Restructuring Education

Educational environments combine authority, values, logic, and structure to influence the manner in which individuals understand, explain, and react to the world. It is apparent that the traditional organization of educational institutions is changing and will continue to do so. School reform suggests planned effective power by individuals outside of the educational institution to bring about change, or restructuring to take place within the educational organization. Educational institutions need to determine what works, and what just holds promise, among the various approaches to school reform (Owens, 2004).

Whole-school reform, also referred to as comprehensive school reform, contains various programs that include efforts by educational institutions, parents, and the community in the academic and personal achievement of students (McChesney, 1999). This treatise will be an in-depth analysis of the whole school reform of an educational environment including the purpose, promoters, critics, and key concepts. In addition, implementation of this process, benefits and limitations, and research pertaining to this process will be equally addressed. A recommendation regarding the implementation of whole school reform will be presented.

Purpose of the restructure/reform

The principle purpose of whole-school reform is the concept that altering the culture of educational institutions and aligning the endeavors of all individuals concerned in each educational institution's educational venture, can result in high levels of achievement for all students (Husband & Beese, 2001). The whole school reform is based on the idea that every educational institution is expected to adhere to the same standards, but every educational institution initiates a plan. There has been confirmed success in improving the effectiveness of educational institutions by revitalizing individual educational institutions from the inside out (Owens, 2004).

There are currently at least 30 whole-school reform models implemented in educational institutions nationwide, there is no one whole-school reform strategy. However, all of the strategies focus on various core areas of education for instance curriculum and instruction, school organization, assessment, and professional development. Although the models have been developed by independent organizations, much of the motivation of whole school reform implementation resulted from federal legislation furnishing grants to educational institutions to establish one of the models at their location (Husband & Beese, 2001).

Major promoters/supporters

President George Bush, President Clinton, and Secretary Riley all are supporters of the New American Schools (NAS), and whole-school reform; noting that the programs introduced by the NAS were the type educational institutions required in education. The New American Schools is a major supporter of whole-school reform since this organization intended to create models for educational institutions to implement. This privately funded non-profit organization was established in 1991. CEO's from various major U.S. corporations, who were motivated by Lamar Alexander and David Kearns, rallied to reform educational institutions (Mirel, 2001).

The NAS has a variety of whole-school reform programs; according to the Educational Research Service (as cited in McChesney, 1998) these include: America's Choice Design Network, ATLAS Communities, Co-NECT Schools, Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound, Modern Red Schoolhouse, Purpose-Centered Education--The Audrey Cohen College System of Education, Roots and Wings, and Urban Learning Centers. Although the programs contain opposing emphasis, they share several characteristics: all programs intend to assist students in achieving high academic standards, are comprehensive in their methods; concentrate on all core academic subjects, can be instituted in all types of educational institution, and all grade levels, and align human, financial and technological resources. All of these programs contain best-practices research and are the focus of current evaluation intended for continuous improvement, present faculty and community with a shared vision, focus, and organizing outline that forms and directs reform efforts, impart professional development for teachers and administrators, and recommend innovative and effective ways to include parents and community education (McChesney, 1998).

Major detractors or critics

Mark Berends, a researcher with the RAND Corp., criticizes whole-school reform because it is not easy to determine the effectiveness of programs since each educational institution implements programs differently. Mr. Berends, like other critics, mention that research favoring whole-school reform is faulty, and programs are not living up to the original guarantee (Viadero, 2001).

Critics of the New American Schools maintain that the business approach to educational institutions disregard issues such as funding and minority students. Some critics also maintain that the whole-school reform process is biased to favor safe rather than innovative programs for educational intuitions. Critics of whole-school reform claim that other than schools with the best students, education has seldom satisfied its pedagogical promise and has been particularly ineffective with students from disadvantaged environments (Mirel, 2001).

Key concepts

The Department of Education (as cited in Husband & Beese, 2001) express characteristics of whole-school reform strategies which includes: research-based methods, a widespread approach, staff development, goals, supportive staff members, parental and community participation, external support, and evaluation and management of funds. Educational institutions usually collaborate with the reform developers to obtain continuing support with implementation of the model.

The whole school reform focuses on two key concepts. In this strategy, there is a concentration on the educational institution as the component of improvement; which differentiates whole-school reform from other strategies that center on system-wide policies and larger governing institutions. In addition, this strategy maintains an importance on attending to multiple characteristics of an educational institutions operations in a synchronized approach, including decision making, resource allocation, classroom organization, curriculum, parental involvement, and student support. This sets apart whole-school reform from traditional strategies, which are inclined to center on one issue at a time (Bifulco, Bordeaus, Duncombe, and Yinger, 2002).

The U.S. Department of Education (as cited in Tushnet, Flaherty, & Smith, 2004) identifies several characteristics of whole-school reform programs. Whole-school reform is a comprehensive method that incorporates the whole school including students, faculty, parents, and the community, employs data to consider students' needs, and then joins instructional and evaluation procedures in all curricular fields to this understanding; and concentrates on investigating and improving the curriculum in various subject areas. Additionally, whole-school reform includes cooperation between the educational institution and district to implement reform, and the educational institution accepts autonomy in various matters such as management, budget, and program development, at the same time receiving district encouragement and funding. Whole-school reform also entails effective leadership from the principal to form a shared vision, competent professionals who are offered professional development, the suitable resources and tools to assist in teaching. In addition, an atmosphere where educators trust in the ability of students to attain high standards, and the accountability procedures that examine student development from data in order to constantly expand teaching and learning, and make available the needed support for success (Tushnet, Flaherty, & Smith, 2004).

Process for implementation

Prior to the process of implementation, the educational institution should identify the educational institution's needs. Educational institutions should review what areas are working within the school and what areas need improvement. Goals for the educational institution can also be created during this process. Educational institutions should investigate alternative approaches in order to recognize programs that meet the needs of the educational institution. The right approach will increase the likelihood of the educational institution to accomplish goals. Educators ought to question the developers of whole-school reform programs as to the components of the programs and what type of support will be available. It is also a good idea to contact other educational institutions that utilize the same program. This technique can offer insight as to why other educational institutions chose a specific program to implement, how others handle implementation issues, and what type of results have been attained. When an educational institution has an approach in mind visits to other educational institutions employing the same approach is also advisable. This enables the educational institution to speak with educators, students, parents, and individuals in the community.

Next, educational institutions correspond the program requirements with available resources of the educational institution. This includes standard charges such as training and materials as well as less observable charges such as new staff, additional books, etc. Lastly, the decision to implement should be voted upon by educators since support of the staff is significant to success (AASA, n.d).

The central elements of implementation include: educational institution change, staffing and administrative support, a concentration on curriculum and instruction, supplies and materials, scheduling and grouping, observing student development and performance, and family and community support (Fullan, 2000). The key to implementation of whole-school reform is to focus on important questions early in the implementation process; accordingly, the assessment process will indicate the needs, interests, concerns, and resources exclusive to the educational institution (Hertling, 2000).

Research basis

The undertaking of whole-school reform expanded in 1998 when Congress introduced the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program (CSRD). This program made funds accessible to implement comprehensive school reform in educational institutions that qualified for Title I funds, and offered fund for all public educational institutions (Coffey & Lashway, 2002).

In spite of this backing, whole-school reform has been a target of critics alleging that several of the reform programs do not maintain their promises. Several educational institutions, including Memphis, San Antonio, and Miami-Dade County have discarded or slowed down whole-school reform due to unsatisfactory results or problems with implementation. However, according to Viadero (as cited in Coffey & Lashway, 2002) supporters contend that the visible poor performance is brought about by to inadequately designed studies, incorrect implementation, or deficient support. Additionally, various researchers note that it may be four or five years before reforms persevere sufficiently to make a difference in achievement (Coffey & Lashway, 2002). As a result, the Department of Education has placed twenty-one million dollars into a major research project to develop the comprehensive school reform knowledge base. The CSRD programs are obliged to utilize demonstrated strategies and methods founded upon scientific research and effective practices to improve student achievement, and are required to provide support for teachers, administrators, and other educational institution staff.

Direct Instruction, High Schools That Work, and Success for All are the only programs of the school reform models that have convincing support that they develop student achievement (Olson, 1999). This assessment was determined through higher test scores and attendance. In addition, the assistance offered by the developers to the educational institutions, and first year costs of the program were considered. However, other whole-school reform efforts were implemented at educational institutions that received a strong rating, or a promising rating. Researchers estimate at least three years to implement a whole-school reform model within an educational institution, and another two years to develop a study to prove the effectiveness of the program (Olson, 1999). All in all, experts agree that there is definitely a need for sound assessments of whole-school reform.

Research related to effectiveness

Research implies that if whole-school reforms are implemented well, the design can generate considerable improvement in student achievement. Enhanced implementation can lead to better rewards (Olson, 1999). Whole-school reform does not happen overnight, it takes years of hard work and determination. Memphis city schools implemented whole-school reform in 1992, and after eight years are there are signs of progress. The dropout rate in the educational institutions has decreased, attendance has increased, schools are safer; and there have been moderate improvements in student achievement (House, 2000).

Research suggests that programs with clear description and detailed implementation support function better at increasing student achievement. This has been demonstrated by the Success for All program of whole-school reform (Fullan, 2000). According to Fullan, (2000) the success of Success for All is related to the fact that the program is completely defined and cautiously developed, implemented, and observed. According to McChesney and Hertling (as cited in Coffey & Lashway, 2002) research demonstrates that for a whole-school reform to be implemented successfully, teachers, administrators, the district, and parents all have to support the initiative.

Benefits

Whole-school reform is capable of and usually does enhance communication between faculty and educational administrators. Parental participation in school activities may also strengthen (Yap, Aldersebaes, Railsback, Shaughnessy, and Speth, 2000). In some educational institutions, the benefits of whole-school reform expand beyond learning and implementing the program. Teachers and principals connect with other individuals in the education field with whom they share interests and matters more than just being subject to whole-school reform. The discussions with colleagues have become narrow minded and more receptive to change. In addition, educators become more attentive to student performance and confirmation of achievement. Educators assume more leadership roles in perfecting instruction, due to whole-school reform models compelling educators to provide uncompetitive coaching and support. Educators are also realizing a sense of combined responsibility for student performance. Educational institutions are also improving at involving parents in decision making and are utilizing developers of the programs as the institutions proceed from implementation to continuous improvement (Lytle, 2000).

Limitations

The actual implementation of whole-school reform is often one of the main limitations. The implementation of whole-school reform is often difficult and inconsistent. The reason being, educational institutions possess different circumstances including: teachers and teaching abilities, climate and culture, district values and strategies, and state standards and requirements (Olson, 1999). In addition, it is challenging to discover the whole-school reform effect on achievement since there is a lot of variation in the manner educational institutions implement programs (Viadero, 2001).

Another limitation to whole-school reform is the fact that there is little research on the different types of programs in various environments that demonstrate intense and sustained implementation and too soon to assess student achievement (Viadero, 2001). In addition, the RAND studies have time after time demonstrated that sustaining long-term support for reform is one of the most difficult challenges of whole-school reform (Mirel, 2001).

A common limitation was that the developers of the specific whole-school reform program had not given sufficient thought to the state curriculum standards and state-testing program in which the program was being implemented. Additionally, the question of who is responsible for improved student performance. The developers of the whole-school reform program are more than eager to take recognition for student improvement however have excuses and prepared to blame educational institutions when outcomes aren't encouraging (Lytle, 2002).

A number of whole-school reform programs are impractical regarding the time requirements for implementation. When utilizing Success for All, Roots & Wings and World Lab, there isn't sufficient time in the day to include art, physical education, or languages. A number of programs deal mostly with instructional plans and offer inadequate consideration to curriculum; other programs offer a lot of consideration to curriculum and very little to classroom instruction (Lytle, 2002).

Recommendation regarding implementation and needed adjustments

Selecting the appropriate school-reform model for an educational institution may seem overwhelming. Supporting the reform through a successful implementation is even more demanding. Therefore, there are recommendation regarding implementation and needed adjustments. Communication is essential; educators ought to establish an extensively understood strategy for improving school performance. This might include stakeholder meetings, continuing updates, face-to-face meetings, parent meetings, and community meeting to convey the strategy (Coffey & Lashway, 2002).

Staff turnover should be reduced. Research steadily reveals that leadership by a principal dedicated to school reform is crucial to supporting change. The turnover of staff members has affects on school reform. Business and public leaders should also be involved in the reform. These individuals are inclined to be supportive of alternatives and can offer stability (Coffey & Lashway, 2002).

Staff development should be provided; this will offer the tools they need to implement school reform. Staff development will also allow teachers to understand the external standards as they relate to practice in the classroom. The use of change agents can also be beneficial to school reform. The agents can offer support, technical support, and clarity about the school reform (Coffey & Lashway, 2002). Lastly, according to Cohen and Heather (as cited in Coffey & Lashway, 2002) the system should be aligned. Success is more probable when standards, assessment, teaching practices, and professional development are focused on the same goals.

Conclusion

The whole-school reform is one solution to the unrelenting failure of various educational institutions to present students with educational opportunities to experience high standards for learning. The strategy was created in an environment of increased concentration on accountability for education institutions and offers a structure to allow educational institutions to alter their methods and practices so high achievement can be attained by all students (Tushnet, Flaherty& Smith, 2004).

In order for any essential improvements to be accomplished within an educational institution, all individuals involved must commit to those improvements. Educational institutions have to modify past ways of thinking and working to encourage teaching and student achievement (Partners in school innovation, 2004). At present, various educational institutions all through the country are attempting whole-school reform, which necessitates considerable modifications in teacher, and administrator actions utilizing the federal funding supplied by programs such as Title I and the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD). RAND's studies of NAS acknowledged the circumstances necessary to make these efforts successful, including teacher support and teacher effectiveness, sound and precise principal leadership, understandable communication and enduring support on the part of program developers, and constant leadership, resources, and encouragement from the district (Berends, Bodilly, & Kirby, 2002).

References

American Association of School Administrators, (n.d.). An educators' guide to school wide reform. Retrieved May 29, 2006 from http://www.aasa.org/edissues/content.cfm?ItemNumber=6173

Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby S.N. (2002). Looking back over a decade of whole-school reform: The experience of new American schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2). Retrieved June 1, 2006 from ProQuest database.

Bifulco, R. Bordeaus, C., Duncombe, W., and Yinger, J. (2002). Do whole school reform programs boost student performance? The case of New York City final report. Retrieved May 30, 2006 from http://wwwcpr.maxwell.syr.edu/efap/Special_Reports/Do_Whole_School_Reform_Final_Report.pdf

Coffey, E. & Lashway, L. (2002). Trends and issues: School reform. Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management. Retrieved May 30, 2006 from http://eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issues/reform/index.html

Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change. Retrieved May 31, 2006 from ProQuest database.

Hertling, E. (2000). Evaluating the results of whole-school reform. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ERIC Digest Number 140. Retrieved May 29, 2006 from http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/reform.htm

House, G. (2000). Re-creating a school system: Lessons learned in Memphis about whole-school reform. Education Week, 19 (30). Retrieved May 30, 2006 from EBSCOhost database.

Husbands, J. & Beese, S. (2001). Review of selected high school reform strategies. Retrieved May 31, 2006 from http://www.ccsso.org/content/PDFs/Review%20of%20Selected%20High%20School%20Reform%20Strategies.pdf

Lytle, J.H. (2002). Whole-school reform from the inside. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (2). Retrieved June 1, 2006 from ProQuest database.

McChesney, J. (1999). Whole-school reform. Teacher Librarian, 26 (5). Retrieved May 30,2006 from ProQuest database.

Mirel, J. (2001). The evolution of the New American Schools: From revolution to mainstream. Retrieved May 31, 2006 from http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/evolution.pdf

Olson, L. (1999). Following the plan. Education Week, 18 (31). Retrieved May 30, 2006 from EBSCOhost database.

Olson, L. (1999). Researchers rate whole-school reform models: Study cites shortcomings in data on whole school reform models. Education Week, 18 (23). Retrieved May 30, 2006 from EBSCOhost database.

Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and school reform (8th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Partners in school innovation (2004). Renewing the promise of public education. Retrieved May 31, 2006 from
http://www.partnersinschools.org/resources/Annual_Report_2003-04_Part%20I.pdf

Tushnet, N.C., Flaherty, J. & Smith, A. (2004). Longitutdinal assessment of comprehensive school reform program implementation and outcomes. Retrieved May 31, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/lacio/lacio-final.doc

Viadero, D. (2001). Whole-school projects show mixed results. Education Week, 21 (10). Retrieved May 30, 2006 from ProQuest database.

Yap, K., Aldersebaes, I., Railsback, J., Shaughnessy, J., and Speth, T., (2000). Evaluating whole-school reform efforts: A guide for district and school staff. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved May 30, 2006 from http://www.nwrac.org/whole-school/wholeschool.pdf