A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Theme 2: Individual Capacity Interacts and Is Interdependent with Organizational Capacity

My goal is to have all students ready to take algebra in the ninth grade.... About half the kids are ready when they leave here; some may never be. And that is really not because of me. Sometimes it's frustrating because I'm only one year in eight. Sometimes I feel like I make no difference at all. Generally, the kids who test well at the beginning of the year will test well at the end...

Even at this most basic level, it is easy to see how the ability of a given teacher to help her students reach the standards may be improved as the capacity of others in the school or district increases. Yet the relationship between teacher capacity and organizational or systemic capacity is at once more complex and more direct than the multiple influences on students would suggest.

Communities of Practice

An important aspect of these contexts are the communities of practice formed by teachers' relationships with other professionals inside and outside the school. These professional communities may be institutionalized (as in California's League of Middle Schools) or more fluid (as in groups that collaborate on more short-term projects such a the scoring of assessments in Vermont or the evaluation and selection of texts in California) (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995). As in the preceding examples, some of the important communities of practice exist outside the school, or even outside the school system as such. Many of our respondents in Vermont and California, for example, pointed to inter-school, cross-district or national subject matter networks such as the Urban Math Coalition, Project 2061, or the Writing Project, as critical avenues for their development and support.

Teacher Capacity and the School Context

Our data also indicate that there are a number of ways in which the capacity of the individual teacher interacts with and is dependent upon the capacity of the school. Several respondents pointed out, for example, that the ability of individual teachers to make use of the knowledge and skills they bring to the teaching situation is affected by the receptivity and support of colleagues in the school. For this reason, some of the Subject Matter Projects (SMPs) in California have begun recruiting teams of teachers from schools to participate in the summer workshops. "Otherwise there is no real effect because teachers are alone--and lonely--in the school." One teacher expressed the importance of this support by describing her experience when she transferred to a less reform-oriented school:

I left here for one year to be a resource teacher at [another school in the district,] I got tired of always begging for money, always fundraising. The other school had a lot of resources because of desegregation. There, the teachers were having things given to them--like they had the writing project at the school and were paid to take it! But you have to internalize it. I spent a year trying to convince the folks there, but they had no beliefs in what they were doing, no beliefs in the kids. They don't even like each other that much.... And one little person cannot change a school. The teachers have to believe in making the changes. They have to seek out information, take classes, and then be able to implement them. But if they don't have the support to implement them, it just won't happen.

While this teacher stressed that one teacher could not effect change alone, and others spoke to the importance of having a "critical mass" of reform-minded teachers, many respondents also noted that a single inspirational and knowledgeable leader may be instrumental for eventually creating that critical mass of support for change.

Just as low capacity schools may prevent teachers from making full use of their existing knowledge and skills, schools that are high in capacity--or at least open to change--can provide additional avenues for individual growth and learning as the community of teachers share ideas, model effective practices, and support each other in their efforts to solve problems of practice. Moreover, the solutions that develop from such collaboration are likely to be more effective that anything a single teacher working alone might devise. The old adage "two heads are better than one" might apply well here. More to the point, one might argue that the capacity of the school (or organizational unit) is greater than the sum of the capacities of its members taken individually. Examples of teachers using collective wisdom to solve problems abound in these data--everything from designing curriculum and developing new forms of assessment and evaluation to meeting in families to address specific needs of specific children. Typical comments included the following:

We've spent a lot of time working together to develop the challenges.... Because we don't have a lot of resources, we use each other and resources from the community.... We work together mainly in developmental work groups because we will have a better idea of what is appropriate for students in the range of ages around those we usually teach.

In the villages [middle school families] the teachers work closely with one another, which has led us to be much more effective in student intervention.

This discussion on the interdependence of organizational and individual capacity suggests that reform strategies should pay attention not only to promoting professional development of individual teachers but to building the capacity of schools and other educational organizations as well. Like that of individuals, however, the capacity of organizations consists of a number of complex and interdependent dimensions.

Dimensions of Organizational Capacity

Vision and Leadership. A school/departmental vision or collective sense of purpose has been identified as an important aspect of successful and improving schools since the effective schools literature of the 1970s (e.g., see Edmonds, 1979 or Purkey and Smith, 1983; for more recent discussion see, for example, McLaughlin, 1993). The importance of school mission was a recurring theme among respondents in this study--particularly those from the four California schools, which were engaged in the most far-reaching changes in curriculum and instruction in this sample. The following comment from one of those teachers was characteristic of this theme.

Another need is having time to create a vision of what you are trying to do as a school.... Before you make changes, it's important to see a vision of where you are going. Then you can try things [to get there].

Not all schools in this study had well formed visions. For those that did, the particular form of the visions varied--from interdisciplinary project-based curricula to multi-age two-way bilingual education to detracking and performance-based assessment to some combination thereof. But by and large, the visions--either of the school as a whole or of the relevant sub-unit within it--incorporated a focus on curriculum and instruction, improved achievement for all students, and teacher responsibility for student learning. Respondents also emphasized the importance of leadership for helping to articulate the vision and mobilize the organization to support it. These themes mirror those at other levels of the system, discussed in Chapter 4.

Collective Commitment and Cultural Norms to Realize the Vision. Many American schools have a vision or mission statement, some of them quite eloquent. But a vision without the commitment to work towards its realization is unlikely to yield much progress. In the most actively reforming schools in this sample, we found that not only were individual teachers committed to the goals, but there was also a sense of collective commitment and responsibility for students in that school or family unit. One indication of this was that responses from teachers in these schools began with "we" as often as with "I." Another was in the way that they talked about their students.

You have to have the whole school commitment. Also, one thing you have to change is the idea that 'these are my students.' When they go to other projects, you lose control over your kids' learning. Some teachers have a hard time with this. This has been one of our hardest leaps.

These schools went beyond general commitment and responsibility, however. In addition, they displayed a set of cultural norms that stressed on-going reflection and improvement. They were also developing and using specific tools and processes to help them evaluate progress toward the learning goals, with the intention that these processes would become institutionalized.

The articulation (of the English curriculum) is a work in progress. This school never thinks anything is final, formed in cement. Things can always be improved, and if it's not effective, we may chuck it.... This year we started focusing more on reading. Our scores are low. We're not content with our writing either. We will not stop at anything. Our main thing here is what's in the best interest for the kids...

[Changing to process writing] is an incredible change. A lot of teachers still haven't made that change, even here. But more of them have here. It's because we are immersed in a culture; it's how we do things. Kids in my [7th grade] class will say, we used to do that in Miss L's class [6th grade]. The kids learn through this consistency, and it's part of a bigger picture.

Teachers need more time to plan, talk to each other, time to assess what they've done, write down what works and what doesn't. We're doing that with the projects. It's really exhausting. The inservices for 2061 have mostly been in documentation, so they're related to assessment. I'm having a hard time with it. I'm getting there but it's slow.

We are just learning the 1274 protocol⁸ this year. The research and development team is learning the protocol and will help others in the school to use it. It just hit me a few weeks ago why we are using the protocol it's a way to focus on student work. I didn't really see that before. The 1274 conference will be a chance to practice the protocol--and then we'll teach it to the staff. Then it will just be something that you do.

Knowledge or Access to Knowledge. Just as individual teachers need knowledge, so does the collection of teachers at the school or of other educators in other units of the system. Where knowledge does not exist within the organization, it is important for members to know where to look outside for what they need. Several respondents stressed the relationship between the needed knowledge and the vision of the learning goals. One such respondent was the math department chair of one of the Michigan middle schools:

I feel our department is close knit. We have strong agreement as to what the curriculum should be and where it should go. All of us have been involved in writing the district [math] outcomes. We have been active in MCTM in terms of professional literature, reading what is being published. We have written a grant, attended math conferences and workshops, are part of the Calhoun County math network. We discuss math issues such as MEAP assessment, outcomes, teaching strategies.

By contrast, when there is disagreement about the kinds of knowledge needed in a school, problems may arise. Compare the above statement with that of a California middle school math teacher below:

[The principal] has hired elementary [school] teachers to replace the ones who have left. This is the biggest change. They are better at the team player idea; they take a broader outlook, are not subject-oriented. Maybe that's what middle school needs, but are we compromising expertise for broadness?... For example, for the past five years, there have been only four consistent math teachers, and next year there will be three. [The principal] gave one math section to three teachers each--a P.E. teacher, a social studies teacher, and an opportunity teacher. I had to do all the training, planning, and lesson plans.

Organizational Structures and Management Conducive to Learning and Improvement. Over the last decade, reformers have given considerable attention to the barriers traditional school structures may present to improving educational outcomes. The primary focus of discussion and policy in this area has been on "school restructuring," which can entail changes in the way that teaching and learning occur, changes in the school structure, working conditions, and decision-making processes within schools, and/or changes in the governance structure within which schools operate (Elmore, 1990). Some researchers have noted commonalities in the organization and management among "high involvement," actively reforming schools⁹ and have argued that such organizational structures are important for the success of school reform (e.g., Mohrman and Lawler, forthcoming 1996; Darling-Hammond, forthcoming 1996). Others, however, question, how and to what extent structural changes in schools actually affect what happens in the classroom (Peterson, McCarthey, and Elmore, forthcoming, 1995; Szabo, forthcoming).

Whether structural changes might produce instructional change or just help it along, informants in this study seemed to see a link between organizational structure and reform goals. At the far end of the restructuring continuum, two of the elementary schools were challenging the traditional graded structure by grouping students into developmental multi-age classes (e.g., grades K-3 or 1-3, 4-6). Meanwhile, five of the six middle/junior high schools were in the process of changing their structure to conform more closely with the reform model of middle schools--that is, they were organizing into small teams of teachers responsible for a defined group of students, developing more interdisciplinary teaching, scheduling larger blocks of class time, etc. Several of the study schools also had highly democratic or consensus-based decision-making processes, and most were reconfiguring schedules to allow teachers common planning time for collaboration. On the whole, teachers saw these changes as facilitating their ability to improve student learning.

We've come a long ways. We've gone from a traditional junior high school--single periods, single teacher, single subject--to a village structure where we've gone so far as to double core. So, fewer student contacts. We have much more accountability and feedback, instant feedback. It doesn't take until Christmas to spot kids who are at risk because we have much more collaborative instruction and much more true thematic teaching. We've talked about it in the past, but under this structure, it's actually starting to happen now.

There is no way we could do the curriculum stuff were it not for the structure we have. The staff is always talking to each other.

I like the family structure. Sometimes we have dysfunctional families, but mine seems to get along pretty well. You get a better perspective on the kids. We get together regularly to talk about problems, We meet more regularly with the parents. We have a common meeting and planning time, and we have a set group of kids. I like that.

Structural changes in and of themselves were not a goal for these teachers, however. Instead, structure followed purpose ("It's not really structure so much--the structure followed the curriculum"). And if a new structure did not prove beneficial for improving teaching and learning, they were ready to revisit it and consider other options. A prime example of this was the tension discussed in Chapter 4 between the interdisciplinary team structure and that of departments in the middle school.

Resources. A final dimension of organizational capacity suggested by these data is resources, some of which have been discussed previously under other categories. Time was far and away the resource seen as most essential by respondents in this study--time for teachers to meet together to plan, reflect, and learn from their practice; time for individuals to pursue professional development opportunities, etc. Because fiscal constraints were substantial in all our sites, this additional time was usually derived from some form of restructuring rather than from additional monies. Personnel was another key resource (see knowledge and skills, above), especially in the case of highly diverse student bodies with special needs, such as limited English proficient students who needed access to bilingual personnel with whom they could communicate.

Material resources, while not targeted with the same priority as other aspects of organizational capacity, were also seen as important. Teachers especially emphasized the need for instructional materials that reflect the emerging standards, a resource in short supply everywhere. But for some of our schools the needs were more basic, including the very basic materials many schools take for granted, as well as access to social and health services regarded as essential for students in greatest need.

I really like what the math framework says: thinking critically, learning with materials. But it's just a book. Teachers don't have the resources they need. I went without an overhead for one year. My kids don't have rulers to use--we have to use pieces of paper. The priorities are not straight.

⁹ Mohrman and Lawler's framework, for example, argues that management structures should see the increase the presence of four "resources" in the school: "information about the performance, strategy, mission and goals of the organization as well as ongoing task feedback...knowledge and skills that enable employees to understand and contribute to the improvement of organizational performance...power to make decisions that influence organizational practices, policies and directions...rewards based on the performance of the organization and the capabilities of individuals." (Mohrman and Lawler, forthcoming 1996).
-###-

[Theme 1: Teacher Capacity Is Multidimensional and Evolving]

[Theme 3: Organizational Capacity, like Individual Capacity, Can Be Galvanized and Nurtured Through Infusion of Ideas and Perspectives from Outside its Ranks.]