In reading Chapter 21, I was surprised at the different types of systemic change, especially in light of NCLB and the repercussions of not making Adaquate Yearly Progress. I've always been a little confused as to why specific schools get reprimanded or rewarded based on AYP and not entire districts. It would make sense in my mind that each school within a district would have the same goals and values in mind as well as the same curriculum. So if one school in a district doesn't make AYP, why isn't the district as a whole questioned? It seems that NCLB aims to enforce school-wide change while hoping that there would be a nationwide systemic change by targeting schools instead of district/state/national ideals of education. I think that NCLB is trying to get national systemic change by way of piecemeal change for the sake of saving money. Even then schools aren't supported with the money to make piecemeal change.
Both the GSTE and SUTE methods of change seem extremely well thought out and thorough. It makes change seem that much more achievable! The SUTE conditions for sucessful whole-district change seem like the conditions that always surround schools that are forced to change because they haven't met AYP. When you're talking about entire teaching staffs being fired, of course your mindset is of self-survival!
One other issue that hit home for me was the idea of On-Track seminars. It seems that we make the most change based on single-loop learning, or making change in response to what happened. I think most districts would greatly benefit from double-loop learning, or examining why things happened the way they did. I wish there was more room in NCLB for this type of examination. However, once schools get to this point, there is a lot of self-survival attitudes instead of really examining the "why" of the problem. I think we are trying to "quick fix" the issues in our schools instead of really taking the time to examine the problems and plan the appropriate change necessary. As the authors of the book said, "quick fixes almost always fail."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My first thought about GSTE and SUTE methods was that it would scare off most people because of the money and time involved! ;) In my experience within a rural district, most people think change is unecessary and are happy with the status quo. I think most people would feel like we were asking for the moon if we began talking about a system overhaul.
ReplyDeleteI can see why most schools try the "quick fix" method of change nowadays. Although most schools wish they could do more changes, the money just isn't there to do that. Like the authors say, it takes a lot of money over a long period of time to make a systemic change work. My second thought is that I don't think schools need a complete overhaul all the time. I think a quick fix is exactly what some schools need at times. I think failing schools might need to look at that option, but most schools are on the right track.
ReplyDeleteIt happens in my school as well. Because of the cost and pressure, going for the quick fix works well for the short term and more for comestic changes. This makes the heads look good hoping someone else will take care of it in the future.
ReplyDelete