of looking at
metaphorical constructs in interpretation. The “grafting” metaphor constructs
and clarifies the comprehensive school reform design concepts
allowing us to reason about them in different ways.
In gardening, grafting involves attaching the cutting of
a desired plant to the rootstock of another vigorous plant. It introduces a new
or different “shoot” onto a healthy plant that has grown naturally in another
environment. The purposes for grafting plants are: to
boost productivity, to increase resistance to pests, to facilitate
reproduction, to repair damage, or to grow a plant in an unfamiliar environment
by combining it with a host that is well-adapted to that environment. The
practices of gardeners in grafting help clarify and structure this discussion
of school work culture and schoolwide
reform models.
Schools, like other organizations, develop a culture of
behavioral norms that respond to the environment, to the people who work in the
organization, and to those they serve (Deal & Peterson, 1998). Culture is
the "it" that survives and produces continuity. It persists, even
after the organizational structure, physical assets, and people change (Hurst
& Zimmerman, 1994). It shapes a school’s motivation, commitment, effort,
expectations, and focus (Peterson, 1999). Culture is the "rootstock"
of the organization and supports or rejects any new growth. In gardening, when
the shoot of one plant is successfully grafted to the rootstock of another, the
combined plant has the strength of the old roots and the vitality of the new
shoots. Any "graft" onto the "rootstock" of schools, therefore,
has to be compatible with and is dependent upon the vigor of the culture.
School reformers, or the “gardeners,” have been very
productive. Through their models, reformers propagate their own unique and
sometimes hybrid plants. One school reform model that has had widespread implementation is the Success for All
reading program. Robert Slavin, Nancy Madden, and a team of developers from
SFA requires strict
adherence to a structured reading curriculum with supervision and coordination
by a reading facilitator. The school's reading facilitator works to oversee the
operation of the SFA model and helps teachers with implementation. Each session
is highly scripted, so that at any given minute, an observer should be able to
hear virtually the same thing in every class from both teachers and students (Slavin & Madden, 2001).
Existing Rootstock
In a study that
examined the features of school work culture and
student achievement, Bruner (in Snyder, Acker-Hocevar,
& Snyder, 2000) found that schools with more developed and responsive work
cultures generate more effective school-wide responses to the changing needs of
students. These responses result in greater levels of student success. The
study addressed the work culture patterns found in both high and low achieving
schools. The achievement levels
in these schools were identified by the state based on their standardized test
scores in reading, writing, and math.
Using the School
Work Culture Profile (SWCP) (Snyder, 1988), field observations, archival data,
teacher and parent surveys, and principal interviews, Bruner found low
achieving schools were constrained within bureaucratic cultures and were
reliant on models of conformity and compliance. The SWCP provides descriptive
information on levels of staff involvement in the work culture. It was designed to obtain a measure of professional involvement
in the school’s work patterns that have developed over time.
Method
Participants
Six
elementary schools were studied to help identify overall work culture trends
and patterns. These schools reflected high and low student achievement based on
Florida Vital Signs criterion. The academic indicators are the school scores
for two years on nationally normed standardized tests
for Reading Comprehension, Math Concepts and Applications, and the Florida
Writes test. Three of the schools studied were high achieving schools and met
the criteria (33% of the students at the 50th percentile or above)
for at least five of the six academic indicators. Three schools studied met the
criteria for only one or two of the six academic indicators and were considered
to be low achieving schools. The designation of low
and high achieving was made by the researchers and was
not a label used by the state of
Demographic
information characterized high achieving schools as having higher student and
staff attendance, and lower levels of poverty and minority students. However,
one school in the high achieving group had a relatively high proportion of
students eligible for free and reduced lunch (60%) and
a high percentage of minority students (41%). This school had been receiving
Title I services. Title I provides additional money from the federal government
to enhance personnel and material resources for schools with high poverty
rates. All low achieving schools were Title I schools with higher than the
district average eligible for free or reduced lunch.
Instrument
The School Work
Culture Profile (SWCP) was used with teachers and
administrators from the six elementary schools. Participation was voluntary and
of those surveyed, 144 or 69% participated.
The
SWCP contains 60 five point Likert-type items ranging
from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. The
items pertain to school work practices and are
organized into four subscales: 1) Organizational Planning; 2) Professional Development;
3) Program Development, and 4) School Assessments. Each subscale has 15 items
such that scores range from 15 to 75, with scores indicating levels of staff
involvement in the school’s work patterns. These scores can
be summed to obtain a total score that ranges from 60 to 300, measuring
the construct of work culture within an organization or system. According to
Snyder (1988), school’s work culture refers to the collective practices of
planning, organizing, delivering, monitoring, and assessing as related to
teaching and learning. The combined score provides information regarding the
work patterns found in high and low achieving schools.
The SWCP has been
subject to several validation and reliability studies. These studies provide
high reliability estimates and evidence for construct validity of the SWCP
(Johnson, Snyder & Johnson, 1992; Parkinson, 1990). For the present sample,
reliability coefficients, as measured by Cronbach’s
Coefficient Alpha were as follows: low achieving schools (.96), high achieving
schools (.99), and the total sample (.98). The magnitude of these reliability
estimates of the total scale was consistent with the alphas reported in
previous reliability studies (.95 and above).
The
SWCP provides information on the strength of the school’s interaction system in
the planning, development, delivery and assessment of programs and services.
The SWCP was developed based upon a systems model of
collaborative school management, and assesses the level of staff involvement
(Snyder & Anderson, 1986).
Data Analysis
School Work Culture Profile
Using the SWCP, an
instrument that measures work cultures in distinct ways, we have found that
schools grouped based on student achievement have significantly different work
cultures. High achieving schools had a higher overall mean score (244.15) than
the low achieving schools (231.72) on the SWCP (Bruner & Greenlee, 2000).
Schools with lower achievement had primarily moderately developed school work cultures, while the schools with higher
achievement had primarily highly developed school work cultures. There was a
significant difference (p<0.0002; df=2)
between the high and low achieving schools on the SWCP.
It has been suggested that an index of the practical
significance can be derived from an effect size estimate (Cohen, 1977; Harris
& Rosenthal, 1985; Rosenthal, 1983). The effect size represents the
magnitude of the difference between the means of the two groups. It is figured by taking the difference of the means and then
dividing by the standard deviation for the high achieving schools group. Using
Cohen’s (1988) criteria, that a correlation of 0.5 is large, 0.3 is moderate,
and 0.1 is small, all effect sizes corresponding to the differences in means
between the high and low achieving schools were moderate to large. The effect
size statistics suggest notable differences between the two groups (Table 1).
Table 1
SWCP Subscale Means by Performance Group
SWCP Subscales |
Low
Schools
|
High
Schools
|
Effect Size |
||
|
M |
SD |
M |
SD |
|
Planning |
57.54 |
7.26 |
61.29 |
10.87 |
.52 |
Program Development |
60.25 |
7.47 |
63.10 |
11.76 |
.38 |
Staff Development |
58.59 |
7.87 |
60.98 |
11.97 |
.30 |
Assessment |
55.35 |
8.28 |
58.79 |
10.24 |
.41 |
The
Planning subscale of the SWCP examines goal setting, work group planning, and
staff performance. The difference in subscale scores suggested high achieving
schools aligned people to accomplish goals while the low achieving schools
established structures for the people to follow. Planning in low achieving
schools focused on efficiency rather than effectiveness.
The
dimensions probed in the Program Development subscale are instructional
management and resource development. The teachers in high achieving schools
focused on improving student performance and searching for solutions. Improving
instruction in the low achieving schools relied on a “teacher proof”
instructional program.
The
Staff Development subscale investigates staff development, clinical supervision
and work group development. Teaching teams in high achieving schools worked to
meet the needs of students and explored alternative methods of instruction.
Teacher training focused on student achievement rather than teacher interests. In
the low achieving schools, teachers tended to work in isolation and were trained in standardized methods of instruction.
The
Assessment subscale examines quality control and assessment. The high achieving
schools monitored student performance in a variety of ways throughout the school
year and revised their action plans in response to feedback. Low achieving
schools monitored teacher performance and deviations from the school’s plan.
Their actions were revised based on events.
Field Data Analysis
In
addition to the SWCP, data sets consisted of multiple sources of evidence.
Information was gathered through interviews of school
personnel, direct observations, analysis of school system documents, and
analysis of existing school survey data. When analyzed across data sets, clear
distinctions appeared in the work culture of the high and low achieving
schools.
The school improvement plans in low
achieving schools focused on providing material resources, reducing adult-pupil
ratio by adding staff, and training faculty in various teaching strategies. The
action plan depended on external resources and the implementation of programs
designed by outside experts. Evaluation of the success of the plan was not tied to student performance, but rather to improved
teacher performance. These institutionalized improvement plans led to an
emphasis on mechanisms such as prescriptions, tightly specified resource
allocations, and teacher performance measures as indicators of success. The
assumption was that reduced class size, abundant materials, and training teachers
to implement programs would improve student performance.
Leaders in low
achieving schools functioned as managers of processes, not as change agents
exploring new ways to ensure student success. Mandates from the state maintained
the bureaucratic orientation toward schooling and called for consistency and
standardization of content as the means to excellence and achievement. These
principals saw their roles as providing procedures to limit deviations from
school improvement plans. Deviations were viewed as
problems, rather than opportunities. These
principals delegated responsibility for carrying out plans and then monitored
their implementation.
Teachers in the
low achieving schools were more likely to work in isolation. Working in
isolation did not lend itself to the sharing of successful ideas and
strategies, nor did it cultivate innovation. Rather than initiating
innovations, these teachers looked to experts for program development in their
schools. There did not appear to be a systematic process in place to promote
new learning. Less discussion, less sharing of knowledge translated into
protecting the status quo and kept many desired improvements from becoming institutionalized. Isolationism was a barrier to
new learning and change.
At the time of this study, the SFA
reading program, a whole school reform model, was introduced to the low achieving schools.
Teachers in these schools were given time to learn about the program and to
visit SFA schools. The SFA program was implemented in
all of these schools the following year after a vote by secret ballot showed
that more than 80 percent of the teaching staff favored its adoption.
Grafting
On to Existing Rootstock
The
Success for All reading program, like other reform
models, can only be grafted onto existing systems.
Grafting combines the strength and persistence of the old and the energy and
hope of the new. As in gardening, there must be compatibility with the existing
root system in order for the new graft to thrive. The new practices provided in
the SFA reading program offered a compatible graft onto the existing culture of
these low achieving schools.
The
SFA program fits into the
culture of compliance and predictability found in low achieving schools and
offered a way to standardize teaching. The
allure of ready-made materials and lesson plans used in the program eased
demands on teachers' time. Teachers only had to learn how to implement the
program and follow its components. The
success of the program depended upon a teacher’s willingness and ability to
implement it. The responsibility for student learning was
then shifted from the teacher to the program since compliance with the
script was expected to improve achievement.
It was easy for these
schools to adopt the training model provided in SFA. SFA training provided
detailed manuals and sessions that focused on the implementation of the reading
program (Slavin & Madden, 2001). The SFA experts made the decisions regarding the
workshop design and the knowledge base needed by the teachers. The role of the
teacher was to listen, learn and implement. Fidelity to the SFA program
shaped any decisions the teachers might make while teaching the program.
Teachers were required to limit deviations from the program. Their task was to
become implementers of the program.
The principals in low
achieving schools emphasized inspecting teacher behavior and advancing school
goals through teacher training. By purchasing an off-the-shelf program,
overburdened administrators recognized they would gain relief from some of the
pressures to perform well on state-mandated tests and the teachers would only
have to learn how to implement the program. Schools contracted support from the
developer to assist in the monitoring of teachers as they implemented the
program.
SFA offered these schools a
reading program that was a "complete" package – a research-based,
scripted, teacher-proof curriculum and training. It structured the use of
personnel and schedules, monitored the implementation, and assessed the progress
of students. The program was not really a significant change from the way these
schools had been operating. It was whole-group instruction that followed a
textbook, was time driven, and subject specific. Within the
context of their own school's culture, teachers grafted on what they considered
appropriate strategies for change. It was easier to encourage what grew
naturally within the school than to radically alter the environment.
Did these low achieving
schools choose the reform model that was most compatible with their existing
work culture? A pre-packaged program like SFA allowed the school to incorporate
instructional change without fundamentally changing the organization. It was prescriptive, not creative and offered structures to schools
that relied on conformity and compliance. The focus was not about
improving a teacher’s capacity to teach reading, but rather about teacher
compliance to a scripted program.
Implications
Clearly, not every school
culture would embrace the Success for All reading program and expect it to
thrive. Teachers who are encouraged to make their own diagnoses and judgments
are not likely to welcome the new role of implementers rather than innovators.
A salient predictor of success of the SFA program is teacher buy-in. The very
act of voting for a prescriptive program may be an indicator of a school
culture that is unable to sustain teacher involvement in curricular decisions.
Cultures that embraced
externally developed programs were found in schools
with low student achievement. The work culture of these schools was
bureaucratic and, in practice, authoritarian. Changes did not reflect the
initiative of teachers, but came from reform programs that used strategies that
maintained the conventional roles and practices of teachers. The work culture
endorsed compliance to authority and rules, and teachers conformed to what was expected of them. In an effort to improve, they looked
to the experts and their reform models for assistance.
An externally developed
program was grafted onto the unhealthy
"rootstock" of these schools. Both the schools and the program failed
to produce high quality results (Greenlee & Bruner, 2001). In fact,
there is now a large and consistent set of independent studies concluding that
there is no effect from SFA or any other schoolwide
reform model (Pogrow, 2002). In schools, as in
gardening, the graft cannot repair a damaged root. Rather, the growth of a
successful graft is strengthened by a hearty
rootstock, and the best "rootstock" is a healthy and supportive
culture.
Certain fixed truths in the science of grafting persuade our
understanding of the temporal nature of school reform. The growth of a
successful graft is sustained by the rootstock, but
the genetics of the roots will persist. In other words, if a shoot forms
beneath the graft it will reflect the genetics of the root. Unless those “wild
shoots” are pruned out, the rootstock will nurture the shoots, resulting in the
profusion of the parent plant and the gradual decline of the grafted plant.
When schools “graft” on the externally developed strategies of school
reform models, there is usually a profusion of
the “wild shoots” of teacher adaptations to the program. Some of the schoolwide models use scripted lessons and teacher-proof curriculum as a way of “pruning out” the persistent
new growth from the “root.” However, reform efforts usually give way to the
persistence of school culture. The dynamics of the culture alters any
innovation to the point that ten years after any
school implements change, regardless of the type, no trace can be found of that
change except in the memories of those who were there at the time (Tye, 2000).
Schools possess a clear sense of identity, which is the values,
traditions, competencies, and culture that guide the work. There is a tendency
to think that isolation and strong boundaries preserve that identity. When the
environment demands a change, the organization changes in such a way that it
remains consistent with what has gone on before (Wheatley, 1999). Schools adopt
reform programs that offer procedural or curricular changes that fit within
their existing systems. The grafting on of a new program will be successful as
long as its requirements do not stray from the existing traditions of the
system (Schlechty, 2001).
It seems that guiding change can only be done by
challenging the natural tendencies of the cultures in low achieving schools to
new ends. Changing the work culture requires more than implementing a program,
rather, it demands creating a new work culture by redefining the roles and
practices of the teacher. The new work culture is information oriented and
flexible with more organizational communication and participation. It is characterized by personnel who seek greater autonomy and
control over their work. Sharing, collegiality, empowerment, and
leadership are characteristics commonly found in schools attempting to generate
and sustain cultural improvement.
Studies have found compelling evidence for improving school culture. Fyans and Maehr (1990) found that
students are more motivated to learn in schools with strong cultures. Thacker
and McInerney (1992) found significant effects on
student achievement in elementary schools when the school focused on creating a
new mission statement, created goals based on outcomes for students, aligned
the curriculum to meet those goals, and provided professional growth
opportunities. School culture also correlates with teacher productivity and
satisfaction. Cheng (1993) found that school cultures with strong commitment,
shared participation, intimacy, and strong leadership had more motivated
teachers.
For schools to flourish, the culture of the school must be nurtured to
the point that the grafted reform initiatives will take hold
and grow and produce the desired outcomes. Grafting reform efforts
presume that the rootstock is prepared, willing and able to offer the nutrients
required for high yields. Reform efforts require the best that the particular
school context is capable of delivering. What is the best context? It is a
school context with people that have visions and expectations and contribute to
the growth of new methods. The best context is a school that recognizes and
nurtures quality. The school culture becomes the catalyst for change, and
expertise for innovations is centered in the school.
If a robust culture is in place, then a school can propagate its own
innovations and design interventions that are more successful than external
school reform models.
References
Adams,
M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Bruner,
D. Y. & Greenlee, B. J. (2000). Measures of work culture in high and low
performance schools. Research in the
Schools, 7 (2), 71-76.
Cheng,
Y. C. (1993). Profiles of organizational culture and
effective schools. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4 (2), 85-110.
Cohen,
J. (1977). Statistical
power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Cohen,
J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for
the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools.
Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (1998). Shaping school culture: The heart of
leadership.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and teacher
education, 16, 5-6, 523-545.
Fyans, M. G.
& Maehr, M. L. (1990). School culture, student ethnicity, and
motivation.
Greenlee, B. J. & Bruner, D. Y. (2001). Effects of schoolwide reform strategies on Title I schools using
Success for All compared to Title I schools using other literacy enhancing
strategies. Education, 122 (1),
177-188.
Harris, M. J. & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of
interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363-386.
Hurst, D. & Zimmerman, B. (1994). From life cycle to ecocycle: A new perspective on the growth, maturity,
destruction, and renewal of complex systems. Journal of Management Inquiry, 3 (4), 339-354.
Janesick, V.J. (2000). The choreography
of qualitative research design. In N. K. Denzin
and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 379-399).
Johnson, W. L., Snyder, K. J., & Johnson, A. M. (1992). Developing instruments for educational administration: An
exposition using primary and second-order factor analysis. National Forum for Applied Educational
Research Journal, 6 (1), 3-11.
Kauffman,
D. L. & Hirumi, A. (1992). Ten steps to “TQM
Plus”. Educational Leadership, 50
(3), 33-34.
Keltner, B.R. (1998). Funding comprehensive school reform.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994).
Qualitative data analysis – an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
Parkinson,
A. (1990). An examination of the
reliability and factor structure of the school work
culture profile instrument.
Patterson, W. (2000). Grounding school
culture to enable real change. Education
Digest, 65 (9), 4-8.
Peterson,
K. (1999). Time use flows from school culture: River of values and traditions
can nurture or poison staff development hours. Journal of Staff Development, 20 (2).
Retrieved on-line
Pogrow, S.
(2002). Success for all is a failure. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (6), 463-468.
Rosenthal,
R. (1983). Assessing the statistical and social importance of
the effects of psychotherapy. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 4-13.
Sarason, S.B. (1990).
The predictable failure of
educational reform: Can we change course before it's
too late?
Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse: How to support
and sustain educational innovation.
Slavin, R. E.
(1995). Research
on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
Slavin, R. E. & Madden, N. (2001). Success for all: Research and reform in
elementary education.
Snyder,
K. J. (1988). School
work culture profile.
Snyder, K. J., Acker-Hocevar, M., &
Snyder, K. S. (2000). Living on
the edge of chaos: Leading schools into the global age.
Snyder, K. J. & Anderson, R. H. (1986). Managing productive schools: Toward an ecology.
Thacker, J. L. & McInerney, M.
(1992). Changing
academic culture to improve student achievement in the elementary schools.
ERS Spectrum, 10(4), 18-23.
Tye, B. B. (2000). Hard truths: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling.
Wheatley,
M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new
science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.).