USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Teachers' perceptions of constructivism as an organizational change model


Material Information

Teachers' perceptions of constructivism as an organizational change model a case study
Physical Description:
Isaacson, Leanna Stohr
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Decision making
Teacher affect
Teachers as leaders
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


ABSTRACT: This research described and analyzed a single-site case study of an elementary school of 930 pupils, pre-kindergarten through grade five. The six and one-half-year longitudinal study examined teacher's perceptions of both constructivism as an educational organizational change model and of developing a constructivist philosophy in an entire elementary school. The study examined the background and steps that evolved throughout the reform process. Specific constructs most frequently appearing in the literature relating to developing an organization were studied: (a) philosophical foundations, (b) change, (c) perception, (d) leadership, (e) teachers as leaders and (f) affect. Research on teachers' perspectives examined key elements relating to the role of teachers in developing and sustaining constructivist reform efforts.The triangulation process produced similar constructs. First, teachers' two-year reflections provided insight into how teams and individual teachers worked to improve and sustain the constructivist culture. Second, teachers voluntarily participated in focus groups centering on teachers' perceptions and insights concerning creating a constructivist school. The last came from the Principal-researcher's six and one-half years of written chronicles. Emerging from the research, first, were three dimensions of leadership: (a) support of teachers, (b) teachers' feeling appreciated, (c) providing a professional work environment; and next, six dimensions of teachers' as leaders: (a) collaboration, (b) trust building and forming relationships, (c) asking for help and receiving it, (d) the value of understanding personality styles, (e) the value of a positive attitude, and (f) taking on leadership roles.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Leanna Stohr Isaacson.
General Note:
Includes vita.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 437 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001680945
oclc - 62353425
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000596
usfldc handle - e14.596
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001680945
003 fts
005 20060215071018.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 051128s2004 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000596
1 100
Isaacson, Leanna Stohr.
0 245
Teachers' perceptions of constructivism as an organizational change model
h [electronic resource] :
b a case study /
by Leanna Stohr Isaacson.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Includes bibliographical references.
Includes vita.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 437 pages.
ABSTRACT: This research described and analyzed a single-site case study of an elementary school of 930 pupils, pre-kindergarten through grade five. The six and one-half-year longitudinal study examined teacher's perceptions of both constructivism as an educational organizational change model and of developing a constructivist philosophy in an entire elementary school. The study examined the background and steps that evolved throughout the reform process. Specific constructs most frequently appearing in the literature relating to developing an organization were studied: (a) philosophical foundations, (b) change, (c) perception, (d) leadership, (e) teachers as leaders and (f) affect. Research on teachers' perspectives examined key elements relating to the role of teachers in developing and sustaining constructivist reform efforts.The triangulation process produced similar constructs. First, teachers' two-year reflections provided insight into how teams and individual teachers worked to improve and sustain the constructivist culture. Second, teachers voluntarily participated in focus groups centering on teachers' perceptions and insights concerning creating a constructivist school. The last came from the Principal-researcher's six and one-half years of written chronicles. Emerging from the research, first, were three dimensions of leadership: (a) support of teachers, (b) teachers' feeling appreciated, (c) providing a professional work environment; and next, six dimensions of teachers' as leaders: (a) collaboration, (b) trust building and forming relationships, (c) asking for help and receiving it, (d) the value of understanding personality styles, (e) the value of a positive attitude, and (f) taking on leadership roles.
Adviser: Shapiro, Arthur.
Decision making.
Teacher affect.
Teachers as leaders.
Dissertations, Academic
x Educational Leadership
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856


TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CONSTR UCTIVISM AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL: A CASE STUDY by LEANNA STOHR ISAACSON A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Dr. Ar thur Shapiro, Ph.D. Dr. William Benjamin, Ph.D. Dr. Steven Permuth, Ed.D. Dr. Patricia Daniel, Ph.D. Date of Approval: February 17, 2004 Keywords: Leadership, Teachers as Lead ers, Teacher Affect, Decision Making Copyright 2004, Leanna Stohr Isaacson


Dedication First, this research is dedicated to my family who made the doctoral adventure possible. To my son Greg, who was a constant support, editor, and comp uter guide. As a lawyer and high school English teacher, he continued reminding me of what learning is all about. He had the persp ective of a constructivist high sc hool teacher and the needs of high school students. To Lara: my daughter and worrier. She kept me grounded with her humor and encouragement. I could depend on he r to keep life in perspective. She had the perspective of a working Mom. To her son and my grandson Destin: It is he who demonstrates on a daily basis what constructiv ist learning looks like and sounds like. As a student at Southwood Elementary for all six years, K-5, he continues to amaze me with his ability to think, solve problems, analyze, and apply his learni ng with the tools the teachers provided him. He watched the docto ral studies evolve as I tried to model the importance of lifelong learning. To my major professor, mentor and friend, Dr. Arthur Shapir o, and his wife, Sue: I could not have completed this journey without their encouragement, patience, and understanding. To my friend, and Principal colleague, Kim: Her support, advice, constant inspiration, and devoted friendship provided me with the st rength and determination to persevere. I owe her a debt of gratitude. We traveled the doctoral journey together to reach a challenging goal.


Acknowledgements First, I thank the staff, students, and parents of Southwood Elementary School. I specifically want to thank Curriculum Res ource Teacher of 1999-2002, and teacher, Dee Frechette, Assistant Principal, Laurie Stor ch, Executive Secretary, Lynda Eubanks, and Technology Specialist, Diana Treese. Without them as my support team, I would never been able to tell and research this stor y to show how a dedicated staff works their miracles. I thank them from the bottom of my heart. Then, to the committee of scholars who guided and encouraged me throughout the doctoral process. I particularly owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Arthur Shapiro, for the years he coached me through th e constructivist pro cess. I thank Dr. William Benjamin, a man of infinite wisdom, who saw below th e surface of the story, into the depth of learning, always probing with the hard questions. I thank Dr. Steven Permuth for the discussions that occurred to help me think th rough to the real issues, examine key ideas, and reach to the heart of the story. Finally, to Dr. Pat Daniels, for the amount of time she spent examining the methods and data portions of the research. Her in sightful look at the study helped me clarify ways to investigate, scrutinize my findings, and dig below the surface to explain my qualitative research. Finally, to my friend, and colleague, Ral ph Hewitt, for his continuous support, who kept reminding me to keep mo ving along on the doctoral journey.


iTable of Contents List of Tables v Abstract vi Chapter One: Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 5 Purpose of the Study 7 Research Questions 8 Significance of the Study 8 Limitations of the Study 10 Assumptions 12 Definitions of Terms 12 Summary of Chapter 14 Organization of the Chapters 15 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 19 Philosophers 19 17th and 18th Century Philosophers 23 19th through 21st Century Philosophers 36 Summary 39 Change 41 Systemic Reform 46 Restructuring and Reculturing 49 Chaos 49 Use of a Facilitator 54 Challenges 55 Solutions 61 Summary 67 Teachers’ Perceptions of Educational Organizational Change 70 Teacher Participation in School Decisions 71 Principal Interaction 73 Colle giality and Collaboration 73 Summary 74 Leadership 75 Defined Leadership and Power 76 Leadership Skills 78 School Culture 80 Reciprocal Processes 81 Organizational Leadership 82 Vision Building 82 Constructivist Leadership 87


ii Community of Learners 88 Supervision, Collegiality, and Collaboration 89 Tripartite Theory 93 Organizational Leadership—A Business Model 96 Summary 96 Teachers as Leaders 98 Developing a Community of Leaders 99 Reinforcing the Vision 100 Developmental Leaders 101 Effective Teacher Leaders 103 Principals’ Roles 105 Qualities and Attitudes 108 National Board Certification 111 Challenges 113 Focus on Student Growth 114 Summary 116 Chapter Three: Method 118 Purpose of the Study 118 Qualitative Research 118 The Case Study Method 120 Case Study Dimensions 120 Subjectivity 121 Reliability and Consistency 121 Validity 122 Triangulation 122 Overview of the Case 127 District and School 127 Research Questions 129 Research Design 130 Gathering and Organizing the Data 130 Teacher Reflections 131 Focus Group Interviews 133 Data Source from Focus Group Interviews 134 Focus Group Questions 138 Principal-research er Journal/story 140 Teacher Reflection, Data Collection, Organization, 142 and Analysis Process Organizational Grid 143 Focus Group Interviews 144 Identifying Themes and Sub-topics 148 Grid: Data Source 150 Codes 151 Data Analysis 154 Summary 155 Conclusions 156


iii Chapter Four: Reporting the Data 158 Introduction 158 Teachers’ Written Reflections 159 Focus Group Interviews 160 Gathering and Organizing the Data 161 Organization Grid Example 162 Teacher Reflections 162 Data Collection, Organization, and Analysis Process 165 Focus Group Interviews 167 Identifying Themes and Sub-topics 171 Constructivist Philosophy 175 Change 179 Perception 182 Leadership 184 Teachers as Leaders 188 Discussion 192 Constructivist Philosophy 193 Leadership 194 Teachers as Leaders 194 Principal-researcher’s Journals 201 Year One 202 Year Two 203 Year Three 205 Year Four 206 Year Five 207 Year Six and Seven 210 Summary 211 Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations for Further Research Introduction 214 Problem and Purpose 214 Statement of Problem 215 Purpose of the Study 216 Research Questions 216 Significance of the Study 217 The Research Site 217 Statement of the Method 219 Gathering and Organizing the Data 221 Findings 226 Research Question One 228 Research Question Two 230 Principal-researcher’s Journal 231 Limitations to the Study 234 Conclusions 236


iv Philosophical Foundations of Constructivism 236 Change 239 Perception 240 Leadership 240 Teachers as Leaders 241 Affect 243 Additional Conclusions 243 Implications of the Study 245 Summary of Implications 249 Recommendations for Further Research 250 Summary of the Chapter 251 References 252 Appendices 288 Appendix 1: The Southwood Story 290 Appendix 2: Analysis of Dynamics of Change 418 Appendix 3: Request for Participation for 419 Written Reflections Appendix 4: Teachers’ Written Reflections Questions 420 Appendix 5: Request for Participation for 421 Focus Group Interviews Appendix 6: Teachers’ Questions for Focus Group 422 Interviews Appendix 7: Example of a Transcription from Focus 424 Group Interviews Appendix 8: Standardized Test Scores 426 About the Author End Page


vList of Tables Table 1. Organizational Grid 144 162 Table 2. Grid: Reflections, Focus Group Interviews Principal-researcher’s Journals 150 174


vi Teachers’ Perceptions of Constructivism as an Educational Organizational Change Model: A Case Study Leanna Stohr Isaacson ABSTRACT This research described and analyzed a single-site case study of an elementary school of 930 pupils, pre-kindergarten through grade five. The six and one-half-year longitudinal study examined teacher’s perceptions of both constructivism as an educational organizational change model and of developing a constructivist philosophy in an entire elementary school. The study exam ined the background and steps that evolved throughout the reform process. Specific constructs most frequently a ppearing in the literature relating to developing an organization were stud ied: (a) philosophical foundations, (b) change, (c) perception, (d) leadership, (e) teachers as leaders and (f) affect. Research on teachers’ perspectives examined key elemen ts relating to the role of teachers in developing and sustaining cons tructivist reform efforts. The triangulation process produced similar constructs. First, teachers’ two-year reflections provided insight into how teams and individual teachers worked to improve and sustain the constructiv ist culture. Second, teachers voluntarily participated in focus gr oups centering on teachers’ perceptions and insights concerning creating a constructiv ist school. The last came from the


vii Principal-researcher’s six and one -half years of written chronicles. Emerging from the research, first, were three dimensions of leadership: (a) support of teachers, (b) teacher s’ feeling appreciated, (c) providing a professional work environment; and next, six dimensions of teach ers’ as leaders: (a) collaboration, (b) trust building and forming relationships, (c) asking for help and receiving it, (d) the value of understanding personality styles, (e) the value of a positive attitude, and (f) taking on leadership roles. Implications follow: 1. Constructivism can be used as an ed ucational organization change model to reform an entire elementary school a nd implement a cons tructivist philosophy and practices. 2. Teachers believe that standardized test scores can increase from teaching constructivistically. 3. A philosophical maintenance plan is necessary to continue the process. 4. It is crucial to recognize the importance of teachers’ perceptions in creating an organizational culture with cons tructivist educational practices. 5. Teachers must feel appreciated, valued and recognized, an affect dimension. 6. The role of Principal is pivotal. The principal must believe in, and model constructivism.


1 Chapter 1 Introduction This case study described and analyzed a si ngle-site case study of an elementary school of 930 pupils, pre-kindergarten through gr ade five. The six and one-half year longitudinal study examined teachers’ perc eptions both of constructivism as an educational organizational change model and of developing a constructivist philosophy in an entire elementary school. The study ex amined the background and steps that evolved throughout the reform process. There is limited research on utilizing constructivism as a school reform model, and on teachers’ perceptions on the developm ent of the constructivist philosophy on an entire elementary school. The Principal-re searcher identified specific constructs that most frequently appeared in the literatur e relating to more global topics in the development of an organization: (a) philosophical foundations, (b) change; (c) perception; (d) leadership; and (e) teachers as leaders. The term constructivism is a complex term that is perceived in different ways by different authors. The basis of applyi ng constructivism comes from the social constructivist perspective. The Principal-rese archer presented a vari ety of views from the perspectives of well-known aut hors, philosophers, and research ers; and then applied that research within the context of an elementary school that became constructivist. Authors seldom specifically identify the term “constructivis t” as a way of


2 describing their beliefs relating to whole sc hool reform. The exception occurred in the work of Shapiro (2000, 2003). His research provided the foundation upon which the Principal-researcher studied and detailed th e process of creating an entire school and demonstrated the implementation of a constructivist philosophy in grades kindergarten through five. Teachers’ perceptions of their part in th e process of whole school reform relied on the same author’s work that included utiliz ing the Analysis of Dynamics of Change (Appendix 2), and discussed later in this ch apter and included in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. Teachers’ commitment to school reform de veloped from thinking constructivistically about how to create a constr uctivist elementary school in pre-kindergarten through grade five. The process of constructing meaning is a natural part of young children’s learning. Beliefs about how young children learn are documente d in the work of earlier pioneers such as: Dewey, Montessori, Vygots ky, and Piaget. The Pr incipal-researcher described through this research how an el ementary school developed the model to demonstrate how constructivist learning bega n at the youngest school ages and continued throughout the elementary school experience. Contemporary authors and researchers placed the philosophy of the early pioneers in the context of student learning for the elementary age child. Their works are iden tified specifically throughout this research. The fundamental application of the cons tructivist theory centered upon the view regarding how an individual le arns. Each philosophical posi tion provided a perspective, that when combined, included insight into how knowledge developed. The individual


3learner brings to the learning environmen t a background of experiences including those that come from the person’s culture, be liefs, values, language, perceptions, prior experiences, motivation, and social interac tions (Costa & Kallick, 2000; Lambert, 1995, 2003; Piaget, 1928; Phillips, 1995, 1997, 2000; Shapiro, Benjamin, & Hunt, 1995; Shapiro, 2000, 2003; von Glasersfeld, 1995, 1987, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978; Wilson & Daviss, 1994). Learners then combine what they already know, with new experiences, ideas, democratic opportunities for lear ning while working in groups, listening, reflecting, concluding, as they create ne w understanding. Continuous interaction, thinking, and drawing individua l conclusions develop within the active process of meaning-making (Darling-Hammond 1997; Marlowe & Page, 1998; Spivey, 1997). The cycle continues, with each person constr ucting additional knowledge. Fosnot (1996), explained this concept as “knowing” and the next step in constructing meaning, “coming to know” (ix). Knowing comes generally with an environmental influence, and “coming to know” evolves when new information, genera lly with an academic influence, that becomes part of a learner’s knowledge base. Students are becoming more sophistic ated learners in the 21st century information age. They added new compone nts for meaning-making when provided the opportunity to access technology through unlimited channels on television, the Internet, virtual worlds, and digital imaging (B arth, 1990, 2001; Caine & Caine 1991, 1999, 1997; Goodlad, 1984, 1994, 1996; Schlechty 2001; Shapiro, 2000, 2003). Once students demonstrated their redevel oped tools for learning, and try out their ideas, a constructivist teacher helps childre n combine what they believe and know, as


4they facilitate the way students search for patterns, raise questions and construct their own models, concepts, and st rategies (Fosnot, 1996, Lambert, Collay, Dietz, Kent, & Richert, 1997; Marlowe & Page, 1998). This occurs in an environment centered upon cooperative groups as communities of learners think, solve problems, and continue to create their own understanding (Gagnon & Collay, 2001; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Marlowe & Page, 1998; Shapiro, 1995, 2003). Students provided a constructivist environment in which to learn, try out idea s and practices for themselves, see what works, then reflect and discuss if the idea di dn’t work. These models for thinking that individuals construct in th eir minds are critical to understanding (Gardner, 1999). The school leader becomes pivotal to the process. The first step in the complex process begins when the school leader and staff members understand and develop a personal belief system compatible with th e constructivist philosophy. Hopefully, they become constructivist thinkers. Implementati on evolves when all the stakeholders in the school become constructivist learners. Th e continuity occurs through continuous communication about the vision, goals, and expectations at every level of the organization (Caine & Caine, 1991, 1997; Daft & Lengel, 1998, 2000; DuFour, 1998; Harvey & Brown, 2000; Lambert, Collay, Di etz, Kent & Richert, 1996, 1997; Manz & Sims, 2001; Marlowe & Page, 1998; Schlechty, 2001; Shapiro, 2003). Each teacher then provided consistency in every classroom, so that constructivist strategies are implemented throughout a chil d’s elementary school career and dominate learning for both teachers and students th roughout the school (Lambert, Collay, Dietz, 1997; Fosnot, 1996; Gagnon & Collay, 2001; Shapiro, 2003, Wilson & Daviss, 1994).


5 The school leader provides staff members with a risk-free environment (Blase and Blase, 1998) in which to think, to solve probl ems, and to work together. Teachers and the school leader create what a c onstructivist environment should look and feel like. In this way staff members understand how the same e nvironment and opportunities to construct learning should occur in all places in the school, for each child. A student-centered atmosphere exists in a constructivist envi ronment (Adler, 1997; Barth, 2001; DarlingHammond, 1997; Gardner, 1999; Kohn, 1998; Schlechty, 1990; Shapiro, 2000, 2003). Statement of the Problem 1. School leaders are expected to lead reform without an understanding of how teachers are impacted (Sarason, 1996). Constructivism is a philosophical approach to teaching and learning and is a developmental process in which people construct their own knowledge. 2. Reform requires people to develop differe nt organizational role s. Constructivism is a philosophical approach that is be ing used in the classroom and has the potential to be used in sc hool reform (Shapiro, 2000, 2003). 3. There is limited research on utilizing cons tructivism as a school reform model and on teachers’ perceptions (Blase & Blas e, 1998) on the development of the constructivist philosophy on an entire elementary school. Schools face a daunting challenge. The roles of schools in the 21st century become increasingly more complex with each emerging issue: second-language learners;


6children living in poverty; detached family units; single parents and their children living with relatives; and increased numbers of special needs children. (Adler, 1977; Association for Supervision and Curric ulum Development, 1989; 1995; Barth, 2001; Goodlad, 1994; Kohn, 1998, 1999; Lieberma n, 1990, 1993; Palmer, 1998; Schlechty, 1990, 2001). President Bush and his brother, Florid a Governor, Jeb Bush determined that all children across the nation will read before th ey complete third grade, as judged by a single performance on a standardi zed test. The stakes are high if students fail to perform according to a set criteria as determined by the state. The new slogan is: No Child Left Behind (Schnittger & Valentine, 2002). States, and more recently, the nation al government, are creating pressure on schools to ignore prior resear ch on best practices (Zemelman, Daniels & Hyde, 1998), and concentrate on specific skill-driven requi rements. In interviews with selected principals in Orange County, Fl orida, ineffective strategies for helping children succeed, long abandoned, have been reinstated. Prin cipals have changed course from innovative instruction to traditional strategies because of the pressure to increase test scores. Strongly held philosophical beliefs, based upon solid research that drove instruction and curriculum in past practices, are frequently abandoned, only to be replaced with programs and models that long ago proved ineffective (Isaacson, 2001). Two specific areas include tracking, where students are grouped by ability, skill-based instructional grouping where groups stay with each other for extended peri ods of time, and programs with scripted teachers manuals. In most cases, students move from their home room class to meet


7with other students of lik e skill abilities, during a portion of the day. Requirements created by the Florida De partment of Education, in response to state legislation, require that any child, who cannot read at a third grade level, by third grade, and receives a Level 1, (the student “d id not pass” the Florida Achievement Test”) must be retained one time, if they are identi fied as a special needs student, and two times if the child has not been identified as a speci al needs (an exceptional education) student. Second language students are no exception. Un der these conditions, a student could stay in third grade for three years. Both Kohn (1999) and Ohanian (2001, 2003) are outspoken critics of retention, when based upon standardized test s as a measure of students’ ability to learn and subsequently to become successful citizens. Newspapers write almost daily about the controvers y surrounding these issues (Schnittger & Valentine, 2002). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this six and one-half-year longitudinal study examined teachers’ perceptions both of constructivism as an educ ational organizational change model and of developing a constructivist philosophy in an entire elementary school. The study examined the background and steps that evolved throughout the reform process. Fundamental to the purpose of the study and teachers’ perceptions, is the ability to understand how a school develops a plan that can lead an enti re school through the process of becomi ng constructivist. This case study provided an in-depth l ook at the various i ssues and problem


8solving components needed to realize the goal. First-hand experien ce of the teachers and Principal-researcher provided a real-world look into the workings of a large elementary school, over a six and one-half year time fr ame, as teachers, students, and Principalresearcher, became more constructivist in their practices and more committed in their beliefs. Fundamental to the purpose of the study, and teachers’ perceptions, rests in the ability to understand how a school develops a strategy to plan and organize so the intended goal is reached. In the case of th is research study it is necessary to examine a process, and the teachers’ and Principal’ s roles, to ensure that the foundational philosophy grows and matures. The use of Shapiro’s (2003) model: The Analysis of Dynamics of Change became the vehicle that helped a school maintain a philosophical and theoretical base that is constructivist. Research Questions 1. What are the perceptions of teachers about constructivism as an educational organizational change model? 2. What are teachers’ perceptions of developing a constructivist philosophy in a total elementary school? Significance of the Study This appears to be the first longitudina l case study of teachers’ perceptions of constructivism as an educational organizationa l change model, and their perceptions of


9developing a constructivist philosophy fo r an entire elementary school. The absence of authenticated research, with a specific focus on the research questions, required this study to focus on foundational and philosophical positions surrounding issues of constructiv ism. The Principal-researcher investigated the work of authors and researchers who described vari ous components of constructivist practices within individual classrooms or subject areas. By combining a constructivist philos ophy, the challenges of meeting ever changing issues within schools, required a school leader to understand and develop a constructivist ideology, and create teachers as leaders, while remaining aware of the impact each issue had on the teacher. Recognizing and acknowledging the importance of teacher’s perceptions of the issues and decision making processes became a significant part of the process. The debate continues about how to help our students prepare for their futures in the information age. Employers of the futu re require workers who solve problems, work in teams, express complex ideas in a co mpelling way, both orally and in writing, and think creatively. Teachers must prepare studen ts for jobs that currently do not exist (Daggett, 2001). In a world that becomes smaller because of science and technology the traditional method of instructing students that was teacher-centered and fact-driven is often a result of teachers receiving their ed ucation in that environment. Teachers will teach the way they were taught (Brown & Moffett, 1999) unless a major intervention occurs in their teacher-traini ng or school-based in-service. In this knowledge-driven world, regard less how motivated and responsible a


10person’s attitude may be toward work, their pr ospects for a rewarding life are severely limited if they cannot think for a living (National Board of Pr ofessional Standards, 2003). Teachers and students must, therefore, work in an environment that encourages the same strategies for thinking and problem solving th at model constructivi st learning (Shapiro, 2000, 2003). One component of this study described th e problem solving model utilized when engaging teachers in the opportunity to th ink constructivistica lly when creating a constructivist school. This wa s done with the use of the An alysis of the Dynamics of Change Model (Shapiro, 2003). The Analysis of the Dynamics of Change strategy (Shapiro, 2003) provided six steps for de fining issues. Developing a plan is a constructivist approach to organizational change The c onstructivist ph ilosophy becomes internalized when teachers and students ar e provided the opportunity to experience the process in a variety of ways. Involving teachers in decision making on how to solve internal issues in the school was constructivist in nature. Utilizing a specific model provided teachers with problem solving and decision making strategies through refl ective thinking. The Principal-researcher was a member of the group, not the leader. Accepting teachers’ views on the issues and outcomes, without judgment, modeled the importance of placing teachers in a risk-free environment. Limitations to the Study This is a single-site case study where data were collected within one school. The ability to generalize these fi ndings to any other elementary school becomes unrealistic


11under specific circumstances. For example, low performing schools are mandated to use specific learning programs, with detailed scripts for teachers to follow, that must be implemented according to state and local require ments. In those cases, where the school must focus upon a specific program, a process appr oach that is constr uctivist, required a very different set of instru ctional skills strategies a nd goals. Implementation of a constructivist philosophy is unrealistic, if the learning environment is rigidly imposed. Generalizability cannot be assumed from this study because it is a study of one site. This is a qualitative study that presented an analysis of multiple issues when creating a philosophical goal in a school that became constructivist. As a case study, the Principal-researcher provided many perspectiv es within the study. There is a limitation that other educators may view the process as unique to the pe rsonalities involved and miss the reality and practical a pplication of the case study. The focus on philosophical foundations, change, perception, leadership, and teachers as leaders, became an area of emphasis. One component analyzed the perception of teachers in only one school, as they participated and worked through the process of creating a constructivist school. The Principal-researcher is also the founding principal and may give the appearance of bias based upon a personal comm itment to the school within the study. There is a concerted effort of the Principal-re searcher to remain as objective as possible through the use of focus groups and teachers’ written reflections to validate the qualitative research. The Principal-research er’s six and one-half years of journals provides supporting information while adding a broad perspectiv e of the issues described


12by teachers. However, complete objectivity in any study, including case studies, is all but impossible (Merriam, 1998). Assumptions There are two basic assumptions. First, the level of trust between the Principalresearcher and the teachers will yield honest responses to the written reflections and focus group interviews by the teachers. This is based upon the outspoken nature of the teachers who appeared to have no reservat ions about expressing their views (both positive and negative) in frequent discu ssions over the years with the Principalresearcher. Second, the analysis of all three sources of data: teachers’ reflections, focus group interviews, and the Principal-research er’s journals, will provide a reliable perspective of issues, expect ations, and outcomes in creating a constructivist school. Definition of Terms Analysis of the Dynamics of Change: a probl em solving, decision making process used in a teacher-centered plan to create a cons tructivist environment. (Shapiro, 2003, and Appendix 2). Concept-based integrated curriculum: con cepts are foundational organizers for both integrated curriculum and single subjects, se rving as a bridge between topics and


13generalizations. This design is used to co mbine content areas in an integrated and organized plan leading students to higher le vels of thinking (Erickson, 1995, 1998, 2001). Constructivism: an epistemology, a learning or meaning-making theory, that offers an explanation of the nature of knowledge and how human beings learn. It maintains that individuals create or constr uct new understandings through th e connection of what they already know and believe, together with new found learning, and draw their own conclusions. Knowledge is acquired through interaction with th e content and other people instead of through memorization (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, 1999,2000; Lambert, 2003; Marlow & Page, 1998; Shapiro, 2000, 2003). National Board Certification (NBC): National Bo ard Certification provides a certification process for teachers who appl y to participate in the ri gorous process involving the demonstration of numerous criteria and a written exam. Passing the exam provides monetary and profe ssional rewards. Perception: Perception drives reality. Each person interprets events from a combination of their past experiences, current under standing, and the pres ent situation and information. Since everyone’s situation is di fferent, responses to the same information will be unique to each individual. “Even w ith the most objective task, it is nearly impossible to keep our subjective views from altering our perception of what really exists” (Napier & Ge rshenfeld, 1999, p. 3).


14School cultures: “complex webs of traditional and rituals that have been built up over times as teachers, students, parents, and admini strators work together and deal with crises and accomplishments” (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p.7). Traditional education: associat ed with practices that originated in the 1970's and 1980's that were generally teacher-centered; textbook driven; using fill-inthe-blank worksheets for a majority of the instruction (Kohn, 1999). Tri-Partite Theory of Institutional Change and Succession states that: “institutions and organizations change in a definite, predictable sequence . institutions are dominated in succession by one of three orientations–Per son, Plan, and Position” (Wilson, C.; Bayar, M.; Shapiro, A.; Schell, S.H., 1969). Summary This chapter introduced the resear ch study by discussing the background of constructivism. An overview of the constr uctivist philosophy is necessary to understand the complexities surrounding the theory. The Principal-researcher described the need to understand views and beliefs of contemporar y authors who explained aspects of a constructivist philosophy. The chapter then identified five constructs that dominated the process of operationalizing th e constructivist term in re lation to (a) understanding the constructivist philosophy, (b) the effect of change, (c) pe rception, (d) leadership, and


15 (e) teachers as leaders. The philosophy of so cial construction dominated the process in utilizing a constructivist model in creating a school that becomes constructivist. There was limited current research on the reform of an entire school using a constructivist approa ch. The chapter therefore, focused on the belief systems of contemporary authors who have expounded a bout how people learn, and the application to the learning process, specifically associ ated with an elementary school that is constructivist. There was emphasis placed on the need to understand teachers’ perception of their role in constructivist school reform. After the statement of the study’s purpose and the dr iving question, the significance of the study describe d the importance of providing students with the tools to think constructively. In summary, when t eachers think, solve problems, and understand constructivist theory, they can provide the same instructi onal strategies necessary to guide students. Organization of the Chapters Chapter One contains an overview of the constructivis t philosophy and the implications and motivation by the Principa l-researcher for conducting the study. The problem in conducting the study rests in the l ack of research on the subject of whole school constructivist reform and teachers’ pe rception of the impact on them. The purpose of the study, provided in the chapter, discusses the prim ary question: “What are the perceptions of teachers about constructivism as an educational organizational change model and on the development of a construc tivist philosophy on an entire elementary


16school?” The chapter also revi ews the six areas of focus that relate to im plementation of the whole school reform: (a) constructivist philosophy, (b) ch ange, (c) leadership, (d) teachers’ perceptions, (e) developing teachers as leaders, and (f) affect. This chapter mentioned the background of the study, to be fu lly discussed in Chapter 2. It describes the unique nature of the investigation and an alysis. Various terms used through the study are explained. The statement of the probl em expanded on issues facing schools when dominated by political agendas and the impact of these agendas on low performing schools. Chapter Two provided a comprehensive review of literature surrounding the concept of constructivist ph ilosophy, theory, and practice. The chapter begins by describing philosophers’ and researchers’ vi ews of constructivism. The Principalresearcher described the philosophical positi ons from the perspective of two historically different groups of authors, identified as Generation One (earlier pioneers in the constructivist movement), and Generation Two, (contemporary au thors and researchers). Both generations described their versions of how learning occurs. The Principalresearcher then provided a review of the five areas of concentrati on within the study of constructivism: (a) understa nding the philosophical founda tions; (b) the process of change that occurs within an organization; (c) the components and practice of leadership when implementing whole school constructivis t reform; (d) the perceptions of teachers when engaged in reform; and (e) the developm ent of teachers as leaders within a school. Chapter Three describes the methods used within the study to provide validation for the assumptions. The demographics a nd overview of the school described the components of the school that makes it a viable research site. The chapter described the


17various data collection methods that provi ded a process for triangulation: teachers’ reflections over two years, 2001-200 2 and 2002-2003, when responding to guiding questions; focus group interviews with groups of teachers, including those teachers who left the school to teach elsewhere and th en returned, 2004, and journal writings by the Principal-researcher from 1987 through mid-2004. Chapter 3 focused on foundational issues that surrounded an entire school reform effort. It emphasized the role of the teacher and school leader as they worked with the Analysis of the Dynamics of Change Model. Chapter Four described the analysis of the data. Triangulation occurred from three identified sources and the results repo rted. The data presented the common themes that emerged from those three data sources. Data analyzed from teacher reflections and focus group interviews from teachers, were reported. Analysis of the events and descriptions found commonalitie s and differences between th e Principal-researcher’s journal entries and teachers’ perceptions. Common themes and identified sub-topics were reported. The data from teachers’ reflections used a coding system based upon categorized statements, common themes, and subtopics that emerged. An analysis of the data described the generalizability, reliability, and validity of the study. Chapter Five provided a summary of findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further research and po licy, based upon the findings from the data. From the findings, there emerged issues th at are common to both the teacher and the Principal-researcher, and perceptions that ar e different between the Principal-researcher and teachers. A section of the Appendix provided th e Southwood Story. It chronicles the


18experiences, events, and conclu sions described by the Princi pal-researcher. There is a conclusion at the end of each section (identif ied by each year in the evolution) entitled, “What I Learned.” The summary of “Wha t I Learned” described the Principalresearcher’s perceptions of the various components of the year based upon the five original constructs: (a) U nderstanding the Constructivist philosophy, (b) Change, (c) Perceptions, (d) Leadership, a nd (e) Teachers as Leaders.


19Chapter 2 Review of the Literature Philosophers The purpose of this section of the prin cipal-researcher’s study examines the various philosophical underpin nings leading to current c onstructivist practices. The constructivist philosophy is a complex ideol ogy with a long history. Four specific areas are examined: change; leadership; teachers’ perceptions of reform; and teachers as leaders. Examining the beliefs of philosophe rs and researchers, about how people learn, teachers teach, and the process used in a constructivist reform model, becomes foundational to the study of implementing a co nstructivist philosophy in an elementary school. The Principal-researcher examined the works of earlier res earchers and authors, such as Piaget, to more contemporary au thors, such as Brooks and Brooks, (1993); Lambert (1995, 2003); Marlowe and Paige, (1998); Shapiro (2000, 2003); to understand how constructivist thinking came into be ing, and how it has evolved. One common element describes constructivist learning: learning must be an active experience (Phillips, 2000) that provides opportunities for children and teachers to make critical connections between what they know and what they are learning. Contemporary thinking about constructivis m, evolved from earlier philosophers


20work that started with discussions about th e point from which the origin in knowledge began, to the method used to acquire know ledge. Phillips (2000) quotes the words of Sellers (1991) who maintained that “the main distinction between the folk view and the scientific view is that only the latter were a reliable sour ce of knowledge” (Phillips, 2000, p. 26). The beginnings of constructivism, as a philosophical position, and the most influential earlier contributor to the field of constructivist beliefs, are often unclear. Kohn (1999) acknowledges Piaget’s work in th e explorations of child development and who only began to use the word “constructivism” toward the end of his life. Phillips (2000) points to the work of von Glasersfel d as “being an important stimulus to contemporary research” (P. 12). Regardless to whom the roots of constructivism are credited, foundational unders tanding becomes important when understanding the many issues surrounding cons tructivist beliefs. In an effort to differentiate among the various groups of philosophers, the Principal-researcher identified two groups each with the terms: Generation One and Generation Two, based upon general periods of time in history. Precursors to constructivist beliefs existed during a time when teachers worked with students in groups, challenging their thinking, asking questions, and solving problems; known often as the Socratic Method. Although not identified as constructivists, some of their methods of instruction became applicable in the next group’s efforts in high-level questioning and problem solving.


21The actual implementation of the constructiv ist philosophy began with Generation One. This group could be described as the founding fathers of constructi vism. Generation Two provided philosophical beliefs based upon the position that constructivism is a broad conceptual framework in philosophy and scien ce. They refined the works of Generation One by developing beliefs applicable to all st udents and defining practical application for the teachers and students of the 21st Century in the Informati on Age. Generation One and Two become the emphasis for this section. Several philosophers and a variety of a dditional descriptions about constructivism are prominently described in the literature and provide the foundation from which the primary constructivist beliefs evolved. Phillips (2000) refers to two di stinct constructivist philosophies. First, the process of build ing knowledge over time can be considered constructivist in nature. They become human constructs with examples seen in areas such as politics, religion and economics and explained as social constructivism. Social Constructivism is described by Phillips (2000). ...the origin of human knowledge, and its standing as knowledge, are to be explicated using sociological tools rather than episte mological ones. ...sociology is the discipline that studies, among othe r things, the influence of social forces and ideologies on human beliefs and actions (p. 6). Phillips (2000) describes Psychological Constructivism as the second type of constructivism. This reflects a set of view s about how teachers should teach and learners learn. Learning happens when learners activel y construct their own meaning. In short, “knowledge is made, not acquired” (p. 7). In this way, no two peopl e will demonstrate


22the same understanding because each cons tructs knowledge based on his or her own background of experiences (Shapiro, 2003). There are a variety of other positions th at philosophers identified. Three of the more common are: empiricist; rationalist; and radical. A brief desc ription may help to understand the different beliefs. Howe and Berve (2000) explai n their view of empirical and rational constructivism. ...all knowledge is grounded in expe rience. The mind passively receives experience and is active in knowledge c onstruction...only in the sense of ordering what is already given in experiences. In rationalism the mind contributes to the construction of knowledge at each level (p. 20). Radical Constructivism comes from the belief that our on ly way of knowing evolves from our background of experiences. This belief did not recognize that knowledge also comes from an individual’s langu age, culture, beliefs, and ideas (Shapiro, 2003). Rational Constructivism refers to the view that “the mind contributes to the construction of knowledge at each level (Howe and Berv, p. 20). A middle position of constructivism: empiricism and rationalism. In empiricism, ‘all knowledge is grounded in experience. The mind passively receives experience and is active in know ledge y in the sense of ordering what is already given in experience (Howe and Berv, p. 20). Michael Matthews (2000) de scribes the history of cons tructivism in a different way. He divided the beliefs into three major traditions: (a) educational constructivism


23subdividing the work of Jean Piaget and Ernst von Glasersfeld; (b) so cial constructivism, beginning with Lev Vygotsky, the Russian pa rallel of Jean Piag et; (c) philosophical constructivism beginni ng with the work of Thomas Kuhn; and (d) sociological constructivism with its early roots in Edinburgh with the “Strong Program’s” research on the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Alt hough constructivists differ in the specific details about the concept of l earning, all appear to agree th at learning must occur when students are active, not passi ve investigators of knowle dge (Marlowe & Page, 1998). 17th and 18th Century philosophers-Generation One Gimabattista Vico, one of the earlier constructivist philosophers mentioned in the early 1700's, created his slogan that “the human mind can know only what the mind has made.” Vico also said, “one only knows some thing if one can explai n it” (Yager, 1991). He, more like Piaget than Kant, who will come later in this section, did not assume that space and time were categories of knowledge, but were human constructs (Shapiro, 2003; Steffe, 2000). Kant, an eighteenth century German ph ilosopher is considered with Piaget as “ancestors of modern psychological constructivism” (Phillips, 2000, p.8). Kant influenced Western psychology, sociology, and moral thought. He believed humans are born with the same fundamental and uncha nging personal identity, called rationality. Western folk psychology desc ribes Kant’s views as “sha rp mind versus body, passion versus reason, and self versus society dualis m; ...The whole task is to determine how a disembodied subject can come to know an embod ied physical object with certainty versus


24reason, and self versus society du alism;…” (Garrison, 1997, p. 543-554). Psychological constructivists identified Immanuel Kant, who influenced Jean Piaget, espoused the concept th at we create such things in the physical universe such as time and space based upon our own understanding and experiences (Bredo, 2000; Phillips, 2000; Spivey, 1997). Phillips ( 2000) continued by paraphr asing Kant’s ideas: “A conceptual scheme without sensory data is empty, sensory data without a conceptual scheme are blind” (p. 21). We live in a common world (Bredo, 2000). Kant was among the earlier philosophers who tried to rees tablish an “absolute view of knowledge” (Rockmore, 2003). Constructivism today can trace its root s to Kantian beliefs of the eighteenth century. Kant acknowledged that we create know ledge, rather than discover it (Wright, 2000). He saw knowledge created as a result of universal, unchanging categories. This became the foundational understanding of sc ientific knowledge. In addition, Kant surmised that the human mind must add to wh at is perceived by maki ng an inference, but contended that because the inferring is a ratio nal process rather than an opinion, the result is knowledge. Knowledge is made–construc ted–through synthesis, which is performed by applying the categories of pure understanding to what is perceived. The mind achieves knowledge, and knowledge is this rational ma king sense of experience (Spivey, 1997). Kant made a significant attempt to explain the value of physics on understanding. In this regard Paty (2003) analyzed Kant’s position. “The synthetic principles of pure understanding include those that deal essentially with the id ea of magnitude and with the possibility to apply mathematics to phenom ena”(p.121). The influence of Kant is


25significant. The assumptions that constructivism, with the belief that humans create order from their experiences and knowledge is c onstructed not discovered are traced to him (Larochelle, Bednarz, & Garrison, 1998). Howeve r, Kant was not able to avoid the belief that somehow we must be able to discover how the real world really is (von Glasersfeld, 2002). After the early decades, evolutionary th inking became rejected in favor of the analysis of systems. Logical system buildi ng began viewing the distinct “worlds.” This type of reasoning relates to Rene Descarte s mathematical and deductive approach. He believed that there were multiple “worlds cons tructed using different assumptions rather than a single world based on a single set of assumptions” (von Glasersfeld p. 130). Rene Descartes classic quote, “I thin k, therefore I am” (Garrison, 1997; Shapiro, 2003) came to mean that everything Descartes believed, he discarded unless they met his standard for his “light of r eason” (Phillips, 2000, p. 8). On ce he abandoned his beliefs he started over again to constr uct knowledge. Howe and Berv (2000) describe Descartes famous wax example to illustrate his rational constructivist belief: How is it that a melting piece of wax can undergo changes in shape, color, and other sensible qualities and yet remain the same piece of wax? His answer is that the mind detects the non-experiential “substance” that makes the piece of wax the same thing through its sensible cha nges. The mind is always active in experience insofar as it contributes mo re than merely ordering what is


26already given (p. 20). During this time empiricists and rationa lists faced different problems. It is difficult for an empiricist to make sense of separating experience from the way the mind works. Howe and Berv (2000) pose a question. If the mind does not interact with the experience, how could the experience organize itself “into chairs, the sky, the electrons, the persons..?.” (p. 26). As a rationalist, Descartes suggest ed that reason and experience must be brought together. When Rousseau wrote his exposition re garding the ideal sc hool he laid the foundations for constructivism according to Marlow and Page (1998) and Shapiro, (2003). Rousseau identified the ways in which students formulate ideas. Namely, children use their senses and then make cri tical connections when they develop patterns and see relationships among the ideas they formed through interaction. Rousseau then surmised that students would adjust and reform ulate these ideas as children participated in new and different experi ences and interactions. Another philosopher, Pestalozzi, although not as frequently noted in the more recent literature, had a similar belief. His premise was that when children observe and interact with their environm ent they develop an unders tanding and make critical connections, see the patterns, and the similar characteristics in what they see and experience. He believed that this was the way that all humans developed their knowledge He maintained that the educational process should be based on the natural development of children and the sensory influences. Pe stalozzi’s basic peda gogical belief was his insistence that children lear n through their senses, rather than with words. He


27emphasized the linking of curriculum to children ’s experiences in their home and family lives (Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Cooper, Lambert, Gardner, & Slack, 1995; Marlow & Page, 1998; Shapiro, 2003). Jean Piaget is well known in educational literature. His “works have generated more interest and research than those of any other pers on in psychology in the last 60 years” (Wadsworth, 1996, p.6). It was Piaget who first used the term constructivism (Lambert, Collay, Dietz, Kent & Richert, 1996). His essays and descriptions are considered far ahead of his time --from 1941-1950 (von Glasersfeld, 2000). He established a theory of intellectual developmen t that is fluid and t hus changing. Piaget determined that there is a natural evoluti on in intellectual development with children, with predictable benchmarks and endpoints. Wadsworth (1996) adds that development or construction of knowledge is not completely automatic. Rates of development vary although the continuum of learning remains consistent for everyone. Realizing the optimum level of a chil d’s cognitive, affective, and social development is important; however, it should not be the only goal. The child’s culture requires adaptation both developmentally and acc ording to the expectations of the culture (Marlowe & Page, 1998). Wadsworth (1996) describes the Piagetian vision as constructivist since th e learning of skill and content along with the child’s natural development are compatible. Piaget’s beliefs added to those philos ophers noted earlier. However, Piaget’s theory did not include the importance of social and cultural factors in intellectual development (Shapiro, 2000). For that, Wadsworth (1996) draws upon the work of Vygotsky as it relates to Piaget Piaget was interested in how knowledge is formed or


28constructed within the mind of th e child. He studied the role of contradiction in learning. It was Vygotsky who wrote about his inte rest in how social and cultural factors influence a child’s development, including st udies of the effect of language on learning (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Fosnot, 1996; Gagnon & Collay, 2001; Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Cooper, Lambert, Gardner, & Sl ack, 1995; Selley, 1999). The term Social Constructivism, most often attributed to Vygotsky, (Bredo, 2000) evolves from the belief that the basis of knowledge comes from social interaction of the child. This view is similar to the view that meaning is construc ted from the culture to the child (Wadsworth, 1996). Vygotsky believed that learning is the primary focus of intellectual development, whereby Piaget believed that development is the primary focus. The basis for psychological theory of learning was develope d both by Piaget and Vygotsky. The basis of the belief implies that humans have no “obj ective reality since we are constructing our version of it, while at the same time tran sforming it and ourselves” (Fosnot, 1996, p.23). Vygotsky also developed a concept calle d “the zone of actual development and the zone of proximal development” (Berk & Winsler, 1995, p. 5). The zone of actual development occurs when children are able to solve problems independently. The zone of proximal development occurs when students can solve problems with assistance. This concept supports the notion that when othe rs model knowledge and social interaction, students learn things they could not learn by themselves (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Wadsworth, 1996). An additional position of Vygotsky occurred in beliefs about how mathematical knowledge develops. He felt that mathematical ideas and theories come


29from the exchange of beliefs and view s among a collective group as well as an individual’s conclusions (Laroc helle, Bednarz & Garrison, 1998). Additional theories of how children l earn came from Jerome Bruner (1971). He also differed from Piaget primarily in the ar ea of language and social factors relating to cognitive development. He saw the relations hip between language and success on tasks as correlational and not causal. Bruner saw language as a guide for thought when a child uses symbolic representations (Spivey, 1997; Fosnot, 1996). When students reflect on their own thinking and learning, we ask them to talk or write about their feelings, and ideas, the child then uses the symbolic syst em of writing to constr uct their experiences (Gagnon & Collay 2001). Bruner also believed that discovery was the basis for problem solving (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, 2000; Larochelle, Bednarz, & Garrison, 1998). Learning becomes an active process. He coined the word, sche mata, meaning that wh en students think and classify information, based upon their interest and “cognitive structure” or schemata, it provides a way to gain new information and new ideas (Marlowe & Page, 1998, p. 18). Mainstream educators believed the premise of Vygotsky and Bruner, that the construction of knowledge was an individual’s personal action with increasi ng attention to the importance that culture played in the lear ning process; the soci al construction of knowledge ( Berk & Winsler, 1995; Fosnot, 1996; Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Cooper, Lambert, Gardner & Slack, 1995; Larochelle, Bednarz, & Garrison, 1998; Shapiro, 2003). Vygotsky’s beli ef that learning is a social experience is based upon his social constructivist theo ry (Gagnon & Collay, 2001).


30 The term scaffolding appears in th e literature from both Vygotsky (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Gagnon & Collay, 2000) and Br uner (Fosnot, 1996). Scaffolding means that a child receives assistance from an adu lt with “hints and props that allow him to begin a new climb, guiding the child in next steps before the child is capable of appreciating their si gnificance on his own” (Fosnot, 1996, p. 21). A spiraling curriculum is another term for the same notion. When st udents build on previous understanding they become more sophisticated in what they know and believe (Selley, 1999, 2000). John Dewey is among the best known philosophers. Dewey’s belief: When children learn they discover their own answer s, create their own ideas, and develop their own understanding, learning becomes construc ted, learning is deeper and ultimately provides students problem solving and critical thinking skills (Marlowe & Page, 1998). Dewey proposed that children and teachers learn by building on previous knowledge, or what they already know and believe (Lambe rt, Collay, Dietz, Kent, & Richert, 1997; National Research Council, 2000; Vygot sky, 1978, Wadsworth, 1996). Dewey further proposed that for children to transfer know ledge they must integrate their learning, generally around a central theme and their ow n personal interest (Dewey, 1900; Fosnot, 1996; Wadsworth, 1996). Dewey’s beliefs were described as progr essive (Lambert, Collay, Dietz, Kent, & Richert, 1997). Dewey firmly believed that in order fo r students to experience transfer of knowledge to other arenas they must be activ ely involved in their learning (Phillips, 2000). The development of a project is one ex ample of that type of learning. When projects create learning, fit st udents interests, develop mo tivation, scaffold children’s thinking to higher levels, that lead to more questions a nd inquiry over time, learning


31occurs (Larochelle, Bednarz, & Garrison, 1998). Ultimately, when students come to have a clear understanding, they must create their own meaning (Marlowe & Page, 1998; Shaprio, 2000, 2003). Dewey was a social constructivist. He did not believe that learning was a simple thing. It was not a matter of exchanging an old experience for a new one. It is a developmental issue where new learning is built on previous experiences (Fosnot, 1996; Gagnon & Collay, 2001; Larochell, Bednarz & Garrison, 1998; Steffe, 2000). In addition, Dewey wanted students to engage in interaction with other students and teachers in ways that provided collabor ation (Dewey, 1938; Larochelle, Bendnarz & Garrison, 1998; Wadsworth, 1996). George Herbert Mead is another well-known philosopher linked to the constructivist beliefs. He frequently a ssociated with Dewey and was close personal friends. In the words of Jim Garrison, “so intermeshed was their influence on each other that it is often impossible to determine w ho originated what” (Larochelle, Bendnarz & Garrison, 1998, p. 43). Both Dewey and Mead felt that the embodied meanings are habits. Habits include those that perceive, recognize, imagine, and reason. Dewey also worked with many students w ho became influential educators. Two well known doctoral students were Ella Fla gg Young and Hilda Taba. Ella Flagg Young, worked hard to move from 19th to 20th century instruction as the first female superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools. She studied with Dewey at the University of Chicago and became interested in his philoso phy. It was there, as she assisted Dewey


32in his laboratory school, that Young became a leading advocate for a system of schooling that stressed Dewey’s beliefs. Young agreed th at teachers should connect what students learn to their own world, engage in hands-on experiences, and that students should learn to be in charge of thei r own learning (Null, 2003). When Young served both as a Chicago professor and a principal in Dewey’s laboratory school, she recruited Chicago teacher s to study at the University and promote the ideas and practices that she and others developed at the laboratory school. In 1909, she accepted a position as superintendent of the Chicago schools (Null, 2003). In that position Young practiced her belie f that a democratic system was more effective than the top-down hierarchy that ruled the school syst em earlier. She was elected as the first woman pr esident of the Natio nal Educational Association in 1910 and enacted the same principles with that organization. In whatever position, Young promoted her belief system acquired at the Un iversity of Chicago, that institutions should practice democratic principles. She also be lieved in the importance of student-centered learning (Null, 2003). Another powerful woman educator, Hilda Taba, was later identified by John Dewey as one of the most brilliant stude nts with whom he ever worked. Taba immigrated from Estonia in 1926. She en tered Bryn Mawr College, completed her degree and began working on her doctorate, al so with John Dewey. In the 1930's Taba was in the middle of the progressive educati on movement that was gaining strength at that time (Null, 2003). Taba also believed in the importance of establishing democratic ideals and the need for democratic education. She began to call for teaching strategies that were


33“dynamic in forms and processes” (Ber nard-Powers, 1999, p. 192). She worked to develop educational practices that allowed students to meet their full potential and become effective democratic citizens. She e xpected teachers to become learners side-byside with their students. Thomas Kuhn determined that knowing is never final, that it is based upon the relative understanding at that moment in time and is always a work in progress (Rockmore, 2003). This changed the view of the scientific process completely. The history of science was then s een as a steady progression where theory is added to theory until the truth is found. Kuhn saw a series of revolutionary changes of the world-view of science as one period of scientific theory that had very little in common with the previous one. He postulated that perhaps science would never find a truth (Ehrencrona, 2002). Kuhn appears to make the critical connec tion between the theoretical basis of how knowledge is constructed and the position that makes application of the theory more workable. He believed that what is known depends on the period of time and the world at the time. Kuhn developed the notion that we build knowledge when adding information and understanding to our prior experiences (Rockmore, 2003). Von Glasersfeld (2000) is identified in th e literature as a Radi cal Constructivist. He based his study of constructivism from the work of Ceccata and Piaget. Von Glasersfeld identified the term, radical cons tructivist, as opposed to Piaget’s term constructivism. The added term of radical de veloped when Piaget’s constructivist term became widely discussed within the educationa l arena. Von Glasersfeld heard statements


34 that indicated that children don’t simply swallow all adult knowledge whole, they have to construct it! As a result of von Glasersf eld added his own interpretation and described it as radical construc tivism (von Glasersfeld, 1995). He did not intend for his radical approach to replace Piaget ’s belief. He believed that knowledge begins with our experiences. This view is radical, since in its purist form means that our only way of knowing evolves from our background of experi ences. As a result none of us will see things the same way. Shapiro (2003) points out the flaw in von Glasersfeld’s reasoning, because knowledge is based on several other va riables, such as language, culture, beliefs, and values. Paul Lewin quoted from Gl asersfeld’s essay, ‘Learning as Constructive Activity,’ as a way to describe what it means to ‘ know what one is doing and why it is right’? Interpretation implies awareness of mo re than one possibi lity, deliberation, and rationally controlled choice...To do th e right thing is not enough; to be competent one must also know what one is doing and why it is right (von Glasersfeld, 1987, p. 328). Von Glasersfeld’s beliefs are adapted in mathematics education when combining the psychological cons tructivism of Glasersf eld and the notions of Piaget regarding assimilation and accommodation. The use of Piag et’s adaptational sense refers to the sensory-motor and conceptual operations that are effectively utilized in mathematics instruction (Cobb, 2000). Von Glasersfeld expl ained that Piaget’s discussions of children’s socialization in th e school setting comprised two different mechanisms. One was the imitation of physical actions and behaviors, including speech, because of the


35influence of others; the other is a result of mutually agreed upon actions that are a result of reflection and understanding within coopera tive interaction with others. Piaget’s application of his constructiv ist views are parallel to von Glasersfeld’s beliefs (von Glasersfeld, 2000). Von Glasersfeld summarized his radical cons tructivist position as it relates to the future. “ effort to develop viable theoretic al models in the areas of ethics and social interaction...we should take even more care to stress and repeat that we are constructing a model that should be tested in pr actice” (von Glasersfeld, 2000, p. 8). Psychological and social constructivism are combined in the work by Cobb and Yackel (1996). They combined the psyc hological perspective of von Glasersfeld and involved analyzing individual students’ and the teacher’s interpretations and actions within cooperative groupings. The social pe rspective occurs within that interaction (Cobb, 2000). American Marx Wartofsky, a Marxis t-oriented philosopher, understood the connection between Marx and Hegel. Many philo sophers continue their debate regarding the foundation of knowledge in such beliefs as presented by Wartofsky according to the writings of Dolling (2003). Wartofsky believed the human activity in the arts and science provides the foundations for knowledge. Wart ofsky maintained that constructing and using artifacts genera tes knowledge. He continued by diffe rentiating between artifacts as a tool, in its primary form, or as symbols in such representations as picture in art and models in science. One artifact, he maintained, is language (Dooling, 2003). Dooling (2003) continues by expandi ng on the concept noted by Hans-Georg Gadamer who places interpretation and unde rstanding as the foundation of all thought.


36Therefore, language, according to Gadamer is the basis for all human activity. Wartofsky agrees with Gadamer’s proposition about la nguage but adds that language, although an artifact, depends upon its formulation and use. The notion that constructivist thinki ng had ramifications for the general population of students prompted the next gene ration of philosophers and researchers to emerge with ideas of ways to incorporate thei r beliefs into the practical application within schools. 19th through 21st Century Philosophers Several prominent modern researchers e xpand constructivist be liefs that provide practical application for the classroom. Theo ries and strategies a bout how children learn combine one or more of the philosophies of earlier pioneers in the field. The learning process identified as construc tivist is seen frequently in many countries around the world. Authors and researchers who lead the fi eld of constructivis t theory, practical application and focus on constructivist pr actices such as: Brooks and Brooks (1993, 2000); Fosnot (1996); Lambert, Collay, Dietz, Kent, and Richert (1996); Lambert (2003); Marlowe and Page (1998) disc uss application into individual classrooms. Only Shapiro, (2003) describes how effectiv e instructional practices a nd constructivis t application merge. Constructivist influence app ears especially strong in lite rature that relates to the field of science. Gunstone (2000) a prof essor of science and technology at Monash University in Cayton, Victoria, Australia, id entified three research groups that described the nature of the constructivism. These gr oups include the Univers ity of Waikato (New


37Zealand), University of Leeds (England), a nd Monash University (Australia) in the context of how each of the research programs identified areas of difference, perspectives, and context that relate to science education. Richard White of the Monash Group, identified the primary statement that guides constructivist science education researchers, “individuals construct thei r own understanding based upon what the learner already knows and believes” (Gunstone, 2000, p. 273). Othe r eminent researchers in the field of science education identified by Gunstone ( 2000) include Hans Neidderer and his group from the University of Bremen; Joseph Nova k of Cornell; David Treagust of Curtin University of Technology (Australia); Li llian McDermott of the University of Washington (Gunstone, 2000). The influence of the constructivist philo sophy is evident in the work of several curriculum designers: Erickson (1995, 1998, 2001); Hayes-Jacobs (1998); Shapiro, Benjamin and Hunt (1995); Wiggins and McTi ghe (1998). Each rese archer, author, and well-known consultant in specific areas of educational practices, demonstrate a constructivist belief and opera tionalize the philosophy of eminen t scholars noted earlier. For example, cooperative grouping is most of ten described in the work of Johnson and Johnson (1989). Brain-compatible studies and subsequent implementation developed from the work of Fogarty, (1997); Caine and Caine, (1991, 1997); Caine, Caine and Crowell (1999); National Re search Council (2000). Brain research examines various learning styles and environmental experiences of students and provides teachers an understan ding of the importance of utilizing each student’s prior experiences as a basis for id entifying instructional st rategies. Authors


38 discuss compatible topics importa nt to classroom instruction: 1. Teaching to individual student strengths, Armstrong (2003); Silver, Strong and Perini, (2000); Gardner, (1991, 1996, 1999). 2. Questioning strategies leading to hi gher-order thinking, Brooks and Brooks (1993, 2000); Costa and Kallick (2000); DeB ono (1985, 1994); Ennis (1996); Gagnon and Collay (2001); Norris and Ennis (1989). 3. Teaching for understanding, Brooks and Brooks (2000); Darling-Hammond (1997); Erickson, (1995, 1998); Marlowe and Page (1998). 4. Small group instruction (Saunders 1992; Fountas & Pinnell, 2002). Constructivist classrooms also demonstr ate a democratic community. Strategies for developing such a democratic environment are found in the work of Apple and Beane, (1999). In that sense, constructivist teach ers encourage students to complete tasks and projects by working together toward a co mmon goal according to Blais (1998); Brooks and Brooks, (1993); Clough and Clark (1999); Crawford and Witte (1994); Johnson and Johnson (1989); Rita (1998); Gadanidis, (1994); Phillips, (1995). Problem-based learning is described by Br ooks and Brooks (1999); Fogerty (1970); Wolfe (2001); Wheatley (1991). The Analysis of the Dynamics of Cha nge Model provides a vehicle to assess a school culture, diagnose and an alyze predominate issues, determine issues, look for relevant themes, and determine a plan. In th e process, teachers’ pe rceptions of ways to solve problems, particip ate in decision making, and develop ownership in the solution. became fundamental to the constructivist process.


39 Teachers’ perceptions of constructivism as an organizational change model became operationalized through the proc ess illustrated in Appendix 2 and described in Shapiro (2003). Summary Each of the construc tivist philosophers provided the foundation upon which researchers built their beliefs reflected in cu rrent educational practices. Instructional teaching strategies, curriculum and assessmen t design currently used in modern schools demonstrate many of the constructivist beliefs. Students should learn in environments that promote: higher-order thinking; solv ing problems through hands-on experiences; working in cooperative groups; self-assessm ent; empowering learners; and building on individual strengths. Utilizing a process that defined the philo sophical position of the school provided a point of reference from which each teacher and the Principal could refer. Creating a constructivist school required identifying each of the components arising from the philosophical positions of previ ous researchers and identified ear lier in this chapter. It then became necessary to incorporate identifi ed state and national standards into the philosophy of the school. The connection be tween the constructiv ist philosophy and the implementation if a constructivis t belief system for an entire school became part of the organizational process. Mattews (20 00) founding editor of the journal of Science and Education,


40 comments that although constructivism bega n as a theory of learning, it has evolved now into a theory of teaching, edu cation, personal scientific knowledge It is also a theory of learning and administrative leadership (Shapiro, 2002, 2003). “Constructivism has become education’s version of a gran d unified theory” (Mattews, p. 161).


41 Change This section of the literature review de scribes the many issues that develop during the evolution of change in an organizati on. Specifically, the principal-researcher identified those authors whose works explai n the complexity of change within an educational setting. Change and its ultimate effect on a school staff, becomes complicated due to many variables that ar e often unpredictable. The question: What obstacles, assumptions, and outcomes develop when change occurs? The process of change becomes particul arly confusing when identifying the many terms used by authors. Researchers interp ret change in different ways. Several explanations surrounding the de finitions of change are pr esented including: reform, renewal, restructuring and reculturing. Chaos, challeng es, complications, and school cultures are associated with the change process and this section discusses the accompanying effects and issues with each. This section concludes by addressing the issue of utilizing a constructivist appr oach in the change is a process. What is meant by change? Semantics requires an understanding of the various descriptions of change: reform, Fullan (1991, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001); Clark and Asuto (1994); Shapiro, Benjamin, and Hunt (1994, 1995); Pogrow (1996); Slavin (1990, 2001); renew, Hall and Hord (2001), restructure, Evans (1996) ; Owens (1995, 1998); redesign, Wilson and Daviss (1994); reculture, Fullan (1991); Wonycott-Kytle and Bogotch (1997, 2000).


42 Various authors describe change with te rminology that delineates various types of change. Fullan (1999) emphasizes the paradox that exists when there is a need to engage in discourse with new and di fferent descriptors and ideas; ideas that we may not agree with, “in order to arrive at cohesive integration and consis tency” (p. 67). Confusion also exists between the terms school-based reform and systemic reform (Shield and Knapp, 1997). An example of the confusion that exists when describing change as reform is found by examining the results of a five-year study of the Coalition of Essential Schools (Muncey & McQuillan, 1993). They identified seven fundamental issues that develop when anticipating barriers associated with change. 1. In most of the schools there was not a consensus that fundamental changes in school structure of teach ing practices needed to occur. 2. The changes that occurred or were considered when a school joined the Coalition forced the issue of what constituted the school's philosophy and revealed differences in faculty member’s perceptions of their jobs, of the school's mission, and of the best ways to educate students. 3. The usual starting points for reform were principles that individual teachers could attempt to apply with little disruption to the school as a whole. 4. At most schools, a core of faculty members became active in their school's reform, but their efforts of ten ended up dividing the faculty. 5. Most Coalition supporters were na ive about the degree to which school reform could be affected by focusing on acad emic concerns and about issues of


43power and policies with in their schools. 6. The divisions created within sc hools as a resu lt of Coalition membership restricted communication among the faculty, and responses to changes were often based on hearsay. 7. Schools assumed that once the faculty "accepted" a reform program there was little need for further reflection on this decision (pp. 486-489). Reform prescribes to a large group of schools and classrooms. The impact is indirect on the classroom teach ers’ experiences with childr en. Rather than look back over past practices it is more important to evaluate accomplishments and replace the concept of accountability with the concept of responsibility. The charge of responsibility implies providing the most nurturing learning environment possible for teachers and students. Until recently, a constructivist approach toward student learning and teacher instruction was rarely identif ied as a viable option for a school philosophy. Teachers were trained to implement methods that were rooted in strategies that began decades earlier. The traditional instructional delivery model contained isolated skill, drill, and content material delivered by a specialized teacher, within a rigid time frame (Adler, 1977; Daggett, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Goodlad, 1994; Schlechty, 2001). Bells drove the assembly line method of teaching (Daggett, 2001; Shapiro, 2000). This model no longer prepares our students to be come productive citizens in the 21st Century information age. “Our education system is still gene rally driven by th e acquisition of


44knowledge....Meanwhile, the ‘real world’ is in creasingly calling for workers with the ability to apply knowledge....E ducators will be challenged to apply the growing body of research on how people learn and how succe ssful schools have changed the way they teach students. Putting this research into prac tice is vital to ensuring that all students are able to reach their potenti al” (Daggett, 2001, p.5). People are now finding out that quid pro quo is no longer valid. Today change ma y very well be the nor m (Greenleaf, 1997). The real meaning of change becomes di storted because of the difference between the intention and the actual implementation. The articulation of the goal might appear very clear, yet become very different from how the goal is interpre ted and carried out. Solutions must evolve from those who must carry out the intent of the change. It must be “shared meaning” (Fullan, 1991, p.5). The difference in terminology and the implications of those differences are significant. Several authors criticize reform initiatives and its effect on the change process. According to the literature, refere nce to reform efforts refer more to several schools, districts, or states, and rarely refer to an individual school (Pogrow, 1996). If change occurs, it must happen for a ll the right reasons in all the right ways. Success of any change comes in giving the power to plan, develop, and implement the change to those who are re sponsible for making the change work (Wilson and Daviss, 1994). Smith (2001) identifies f our specific areas that would justify a significant change in a school. 1. If the change is substantial. That is, is the change going to impact the school, alter what and how teachers teach, provide ownership on the part of the


45stakeholders, and identify specific outcomes Smith refers to Stanford University historian Larry Cuban who labeled substant ial change as a "second order" change (Smith, 2001). Second-order change involve s a "shift in values, beliefs, and practices" (p.30). 2. How substantial is the change? When change occurs in several dimensions such as instruction, organi zation, governance, and accountability then the change is substantial 3. What is the focus of the change ? The focus must center around how teachers teach, students learn and how bot h engage in the growth process of learning. 4. How is change measured? What outcomes are measured? What are the expected results when change occurs? (p. 32). Smith (2001) provides four dimensions to consider when deciding whether or not a significant change is necessary for a sc hool. Is it substantial, systemic, studentcentered, and solution-oriented? Sarason ( 1996) asks the question regarding the depth and breadth of change. He main tains that for change to be effective it must be both deep and broad. According to Smith (2001) when change is deep and broad it will involve more than one teacher doing exceptional things in the classroom; it will involve many classrooms and affect instruction, orga nization, governance, and accountability. Before anyone can discuss how and w hy a school should change (Sarason, 1996; Wilson & Daviss, 1994) makes it clear that first educators must pry d eeply into their own background of experiences in th e school setting, then, combin e those belief systems with


46the culture of the school before any change can be clearly articulated. In the initial stages, the reality of teacher behavior exhibits the n eed to make sure that the teacher's needs and concerns are addressed first (Shapiro, 2000). Teachers want to know exactly how the change will affect them and how much extra work will be required. This “need precedes the commitment to any specific goals and advantages that may exist” (Fullan, 1991, p. 35). Systemic Reform System thinking emphasizes the complexi ties and complications of issues that, “affects wholes rather than pa rts, at patterns of change ra ther than static snapshots.” (Senge, 1990, p.68). Senge describes systems th inkers as those who stay focused on the big picture with the underlying belief that with “systemic pa tterns we can solve problems effectively and develop a self-renewing lear ning organization that can cope with a changing environment” (pp. 42-54). Historical perspective of reform is gain ed from the work of Pogrow (1996). He describes the many reforms that ran from th e mid-1960's to the mid-1970's that did not survive; open space, individualization, and co mmunity-based education as examples. Educational reform historically fails to survive and become institutionalized. Soder (1999) makes the distinction by contending that when examining major state and federal reforms ther e appear little rec ognition of a given call or other social issues. He maintains that the status quo of the reform movements pay little attention to issues such as social injustice, racism, and se xism. He adds that the language of reform


47carries with it the “connotations of things gone wrong that need to be corrected. It says nothing about the nature of education, the se lf, or the human community” (p.574). Slavin (2001) adds that the primar y strategy discussed when the issues of standards, assessments, accountability and governance are ra ised becomes a systemic reform. The requirements are developed either at th e national, state or district level. Clark and Astuto (1994) express concer n when reform means the same as the harshness of bureaucracy, control, competition and intervention. Then results become that of “distrust and inspec tion” (p. 520). There are two assumptions made about teachers in the workplace when initiating refo rm. The organization must decide which of the two opposing assumptions will determine the workplace environment. There are two opposing assumptions; “people are the means of production within an organization, or people are the initiators of ac tion and the shapers of a working environment that fosters individual and collective achievement” (p. 519). The price of school reform according to Soder (1999) appears to be “increased teacher and student anxiety” (p. 573). Although Pogrow (1996) describes change as 5reform, the issues are consistent with that of overall. He descri bes both the myths and realities as he reviews why educational reforms fail. Pogr ow’s myths state that you can change instruction through advocacy, in-service and training. He maintains that a new philosophy for education precedes a newly coin ed phrase. Articles are written for advocating the new philosophy under the assumpti on that the identified research actually reflects the strength of the technique propose d. Hindsight shows th at the research is never very convincing and the reform fades aw ay because it lacks the solid application


48needed for successful implementation. The di fference between educational reform and renewal is defined by Sirotnik (1999). He be lieves that reform tends to be politically motivated, trendy, heavily accountable, and shor t-lived. Reform requires accountability. A more conservative view is taken by Wagner, Ward, and Dianda, (1990). He used yet another descriptor for change. They believed that schools need “reinventing.”(p.147). They conceded that th e idea of federal reform and the cookies cutter approach will not work, such as those described earlier in Slavin’s work. They do believe that in order for school reform to work, it would be necessary to conduct a total “systemic change” (p. 149) According to Wilson and Daviss (1994) re form has to show results right away. Reformers believe that in order to salvage our declining schools, sweeping changes must occur immediately. There is no Magic Bullet (p. 130). It takes decades of complex external and internal factors to accumulate most issues w ithin a school. Each factor requires thorough investigation. In the Abbott v. Burke funding-equity case the New Jersey Supreme Court required low performing schools w ith the highest poverty rate to select from a group of comprehensive models. Success for All became one of nine specified options (Slavin, 2001). In this model every aspect of the pr ogram: assessment; curr iculum; instruction; parent involvement, and professional devel opment provide a script from which the teachers cannot deviate. (Brown & Moffitt, 1999) disagree that this approach works. They make significant arguments to defend how “one size cannot fit all” (p. 54). Renewal involves individual and organizati onal change. It is about nurturing the


49lives of educators who work to improve th eir practice. Wilson a nd Daviss (1994) believe that if schools will fashion a process that allows educators to refine, develop, and integrate the new paradigm, then a renewe d educational system of effectiveness, efficiency and quality is possible. Restructuring and Reculturing Fullan maintains that to reculture is to restructure (1993). The results of a qualitative study by Wonycott-Kytle and Bogotch (1997) identified four major components of the reculturing processes: “( a) reflecting on and que stioning past and present practice; (b) comprehensive, conti nuous, and purposeful development activities; (c) reconfiguring roles toward collaboration, and; (d) s eeing rewards and incentives”( p. 133). These points are grounded in the premise that the prospects for successful change depend on the extent to which the participan ts in school reform efforts examine their work culture. Findings by Prestine and Mc Greal(1997) caution rese archers to question the assumption that there is a relationship be tween reculturing and ac hievement in student learning. Chaos In the literature there is frequent refere nce to change and chaos as if they were axiomatic. “The inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a system,” defined in Webster’s New American Dictionary helps clarify the notion that chaos is a natural outgrowth of change. Over the years several authors addressed the relationship between


50change and chaos (Brown & Moffett, 1999; Fullan, 1999; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998; Peters, 1987, 1994; Sarason, 1996; Wilson & Daviss, 1994). Chaos rests somewhere between too much structure and not enough structure. Learning occurs from chaos, “combined with the complexity and evolutionary theories,” (Fullan, 1999, p.ix). It is necessary to provide a balance between too much and too little structure. We need specific strategies to learn how to live and learn on the creative edge of chaos (Fullan, 1999). Brown and Moffett (1999) also describe th e change process as one of chaos and complexity. They explain the phase, “followi ng innocence lost” (p. 59) as the time when we see that the traditional approach to making decisions no longe r is adequate. The expectations placed on schools reflect the comp licated society in which we live. The good news, according to Garmston and We llman (1995) is that change and transformation is a natural out growth of chaos and complexity. "They are part of the same system and exist simultaneously." (p. 6). Hargreaves and Fullan (1998) describe the factors that create chaos and complexity for educators. 1. Instant access to information and he ightened speed of decision-making that have been created by the new technologies. 2. The increased speed of information flow and decision making. Modern technology compresses time and space. 3. Even the knowledge bases that guide our educational responses to complexity are unstable. Knowledge about classroo m learning, effectiv e leadership or planned change, for example, is constantly being challenged.


51 4. Greater diversities of culture, la nguage and religion in our student populations Are throwing traditional educational goa ls into question and making consensus difficult to achieve? 5. Outside pressures and demands on t eachers are not only increasing, they are also contradictory. ...cultural diversity is leading policy makers to embrace multiple intelligences and varied lear ning styles, while parents and some employers' groups agitating for "quality" education want grea ter standardization (pp. 20-21). The Chaos Theory noted by Wilson & Daviss (1994) and Sarason (1996) and the parallel, Complexity Theory of Fullan (1999) appears to capture the understated components that make up a school. Fullan ( 1999) describes his Complexity or Chaos Theory as “those creative solutions that deve lop when interaction occurs from conditions of uncertainty, chaos and dive rsity” (p.4). Living in Fulla n’s chaos requires forming relationships with people who we don’t unders tand or may not like. He stresses the importance of working through the discomfort of each other’s presence, learning from the lack of continuous harmony and developing more complex agreements and capabilities within the turmoil. Being on the edge of chaos means that structure and open-endedness coexist. It does not mean lack of any structure when no le arning occurs. The structure consists of a guidance of moral purpose, a few key priori ties, focus on knowledge and data generated from shared problem solving and assessmen t of results. Fullan (1999) continues by


52pointing out that effective or ganizations that “trust th e process” embedded in his Complexity or Chaos Theory, outperform all other organizations. He states that “an effective organization does ‘tru st the processes completely. Th ey develop a plan that does not leave their work subject to chance.” ( p.24). Fullan expands on his beliefs about chaos when he clarifies that chaos does not mean lack of structure when no learning occurs. Instead, being on the edge of chaos means that structure and open-endedness coexist. He notes that the structure should contain a fe w key priorities, focus on the information gained through shared problem so lving and analyze the findings. Wilson and Daviss (1994) define Chaos as a branch of mathematics that “explain a phenomenon otherwise unexplainable” (p. 39 ). Although Sarason (1996) emphasizes the importance of letting the practice that ex ists within the school culture, drive the theory. Theory cannot stand alone and isolat ed from the school culture and its existing practices. He believes that theories hold no value unless they are pa rt of a bigger picture such as the actions to avoid, and a realisti c time frame for developing the problem of how to accomplish the desired goals. Therefore, th e theory comes from and continues to drive the school’s practices. The Complexity or Chaos Theory warns that in the beginning it may appear that everything is running smoothly, but if differences are avoided they will grow over time and become that much more difficult to re solve. Living in Fullan’s chaos requires forming relationships with people who we don’ t understand or may not like. He stresses the importance of working through the discomfort of each other’s presence, learning from


53the lack of continuous harmony and developing more complex agreements and capabilities within the turmoil. Fullan (1991) describes another assumpti on. He states that no matter how much knowledge there is, there is no way to predic t exactly what action should be taken to ensure effective change. He maintains that action decisions are a combination of several factors: “valid knowledg e; political issues; imme diate decisions; and intuition” (p. 107). He reinforces his position that first changes in its multidimensional form might vary both with an individual and with a group. Sec ond, when deep changes are at stake those changes go to the heart of the groups’ professional identity and self-concept. Third, of the three dimensions of change, ther e is a complex system of "a dynamic interrelationship" (p.28). It is this relationship that becomes the core of the problem unless there is a thorough understanding about the interrelationship of the three (Sarason, 1996). Schools undoubtedly want to move past the original project (Fullan, 1991) continues by emphasizing that "deeper changes in the very culture of the school and its relationship to outside agencies are at stake" (p. 90). When promoting change there must be mechanisms to address exactly what the change means because change occurs at the individual level (Fullan, 1991). What is the difference between effectiv e and ineffective change? During Smith’s (2001) workshops around the country he asks part icipants to list their associations with


54“superficial change” and “s ubstantial change” (p. 30). The respondents provided statements concerning superfic ial change. They felt it was illusory, temporary, cosmetic, short-lived, mandated, and top-down. The desc riptors about substa ntial change were identified with having an impact, affecti ng teaching and learning, changing what people actually do, led by practitioners involving a sense of owne rship, leading to definite outcomes. Smith (2001) discusses points made by Harvard University’s Richard Elmore. Elmore (1995, 2001) maintains that change in sc hools in the United States is not effective change because the focus is faulty. Use of a Facilitator Fullan (1991), considered an outside facili tator as a valuable part of the change process. He studied the eff ect of 80 outside facilitators who worked with 97 schools and reported the findings of Cox (1983). He pr ovided significant suppor t in a variety of ways, including the effectiveness of an outsi de facilitator working with local change agents to develop plans for implementa tion, and playing a co ntinuing support and evaluation role. Fullan (1991) also agrees with the studies of Corbett, Dawson, and Firestone (1984), in thei r position that an external facil itator supporting a local leader is most effective in the early stages of change. Readiness to initiate change concerns the definition by Firestone (1989) as the "school's capacity to use reform" (p. 63). Fu llan (1991) identifies se veral questions that could guide the determination of whether or not a school was able to change. Is the school ready with the prerequisite skills to proceed? Is their time to initiate and move forward with the change process? Are there ad equate materials, suppl ies and facilities to


55move forward? Fullan supports the need to continuo usly provide support through in-service and orientation to each new staff member that join s a faculty. If the support is not there, the new staff members can erode the processes in place. He describes the ultimate goal of the change process through the work of Cr andall, Eiseman, and Louris (1986) with a quote regarding innovation, "...the user becomes so proficient that he or she is finding new wings, modifying the origin al innovation so that it in fa ct works better, or even looking for a practice that repr esents an improvement over th e one just mastered" (p. 44). Challenges Fullan (1991) refers to the work of Berman and McLaughlin (1978); Huberman and Miles (1984) when he explains how st aff and administrative turnover become the most powerful factors that get in the way of effective change. Principal interviews by the Principal-researcher (Isaacson, 2001) concur. Additional challenges occur when teache rs, administrators, students, and parents enter into a school environment where their prior experiences within education provide the foundation that drives their current be lief about how teachers should teach and children should learn (Sarason, 1996). “The challenge to each individual teacher, administrator and school in the coming years wi ll be to harness the winds of change by focusing on the needs of student learni ng in the classroom” (Daggett, p. 1).


56With each classroom innovation teachers f eel challenged when it goes against their personal and professional beliefs. If their current practice works, they feel there is no need to change (Wilson & Daviss, 1994). Trubowitz (2000) agrees. He found that teachers as a group value security and stabil ity, they work hard, and are committed to help others. With those characteristics and na ture they will more likely resist change in the beginning. They are usually comfortable with their current secure place and generally want to stay there. This position is furt her confirmed by Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) when they examined the dilemmas and problems created that get in the way of implementing educational change. Teachers f ace more complex issues to handle and not enough time or support in order to resolve pr oblems in a clearly defined, logically planned way. Change comes with a variety of complic ations. Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) describe issues of change in a variety of ar eas. Each of the forces for change engages teachers in a continuous ba rrage of expectations: 1. Outcomes for student learning require they receive the skills to apply learning to the real world. 2. Added responsibilities within the school along with school-based decision making practices encourage more au tonomy within each school. 3. Increased standards drive more in-dep th staff development and collaboration. 4. Technology connects students and teacher s to the global world of learning.


575. Equity and cultural diversity cr eate new styles of leadership. 6. The workforce delineates between those stud ents who are prepared for the world of work and those who are not. There are other reasons that change is difficult. Fullan (1991) suggests that change is part of an unpredictable process. There are few guidelines and the process requires struggling to understand, modifying action and processes on the spot within a complex position that is ever changing and ha rd to define. Vail l (1989) agrees. He pointed out that change is multidimensional a nd “involves all aspects of the organization: its structure, its politics, and especially its pe ople. Change is not a predictable enterprise ... but a struggle to shape processes th at are complex and elusive” (p.78). Fullan (1999) makes the statement, “conf lict and diversity are our friends.” He maintains that consensus provi des superficial harmony, however if conflict is respected positive creative ideas can emerge from chaos (p.22). He points out that learning more frequently occurs from people who disagree however, those who ha ve views other than our own are rarely acknowledged. Teachers, administrators and parents, re ferred to as constituents, can sabotage any attempt at change. It is prev entable. However, unless everyo ne feels valued, appreciated, listened to respected, and involved then th e successful change will exist only in the change of structure, not the use of the effective commitment of the constituents (Sarason (1995). Evans, (2001); Shapiro, (2000); Vaill (1989) each views change from a multidimensional perspective. They see the process and its complexities while


58acknowledging the need for continuous m odification through the implementation of organizational change. Fullan (1995) reminds us that there is no cookbook to follow when implementing change. He also believes th at there can never be a theory of change. Theories of change can guide thinking and act ion but organizations are so complex that every situation will bring unpred ictable differences to develo p that a theory could not stand the test of time. Each organization is di fferent, with a different set of standards and expectations. Sarason (1996), emphasizes that the change process is far more important than the implementation of the end product. (Fullan & Ha rgreaves 1996), agree that teachers must learn to trust that the process is import ant within the uncertainty that accompanies change. Fullan found that change, even in it s simplest form, as in a single classroom innovation, is complex. Innovation is "multidimensional" (p. 37) and involves three specific dimensions: (a) new or modified curr iculum materials or te chnologies, (b) a new instructional strategy, and (c) th e adaptation of a belief system. It is important to monitor and assess all three dimensions since each one depends on the success of the other (p.36). He also maintains that real change involve s changes in "conceptions and role behavior" (p. 38). Daggett continued by commenting that the system is so ingrained that “changes are often focused on what is best for the edu cators, taxpayers, and pa rents rather than on what is best for the students” (p.3). “E ducation still confuses changing a program or procedure with the process of change itself”(Wilson & Daviss, 1994, p. 38). As John


59Goodlad (1996), points out, “The 'Achilles' heel of educational improvement of any sort, may be the vague and inadequate principles th at define the educatio nal conditions that are to replace and go beyond what is currently in place” (p. 229). Teachers identify change as a challenge and described in one phase of Brown and Moffett's (1999) description entitled: "Trials, Tests, and Initiations ” (p. 123). Teachers describe the difficulty of change that arises for educators to keep focused on their vision. They explain how hard the task remains when the obstacles are numerous. It is a struggle to remain optimistic amidst criticism, overcome the pessimism and cynicism that exist, and still provide for the needs of students teachers, and parents within the school environment. Educators are consistently put to the test, keeping the end in sight, and overcoming a variety of obstacles th at get in the way of the beliefs. Change is also difficult because of the individual needs and behaviors of the workers. Evans (1996) describes the comple xities of people in the workplace in two ways. “First, the personal lives and needs of staff routinely intrude on their performance. Second, is the sheer social complexity of organizational life itself”(p.13). Fullan (1999) expresses his concerns with attempts at innovation in school. He maintains that for the last thirty years e ducational change has become self-defeating. Responding to the desire for change, “those in authority tighten the reigns by increasing their emphasis in their contro l, the legislation, accountabilit y, and resources” (p.116). Sarason (1996) makes the point that the prob lem of change is the problem of power, and the problem of power is how to wield it in ways that allow ot hers to “identify with, to


60gain a sense of ownership of, the process and goals of change” (p. 116). That is no easy task; it is frustrating, patience-de manding, and a time-consuming process. Resistance to change exists in all orga nizations. Bowsher (1989) identified seven. 1. "Positive" resister--the person who ag rees with all the new programs but never does anything about them. 2. "Unique" resister--although the change s may be good for other areas of the organization they are never right fo r this individual's department. 3. "Let me be last" resist er--will not say ch ange is wrong, but uses the strategy of trying to be last to implement change, hoping all new ideas will die out before his or her department must institute a new program. 4. "We need more time to study" resister. 5. "States rights" resiste r--resists any new program fr om headquarters, stressing that only local programs will be effective. 6. "Cost justifier" resister--prior to nay changes, everything must be cost justified. 7. "Incremental change" resi ster--the most difficult to wi n over to a new system. New approaches are tried only if they have everything the old system had (p. 129). In addition, according to Tr ubowitz (2000), teachers who had unsuccessful experiences with previous change efforts ar e less likely to become committed to any new change proposals. The result is a resistan ce to change. Fullan (1991) agrees. He quotes Lortie's position (1975), regarding te achers’ attitude regarding change. "The teachers’


61ethos is conservative, individua listic, and focused on the presen t" (p. 212). Fullan (1991) continues by stating that teachers genera lly do not want to change and become particularly resentful when change is im posed from the outside. By acknowledging that even when teachers appear to volunteer to become part of the change they often only "adjust to the near occasion of change" and change as little as possible (p. 36). Muncey and McQuillan (1993) summarize their findings on the Coalition of Essential Schools with three conclusions. First, ch anges that were proposed tended to divide the faculty between thos e that were trying to convince the others of its value and those who wanted to maintain their traditiona l values. Second, thos e who were originally indifferent to the change, eventually voiced opposition. Third, change in a school does not contain a middle-of-the ro ad position by the faculty. Th ose affected by the change will take a stand one way or the other. Solutions In discussions led by Sarason (1996 ), groups of educators had difficulty identifying ways to change an entire school to produce a long-las ting effect. Usually educators do not think in terms of the entire school, let alone ways to develop the criteria necessary to initiate change. Fullan (1991) verifies the difference be tween an improvement program that are successful compared to those that are not. He emphasizes that unsuccessful sites do not deal with the inevitable problems that will em erge, instead, but they choose strategies of


62avoiding, ignoring and denial. Successful programs dealt with problems head on by developing problem solving committees, crea ting new roles for various staff members, and creating a variety of methods for providi ng time for teachers to solve the problems. Pogrow’s Reality (1996). There is the n eed to require very specific, systematic, and structural methodologies accompanied by high quality supporting materials. He refers to methodologies as “technologi es” meaning, “a systematic way of doing something consistently and can be either a specific social process or some specific equipment. Myth: You can reform educa tion by disseminating knowledge and leaving it up to practitioners to apply that knowledge. Reality. Reform requires technology, stru ctures, materials, methods, and strong support for practitioners to e ffectively implement a complex reform idea. Teachers cannot be expected to devel op the techniques at the same time that implementation takes place” (p. 658). Wilson & Daviss (1994) believe that the redesign process, used successfully in science, technology and industry are models that could easily translate into the education arena. There are many parallels that can be drawn. They use the analogy of creating a new product line that requires a team effort comprising researchers, development engineers, marketing experts, salespeople and consumers continuously telling of their needs. Changing conditions often require a redefinition of excellence. The authors maintain that two specific parts of the redesi gn process should be replicated by education. The process works best when it operates co ntinually as an integrated whole.


63Interdisciplinary teams speed up the process. The experts combine their collective skills and focus on a common goal that produces the best product. Redesign occurs continuously, building on previous successes. Most often forgotten in the change pr ocess are the untold stories of conflict, struggles and issues that become the story be hind the story. Saras on (1995) describes the importance of the change process as a way to tell not only what would happen, but what could happen under certain conditions. The change process provides the guidance to direct what “one has to thi nk and do, and not what one w ould like to think and do” (p. 63). It is a way to avoid personal style, motiv ation, and denial of reality to define the problem and its possible solutions and at the same time avoid personal conflict. Effective Change according to Brown and Moffett (1999), describe one important key element for a successful school: a professiona l staff with both technical skills and a commitment to working collaboratively fo r the success of all students.” Brown and Moffett (1999), report on the longitudina l research study, "Successful School Restructuring" by Newmann and Wehlage (1995 ). They state that when groups, rather than individuals, are seen as the main units for implementing curriculum, instruction, and assessment, they facilitate development of shared purposes for student learning and collective responsibility to achieve it. Brown and Moffett (1999) quote Wheatley, "Eve ry organization is an identity in motion, moving through the world, trying to make a difference with all the characteristics of a living system. They have personalities, values, patterns of in teraction, structures,


64internal processes, and a self -referencing pathway" (p.58). Shields and Knapp points out the confusi on that exists in identifying specific, school-based reform efforts (1997). Speci fic comprehensive reform models are acknowledged by Slavin (2001) with such programs as: The odore Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools; James Comer’s School Development Program ; the National Network for Educational Renewal ; Henry Levin’s Accelerated School Shields and Knapp (1997) point out that effort to evalua te the success of each model lack specific insight. They also admit that change does not guarantee improvement. Those statements demonstrate the conf usion that exists when Slavin (2001) attempts to explain the less than stellar results of his model known as Success for All or Adams & Englemann’s Direct Instruction model (p.25). A systemic reform effort, cited frequently in the literature, revolves around the work of Sl avin. He identifies a system reform as the primary strategy used when the issues of standards, assessments, accountability, and governance are ra ised. His reform prescribes to target large groups of schools and classrooms (Slavin, 2001). However, renewal efforts tend to look at a global perspe ctive with explicit acknowledgment of shared power, demo cracy, and access to knowledge (Wilson & Daviss, 1994). Continuing the metaphor of The Hero's Destiny, Brown and Moffett (1999) stated that the goal of the journe y "leads to transformation and renewal.” (p. 17). Brown and Moffett (1999) describe the final phase of change as the time when the


65leader engages in self-reflection that generates three conclusions: 1. Complexities and contradictions are a na tural and inevitable part of the change process. 2. We need to seek and create th e knowledge to matu re as individuals. 3. We realize that we must rely, not on answers from a external source, but from the capacity to problem-solve, and make decisions ourselves (p.148-149). Fullan (1991) admits that when change o ccurs there are a variety of issues that must come together in just the right comb ination, which responds to the variety of individual and group needs, encourages, f acilitates and pushes people to develop a comfort level with the process itself even though the process is messy. The ultimate goal of the change process require s that the change eventually becomes institutionalized (p.93). Fullan reveals that the most benefici al approach to change is the ability to understand the process of change, figure out how to affect and influence the things possible to change and diminishing the area s that could create stumbling blocks while defining the groups place in the process (p.103). Using the metaphors of myth and legend from the Hero’s Journey Brown and Moffett (1999) describe the change process and how schools are transformed. They describe the various philosophi es and strategies that surround school reform; included in these are interventions such as constructi vist teaching and lear ning. Others include, “action research; reflective practice; study groups; shared decision making and problem solving; goal setting; action plan ning and implementation" (p. 16)


66 Recognizing change as a process on the m eans rather than ends, relies on setting medium-range goals from two to three year s, combined with emphasis on "experience and intuitive judgment in decision making" (Louis & Miles, 1990, pp. 31-32). This approach sees "change as a journey, rather than a bluepr int" (Evans, 1996, p.15). Fullan (1991) acknowledges that there is not a known end, nor do we "appreciate the consequences of pursuing it until we have al ready begun the effort" (p.5). Shapiro (2000, 2003) identified a structured process to crea te an end product while identifying individual needs within an organization. In this way the stakeholders own the change (p. 102-103). Nine critical factors in three main categories define the characteristics of the implementation process (Fullan's 1991). His mode l states that charac teristics of change would include that of nee d, clarity, complexity, and qua lity. His second category includes the identification of local characteristics that in clude those of the district, community, principal and teacher. His third ca tegory is the external factors that include any government or other agencies. In summari zing the factors he concludes that there must be a fit between the new program and the school needs. Sarason (1996), states that the pro cess of change involves an assumption regarding three types of soci al relationships: (a) those among professionals; (b) those between the professionals and pupils and; (c) those among the professional and the community. He continues by describing the two most important areas to resolve before change occurs: articulate and analyze clearly the culture of the school so that there is a clear evaluation of whether the planned cha nge actually occurred and was not just


67individuals opinions; and understand and develo p an accurate conception of the change process. Sarason (1996) states that one importa nt aspect in the change process must recognize the connection between time to method ically and systematically implement the change and the people willing to invest the additional amount of time necessary for the plan to materialize. He also pointed out th at the time it takes to develop and implement a plan is not easily predicted. “Time is a resource” (p. 285). Trubowitz (2000) agrees. He also acknowledges that school reform takes tim e. Although stakeholders want immediate return in the form of increased test scores problems cannot become fixed just because new strategies, workshops, team teaching, and advisory meetings begin. Change can not be carried out by the calendar, a brute fact th at those with power of ten can not confront” (Sarason,1996, p.335). Summary This investigation makes several ba sic assumptions upon which to develop a foundation for the study. Teachers at the elemen tary school were rarely trained either as students or in teacher training to understand or experience a constructivist approach to learning and teaching. They had to develop ne w ways of teaching that required changing from a teacher-centered classroom to a learner-centered classroom. Smith (2001) discusses the Fordham Universi ty research project that reviewed the results of a six-school study that identified how schools could change from low to high


68performing institutions. Several factors we re in common: (a) Strong leadership by experienced principals who were new to the schools; (b) An unde rstanding about the complexities that surround change, including the need for a sense of trust; (c) A feeling of the need for change; (d) Support was ev ident from the outside agencies and support systems; (e) Focus on how students learn a nd the in-service needs for teachers; (f) A change toward teachers' decision making in areas of curriculu m and instructional strategies (p.33). Each of these change strate gies are consistent with those implemented at the research site Utilizing a constructivist approach to ch ange requires a strategic method that involves teachers in the deci sion making process at an in -depth level. Utilizing the Analysis of the Dynamics of Change, Shapir o (2003) describes th e steps necessary to involve all stakeholders in a school in the id entification and subseque nt defining lines of action. A facilitator guides teachers through the problem solving process. Step 1. Teachers will identify each issue that appears to significantly impact the dynamics and culture of the school. Step 2. Issues will merge and themes will become defined. Step 3. Teachers will reach conclusions concerning the validity of the identified themes, making sure that they reflect the issues. Step 4. Next, teachers will identify a plan, based upon the agreed upon needs. Step 5. Then, teachers create detailed desc riptions of ways to meet the planned goals. Step 6. Teachers determine, which among them, will become responsible for the implementation of each of the goals. Wh en this occurs, constructivist thinking


69becomes embedded in all that occurs with the rest of the staff. Teachers become recognized for their skills and abilities and encourag ed by each other to step forward and take the lead, or support their colleagues, in a vari ety of ways (2003). Demonstrating a constructivist model, for a whole-school, provides teachers and administrators with constructivist strate gies that provide th e foundation for future problem-solving. Ultimately, agreed upon change results from the collaborative efforts of all the stakeholders. Teachers own the change they take over the leadership role in the school, they become teacher leaders. Beckhard and Harris reinforce the levels of change that relate directly to the research question with their quote: “make it happen, help it happen, and let it happen.” (p. 94). “Change is a process, not an event” (Fullan, 1993).


70Teachers’ Perceptions of Educational Organizational Change Problem: Often school leaders are e xpected to lead reform without an understanding of how teachers are impacted. It is the purpose of this section of the literature review to examine teachers’ perceptions about their involvement in organizational change. An examination of the literature is lacking on the specific topic of the perception of teachers about constructivis m as an educational change model. The exception is the work of Shapiro (2000, 2003). It was necessary to examine broader issues, consistent with the research topic, that identify reasons teachers participate in organizational change. Examples of de terrents are also provided. An examination of job satisfaction, in a statistical analysis report, identified job satisfaction among America’s teachers Perie a nd Whitener (1997).The survey of teachers throughout the United States answered the following question: “How do public school teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of the wor kplace relate to their le vel of satisfaction?” Principal interaction, teacher participation in school deci sion-making and influence over school policy were among the factors more clos ely associated with teacher satisfaction. The most satisfied teachers worked in a supportive environment Teachers are more satisfied when their administrator resp ects and value their ideas (Black, 2001). A study conducted by Goodlad (1984) found that teachers who were “more satisfied” with their jobs, worked in an e nvironment where teachers perceived they had greater influence over their use of time, and mo re control of their jobs. In a further study Goodlad (1984) describes teachers as believing they have some control over what goes


71on in their classrooms, but limited control over things that go on outsi de the classroom. When the researchers probed deeper into teach er’s perceptions of their control, “there was a “marked decline in teachers’ sense of powerfulness as the focus moves from the classroom to the school as a whole” (p. 190). The school leader can easily undermine teachers’ perception of control. One example stated by Wilson and Daviss (1994) describes a principal who made changes in teacher’s instruction without discussing the ramifications. One principal told the math teachers that students must begin using calculato rs in class. Teacher’s perception of the requirement meant that they must “transform the basic nature of th eir work” (p.lll), and the very nature of the way they were exp ected to instruct. Su ch mandates, without teachers as part of the decision making process, are destined for resistance. In a study reported by Darling-Hammond (1997) teachers reported that when policies are implemented with flexibility they are the most effective. However, policies that are highly prescriptive with few options lead to resistance in a variety of ways. Fewer than 10% of the teachers in the study want ed strict guidelines. Those teachers also did not address student learning, only con cern for covering the curriculum (DarlingHammond, 1997). Teacher participation in school decisions Several trends have prov ided opportunities for teache r participation in school decisions over the years. In the mid-1980’s school systems were encouraged to improve academic performance of schools. Identified as site-based decision-making local schools


72were encouraged to involve principals, teach ers, and parents in making decisions that ranged from budget to instructi onal programs. The results met with mixed reviews as teachers perceptions of their ability to make changes ofte n did not materialize to the extent expected. Principals of site-managed schools must confront the complex relationships that occur with stakeholders (Mal en, Ogawa, Kranz, 1990). In the early 1990's Shared Decision Maki ng (SDM) was popular. The theory was that those principals who supported the SDM c oncept provided time for the staff to meet, helped groups work together, and provide d current research The SDM places more demands on teachers and principals. The group pr ocess is slower and requires more time. It is the principal who makes this model wo rks Teacher’s perception of their involvement in school reform rests with the sc hool principal (Liontos, L., 1994). An effective implementation of the c onstructivist model is described when involving teachers prior to making decisions th at affect them becomes important. Barth (1990) points out that frequently principals ma ke decisions and then expect teachers to “handle” the situation (p. 135). The need for teachers to feel a part of decision making must come when they are asked to brainstorm solutions and then try to implement them. Creating a process and environment in which teachers own the decisions are illustrated in Shapiro’s (2003) Analysis of the Dynamics of Change (Appendix 1) and explained in the Southwood Story (Appendix 2) When stakeholders gather, identify issues, and develop agreed-upon outcomes, they own the decisions. In turn, they will become part of the implementation.


73Principal interaction There is a need for principals to prov ide a vehicle to validate and demonstrate respect for teacher’s ideas. Consistent with the Principal -researcher’s Statement of the Problem: “School Leaders are expected to le ad reform without an understanding of how teachers are impacted,” are Sarason’s (1996) fi ndings that “decisions to seek a change rarely (if ever) took into account the ideas, op inions, and feelings of those who would be impacted by change. I mean serious, sustaine d discussion of what would be required of participants in terms of time, energy, commitments, and motivation” (p.333). Daft and Lengel (1998, 2000) describe the importance of principals who provide teachers the opportunity to become “inspired rather than controlled ... Leaders develop others by showing the way to vision, courag e, heart, communication, mindfulness, and integrity” (p. 56). Their position becomes one of utilizing the strengths of teachers in order to empower them. Collegiality and Collaboration Little (1982) describes collegiality in f our ways: Adults talk about teaching practices, observe each other, work on cu rriculum together, and teach each other. Discussion of the teaching craf t is revealed, articulated, a nd shared. “You cannot have students as continuous learners and effective collaborators, without teachers having the same characteristics (Fullan, 1993, p.46). A si milar point is made by Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Cooper, Lambert, Gardner & Slack (1995).


74Summary Teachers reveal their beliefs and percep tions regarding working in environments that are constructivist when th ey participate in decision making, and allowed flexibility in instructional strategies. Positive effects of teaching are achieved when teachers can adjust imposed policies based on their best beliefs about student learning. Researchers describe a variety of stra tegies that create an environment where teacher’s perception of their work is positiv e. Barth (1990) for example, describes the need for a community of leaders that will offer “independence, interdependence, resourcefulness, and collegiality” (p. 145). There are also examples in the literat ure describing situati ons that would not create a constructivist envir onment such as those that provide uncompromising, strict instructional requirements that ignore teacher’s knowledge of their craft. Teachers are restricted from effective teaching when they are asked to focus on rules and regulations and not the students (Darling-Hammond, 1997). This section describes the perceptions of teachers who work in an environment where collegial sharing and support exist among professionals who are continuously evaluating and improving their sc hool’s progress and student learning (Guskey, 2000). In schools that provide this opportunity teach ers are more willing to participate and implement the reform process.


75Leadership The purpose of this section of the literat ure review is to analyze the complex components of leadership characteristics, sources of power, definitions, defined roles, and skills both from an educational and an industr ial perspective. The Principal-researcher will examine the general descriptions and requirements of leadership found commonly in the literature, from both i ndustrial and educational perspectives. Then, examine the various tasks, roles, and strate gies that a constructiv ist leader needs to create a school that is constructivist. Many issues overlap, with the distinguishing features of a constructivist leader emerging. Finally, the Triparite Theo ry of Wilson, Byar, Shapiro, Schell (1969) becomes an additional part of evaluating the role of lead ership. The literature review will also identify how all three additiona l areas: organizational leadership; constructivist leadership; and the Tripartite Theory converge Understanding leadership becomes fundame ntal to the ability to lead. The distinction between the “power of those who lead and th e power of those who command” (Owens, 1995, p. 117) is granted by followers who believe the leader shares common beliefs and values. They entrust their power wh en they are sure that the leader will work in their best interests. However, few authors examine the specific role of a constructivist leader except for two major contributors in the field, Lambert (2003) and Shapiro (1995, 2000, 2003).


76They provide insight into how the broad scope of organizational leadership fits into the constructivist philosophy. Defined Leadership and Power Owens (1995) synthesized five of the most classically described sources of power, according to the work of French and Raven (1959). Reward Power: controlling rewards that will induce others to comply with the power-wielder’s wishes; Coercive Power: having control of pot entially punishing resources that will induce others to avoid them; Expert Power: having knowledge that ot hers want for themselves so much that they will be induced to comply with the power-wielder so as to acquire the knowledge or benefit from it; Legitimate Power: having authority c onferred by holding a position in an organization that is recognized by others as having a legitimate right to obedience; Referent Power: when a power holder has personal charisma, or ideas and beliefs so admired by others that they are induced by the oppo rtunity to be not only associated with the power holder but, insofar as possible, to become more like him or her (p. 118). Burns (1978) believed the following as the best definition of leadership: “leadership over human beings is exercised when persons with certain purposes mobilize, in competition or in conflict with others, inst itutional, political, psychological and other


77resources so as to arouse and sa tisfy the motives of followers”(p.18). Two categories of leadership pr oduced the terms transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional le adership describes the relationship between leaders and followers from a leader’s positi on of power. For example, transactional leaders offer a tangible and direct demonstrati on of the leader’s cont rol over the follower since they provide job, security, and favorable evaluations to their subordinates (Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership is describe d in the work of Segiovanni (1999). Transformational leaders lead on a more affec tive level. They practice with a purpose. Vaill (1984) describes this as “that continuous stream of actions by an organization’s formal leadership which has the effect of inducing clarity, consensus and commitment regarding the organization’s basic purpose” ( p.91). Although many e xperts describe how teachers often work in isolation they agree that teachers derive gr eater satisfaction and meaning in their work when the purpose and valu e of their work is shared with the leader (Lieberman & Miller, 1990; Lortie, 1975). Sergiovanni (1992) identifi ed a higher level of leader ship with the concept of “moral leadership.” Within this process he developed three additi onal perspectives of leadership. First, the follower works w ith the leader by choice, sharing goals and expectations. Second, alternativ e leaders are available for th e follower. There are also alternative plans and programs available. Third, moral leadership is characterized by dedication and a sincere commitment to honor agreements with the followers. The concept of servant leader ship, identified by Gr eenleaf (1977) “gives certainty and


78purpose to others who may have difficulty in achieving it for themselves. But being successful in providing purpose requ ires the trust of others” ( p. 15). Servant leaders work in the best interest of thei r subordinates, rather than in their own self interests. Sergiovanni (1999) suggests that as the emphasis moves from one level of leadership to the other it becomes more increasingly a form of virtue. That is, wh en moving from that of “leader of leaders,” to leadership, to se rvant leadership, each step is developmental with each preceding level becoming less importa nt than the one before. Ultimately the goal remains that of deve loping leaders of leaders. The importance of leadership specific to schools is widely discussed in the literature. Hodgkinson (1991) revealed there ar e over a hundred definiti ons of leadership. The Principal-researcher found numerous current writers in the field of educational leadership such as: Barth (1990, 2001); Be nnis, (1985, 1989); Caine and Caine (1997); Comb, Miser and Whitaker (1999); Covey (1991) ; Daft and Lengel (2000); Deal and Peterson (1999); DuFour and Eaker (1998) ; Evans, (1996); Fullan (1997); Goodlad (1984,1994); Manz and Sims (2001); Marza no (2003); Marzano, Pickering, Pollack (2001); Perkins (1992, 1999); Sarason (1996) ; Senge (1999, 2000); Sergiovanni (1992, 1999); Schlechty (1990, 2001); Other writers an d researchers entered the field of leadership from a business perspective and widely read by educators such as: Bennis (1985, 1989); Maxwell (1995, 2001); Pe ters (1987); Senge (1990, 2000). Leadership Skills Constructivist leaders model the same understanding of th e constructivist


79philosophy with teachers, as they expect t eachers to model understanding constructivist beliefs with their students. Adults, like ch ildren, bring to the teaching arena their own prior experiences, beliefs, customs, culture values, sociocultural histories, and perceptions (Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Co oper, Lambert, Gardner, & Slack, 1995.) In a constructivist environment it is partic ularly important for principals to model learning (Lambert, 2003). Lambert (2003); Gordon (2000); and Mar zano (2003); National Association of Elementary School Principals (2002) each deve loped comprehensive lists of leadership skills that become applicable to the require ments of a constructivist principal. Their commonalities include the following: 1. Know yourself–clarify your values. 2. Extend your understandi ngs to school and staff. 3. Assess the leadership capacity of your school. 4. Accept the school’s current condition. 5. Continuously interact, ask quest ions, and be there for the staff. 6. Build trust through honest y, respect, and follow-through. 7. Develop community norms. 8. Establish decision-making rules. 9. Create a shared vision. 10. Develop leadership capacity in others providing ways to understand theories about leadership, and opportunities to put theories into practice. 11. Establish a leader ship team as a curriculum design team.


80 12. Convene and su stain regular in-depth conversations. 13. Establish a process of coll aborative inquiry such as those found in study and focus groups. 14. Develop goals and plans for action. 15. Engage in communication pr ocesses designed to devel op trust, relationships, and leadership; provoke quality perf ormance; and implement community decisions. 16. Evaluate student progress. The goal of a constructivist principal: pr ovide an environment that promotes and supports the school-wide implementation of th e constructivist philo sophy. An effective principal is ultimately a change agent (Saras on, 1996). Therefore, administrators should “operate as organizational tr oubleshooters” (Shapiro, 2000, p. 93). Examining the various components that describe interventions prin cipals make to create an environment of learning, solving problems, and developing a co nstructivist culture be gins with the school leader (Shapiro, 2000, 2003). School Culture Developing a clearly defined school cultu re is critical for the success of a constructivist school and evolves when groups develop a constructivist environment in which to work (Shapiro, 2003). A productive environment requires that the leader promote and encourage positive interac tion among staff members (Marzano, 2003). There are a variety of additional ways that a vigorous culture is recognized according


81Fullan (1996, 1999, 2001); Peterson and Deal (1998) (a) The staff has a shared sense of purpose. (b) The underlying norms are those of collegiality and impr ovement. (c) Rituals and traditions celebrate student and teacher successes. (d) There is an informal network of storytellers that provides a social web of information, s upport, and history. (e) Success, joy, and humor are found everywhere. There is common agreement among the mo st prominent researchers that positive school cultures are not built around the people, but around the relationships that exist among them. Fullan,(1999, 2001); Shapiro (2000, 2003). Fullan adds that new relationships are important however, only if those in th e groups establish “greater program coherence” (p. 65). It then becomes up to the l eadership to provide additional resources if necessary. (National Associa tion of Elementary School Principals, 2002). Daft and Lengel (2000) describe the building of cultures with the term, “Organizational Fusion” (p. 197). Cultures then shift from “I ” to “We.” It involves separating individuals and molds into a community. This enc ourages groups to discover their common strengths. Collegiality and the development of positive school cultures go hand in hand (Maxwell, 2003). Leaders in constructivis t schools must develop a culture where everyone owns the school culture (Shapiro, 2003). Reciprocal processes Constructivism requires the reexaminati on of leadership since a new form of administration emerges. The relationshi p between learning and leading with a constructivist philosophy is powerful and reci procal. Each view changes as it is


82influenced by the other, Lambert (1995). “C onstructivist leadership is the reciprocal processes that enables participants in an e ducation community to construct meanings that lead toward a common pur pose about schooling” (p.29) The principal sets high expectations fo r reciprocal learning. This would occur through reflective practices, continuing staff developmen t, dialogue about student expectations, and self-assessment. Barth ( 2001), states that, “teachers and students go hand in hand as learners–or they don’t go at all” (p.23). This quote should be expanded to include principals. A learning commun ity cannot exist in a vacuum, segmenting learners, one from the other. Organizational Leadership The corporate world wants constructivi st thinkers. Schlech ty (1990) and Daggett (2001), describe the expectati ons that business leaders want in their employees. They want people who know how to learn, the abilit y to think and solve problems, to express themselves with rich vocabulary based upon a deep understanding of concepts. He describes a “knowledge-work organization” the same way others describe a constructivist environment for teachers and students. Sc hlechty’s definition of knowledge-work is “putting to use ideas and symbols to pr oduce some purposeful result” (p. 34). Vision Building Constructivist leadership begins with a personal vi sion of the leader. The importance of understanding and communicating a vision is cited frequently in the


83literature on leaders, organi zations, and schools and consid ered one of the primary prerequisites of leadership according to th e works of Barth (1990, 2001); Cawelti (1984); Covey (1990, 1991); Deal (1999); Fulla n ( 2001); Gardner (1991,1996, 1999); Guskey (2000); Hallinger and Murphy (1987); Lamb ert (1995, 2003); Manz and Sims (2001); National Association of Elementary School Principals (2002); Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (1984); Owens ( 1995); Peters (1988); Shapiro (2000, 2003). A principal with a strong belief syst em, or personal vision, about teaching and learning is not prone to bend to the pressures of moving toward a more traditional approach, they keep on course (Combs, Miser, and Whitaker, 1999). It is important for leaders to clarify their own goals if they ar e to influence others (DuFour, 1996). Combs, Miser, and Whitaker (1999) not ed that developing a solid foundation of one’s beliefs, provides a grounding that create s an anchor for values and beliefs. Schein (1985) acknowledges the importance of the mission and vision in de fining success of a school, although each school defines su ccess in different ways. Personal vision comes from life experi ences (Sarason, 1996). Additional sources come from hopes and dreams for the school. A vision is the ideal future as well as a vehicle for change A shared vision follows. Daft and Lengel (1998) explained that a shared vision provides a common ground a nd group belief system upon which to build the organization’s goals. Senge (1990) be lieves a shared vision changes people’s relationships with the organization. From this there develops a common bond among all the people in the organization. Bennis (1989), reminds us of the importance of communicating the vision with a quote made by Jung, “A dream that is not understood


84remains a mere occurrence. Understood, it becomes a living experience” (p. 192). Barth (2001) agrees and states, “A pr econdition for constructing an authentic, collective vision is that each school educator must come to grips with his or her own personal vision....each of us as an educator must have our own conception of a good school...” (p. 204). That vision then becomes auth enticated when it is sh ared at all levels of the organization (Fullan, 2001). Eisner (2002, 2003), believes that if there is no vision then there is no compass, and no way of knowing where everyone is headed. He describes a quote in the book, When Giants Learn to Dance, by Rosabeth Moss Kanter. She states her belief about a vision, “Become passionately dedicated to visions and fanatically committed to carrying them out–but be flexible, responsive, and able to change directions quickly” (p.220). The importance of a school leader’s pe rsonal vision is also emphasized by Barth (2001), An effective school leader must deve lop and maintain a consistent vision and inspire others to work toward it. He is able to say no to ideas that do not support the vision for he understands the di rection in which the school is moving and is able to predict the desired outcomes (p.138). Moffett and Brown (1999), delineate the pur pose of a vision in the following way: 1. Vision functions as a "field" with in an organization. It needs to operate as an invisible energy field that permeates organization space, influencing everyone who comes in contact with it. 2. Vision building is an expres sion of hope. Vision is an act of faith...that


85 we can imagine and create a better future for our children. 3. Vision is an expression of organizational and personal courage. When we articulate a vision, we know who we are, what we stand for, and why we are here. We become fearless ly open with our values and beliefs. 4. Vision building requires pe rsonal mastery and emotional intelligence. The emotional intelligence that w ill sustain us on the journey involves self-knowledge, discipline, resili ency, and exceptional interpersonal skills. 5. Vision building is an openended, dynamic process. Our visions for the future are not set in stone. As we act and learn from our actions, our vision will evolve, mature, and grow. 6. Visions need to be de veloped collaboratively. Without the involvement of everyone in the sc hool community, our visions become mandates without meaning. Our st akeholders feel discounted and marginalized. The result is a lack of understanding and commitment from those whose support we need most. 7. The enactment of the vision requires personal responsibility. Creating heroic schools requires personal re sponsibility on the part of every member of the school community, teachers, students, administrator, support staff, parents, the school boar d, and the community at large (p.84). Moffett and Brown (1999) describe the third phase as the "Heroic Quest." In this phase leaders and teachers must determine th eir individual and colle ctive vision. Brown


86and Moffett (1999) describe the need to formul ate a vision. "Our need for vision is fueled by the urgency we feel to find meaning and di rection as we are faced with the breakdown of obsolete educational mode ls and practice" (p. 81). It is not enough to develop one’s own vi sion. The next step comes in developing a shared vision within the school. When there is a shared vision, DeFour (1998), identified the outcomes in five specific areas : (a) it motivates and energizes people; (b) it develops teacher ownership; (c ) it gives direction to people within the organization; (d) it establishes specific expectations of excellen ce; and (e) it creates a clear agenda for actions. It is the principal’s responsibility to see that each of these elements are in place with a constructivist philosophy at the h eart of the expectations (Lambert, 1995). The point of shared visions is al so discussed by Robert Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-Leadership He suggests that it is the job of leaders to make sure that good ideas are brought into the open, discussed among all the stakeholders, so that eventually a shared vision develops. Although Greenleaf does not address the term constructivist directly, the goals are similar. It is his premise that gr oups of people should ultimately form into “effective communities of action” (p. 230). An effective leader asks why things are being done and what is being done They ask why things happen a certain way, and question if an activ ity agrees with the school vision (Combs, Miser, & Whitaker, 1999). A vision should be flui d according to Fullan (1995), Sergiovanni (1999). Fullan further contends that the mo st powerful shared vi sions are those that become foundational for further study about where the groups, as well as individuals, want to go in the organization development.


87 Developing a common purpose and shared inqu iry is defined in a variety of ways. Each of the terms leads to the same point. Lead ership is a shared re sponsibility. Leaders no longer act alone, but in concert with others It is defined as co llegiality (Schlechty, 2001); learning community (Barth, 2001; Lambert, 1995); and interdependent relationships (Fullan, 2001; Greenleaf, 1995). Leaders who embrace open inquiry, the sharing of problems and solutions, and colle ctive responsibility w ill foster creativity, resourcefulness and collaboration in the wo rk of staff and the learning of children. (Ackerman, Donaldson & Van Der Bogert, 1996). Constructivist Leadership Lambert (1995), identified the commonaliti es that exist among several authors as each describes a component of leadership that have constructivist implications: (Senge, 1990; Fullan, 1993), ‘design learni ng processes’; (Schl echty, 1990), ‘invites others to share authority;’ (Covey, 1990), ‘foste rs mutual respect;’ or (Gardner, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1992), ‘process of persuasion’ (p. 31). Lamb ert (1995), describes schools as, ‘an interdependent community in whic h the structures, policies, and practices encourage and sustain constructivist learning and leading.’ (p. 133). Lambert (1995) identified acts of leader ship that she distinguished from a leadership role. She defines leadership as an “inclusive field of processes in which leaders do their work. Leadership requires fa cilitation skills, because framing, deepening, and moving the conversations about teach ing and learning are fundamental to constructing meaning” (p. 46).


88Community of learners Barth’s (1992) metaphor of a community of learners helps leaders focus on the importance of learning for everyone in the sc hool. Principals recognize that all members of the staff bring to the learning experien ce the same thing as the students: prior experiences, beliefs, values, cultures, and per ceptions. When the principal orchestrates reflective practice and social interaction, meaning and know ledge is constructed among members of the staff. When reflective dialogu e take place adults develop greater depth in their understanding and thinking about the world and are more likely to accept new learning experiences (Lambert, 1995). Since constructivist learning is a cooperat ive experience, in order for learning to occur among adults and students, a strong co mmunity of learners must be developed (Fullan. 2001). The principal is the leader that can make th is happen (Lambert, 1995). Combs, Miser, and Whitaker (1999) describe the role that effective leaders play in establishing the community. Leaders remind those around them of the vision and values that are developed within th e school community. However, there are many ways for teachers to reach the same pre-determined goals. But each road must get to the same destination (p. 154). Leaders must engage in fr equent and substantive dial ogue with all stakeholders, continually reinforcing the direction of the mission. Everyone is encouraged to add their ideas and opinions to the conversation, to di scuss ways to make the overall learning of the school more effective (Combs, Miser, and Whitaker, 1999). This is the development


89of a common purpose and shared inquiry. Firs t, however the leader must discover what aspirations, goals, interest, needs, or dream s they have in common with their staff members (Kouzes and Posner, 1987). Supervision, collegial ity, and collaboration Shapiro (2000) describes the importan ce of teacher supervision. However, a constructivist leader’s supervision of teacher s is not the autocratic approach of the traditional school structure. Instead, supervision is a shared responsibility among all teachers and the leader. It includes peer supervision, coaching, and mentoring. It involves discussions of student and teacher learning experiences, assessing those opportunities, and planning for more sophisticated experiences. Teachers in constructivist schools have th e opportunities to observe other teachers and provide feedback. Teachers observing other teachers creates a feeling of community. It makes possible teacher’s access to one anot her. The dialogue about student’s work becomes the priority and is enhanced when colleagues engage in discussing quality pedagogy (Eisner, 2002; Garmston & Wellm an, 1995; Sergiovanni, 1992). The educational leader in the school provides time for this interaction to occur in other ways such as teacher-driven staff development (B arth, 1990; Combs, Miser, & Whitaker, 1992; Greenleaf, 1995). The concept and importance of collegial ity among staff members of a school are well documented in the literature. When teachers interact with each other on a professional level, collegiality becomes a natural outgrowth. Collegiality becomes a

PAGE 100

90powerful substitute for leadership (Sergiova nni, 1992). Other examples are found when teachers jointly develop and share teaching materi als. These interacti ons create a shared language about teaching. “Interdependent relationships” is a term used by Greenleaf (1995), as he describes the importance of creating colla boration. He describes a scenario when a team or council comes together. The vision is reviewed and the first question asked of the leader, “How can I help you?” (p. 211). Th e council approaches the proble ms with the goal to reach a workable solution. The belief of the me mbers: reach consensus through discussion. Dialogue includes: asking questions; liste ning; providing insight; drawing on the strengths of others. Teachers now recognize the need to colla borate and develop collegiality (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Gordon, 2002). The school lead er is responsible to facilitate and orchestrate such collegiality as a way to assi st teachers with group discussions about how best to help each other instruct students. At the onset Kouzes and Posner’s book (1998), they observe that “leaders create relationshi ps” (p. xv). What separates effective from ineffective leaders, is how mu ch they “really are about the people they lead” (p. 149). Evaluations and observations of t eachers by principals should reflect a constructivist understanding by both the prin cipal and teachers (Gagnon & Collay, 2001). High expectations for teacher s become part of the disc ussion, feedback, and support process. More recently, information to assi st principals and teachers about constructivist teaching and learning, for the purpose of more effective supervision, is prominent in the literature. Although the authors did not specif ically state that their methods were

PAGE 101

91“constructivist,” the discussions of effec tive teaching practices, are constructivist. Examples of these expectations can be f ound in the works of Brooks and Brooks (1993, 2000); Erickson (1998); Fogarty (1997); Is aacson (1994); Marlowe and Page (1998); Marzano (2003), Marzano, Pick ering, and Pollock (2001); Sh apiro, (2000, 2003); Shelley (2000); and Wolfe (2001). Shapiro (2000) identified three different phases of supervision. The first two are more autocratic, either being driven by Central Office control or State testing focus. The third phase in his institutional growth proce sses illustrates a constructivist approach to supervision, these are the eff ects of peer supervision, coaching, and mentoring (p. 28). Shaprio (2000) provides several options that support ways in which a principal could supervise and evaluate effective cons tructivist elements. The principal would evaluate a teacher's lessons in both formal and informal visits. Teacher's lessons would reflect (a) the use of small groups as the foundation for inst ruction, (b) student input and its effect on instruction, (c) focus on the learning and understanding processes used by the students. The dialogue between the teacher and principal focus on how teachers were able to guide students into higher level and reflective thinking, problem-solving, both alone and in small groups, and e ngage in thought-provoking discussions. Informal visits to classrooms to wa tch teacher and student interaction occurs frequently. Teachers cannot effectively show how they internalized the processes of constructivist teaching unless there are several opportunities for the principal to watch what happens, spend time reflecting, and provi de feedback on the observation of teacher and student interactions. Principals and teacher s then discuss the expectations of teaching

PAGE 102

92practices through a cons tructivist lens. As principals visit classrooms and intera ct with students and teachers, they learn together. Principal’s conversations with teachers support the high expectations for students (NAESP, 2000), that is consistent with a constructivist philosophy. It should include discussions about student performance and expectations. Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Cooper Lambert, Gardner and Slack (1995) describe one way to accomplish this in Chittenden and Gardner’s (1991) work with assessments. Assessments were ongoing with ope n-ended formats obtained in a variety of different settings. Dialogue between teachers and the principal evaluated the difference between traditional assessments such as thos e that focus on fill-in-the-blank back-line sheets and a constructivist appr oach describing Perrone (1991 ), when he described the importance of: trying to instill in students not just the mechanics of reading and writing, but also a love for readin g and writing. It means pr oviding them the opportunity to practice democracy, not just learn about democratic thought. It means encouraging them to construct knowledge, not just hear about it. It means making sure they experience the pow er of cooperative and co llaborative thought, not just the pressures of competition (p. 24). The constructivist nature of reading a nd writing is also described by Spivey (1997). As readers and writers inte ract with their text and the work of others, they engage in the constructivist process. Principals di scuss student work with teachers who then describe how they implement effective and ap propriate strategies with students, and

PAGE 103

93 subsequently determine the effect of the pr ocess on instruction a nd student understanding (Lambert, 1995). In the process of determining how well students engage in meaning-making. Brooks and Brooks, (2000), make a valid point. They note, “how different the learning and assessment processes in school would be if teachers would see themselves as cognitively linked to the students they teach” (p.87). Both teacher and student is then joined in the learning process. Newman, Griffin, and Cole (1989) agree. In stead of giving the children a task and measuring how well they do or how badly they fa il, one can give the ch ildren the task and observe how much and what kind of help th ey need in order to complete the task successfully. In this approach the child is no t assessed alone. Rather, the social system of the teacher and child is dynamically assessed to determine how far along it has progressed (pp. 77-78). Tripartite Theory Keeping organizations alive with th e many variables that enter from the customers, stakeholders, and superiors is a daunting task. Wilson, Byar, Schell, and Shapiro (1969), Benjamin, Hunt, and Shap iro (1995), Shapiro (2000, 2003) described the Tripartite Theory of Organizational Succession and Power. The theory is based upon the ways in which organizations develop through various phases of evolutionary change. Shapiro (1969, 1995, 2000, 2003) specifically, speaks about the types of leader that come to an organization, and under what circumstances. He describes, for example,

PAGE 104

94 that a “charismatic leader” enters an organi zation, usually when the existing organization is floundering. Those in charge of hiring a leader begin looking for someone who will energize the people who work within the organization. When this happens, people become committed to the person, more than the organization as a whole. Shapiro describes this phase in the deve lopmental stages of an organization the “person orientation phase” (2000, p. 75). He continues by explaining that during this phase, ideas and suggestions are generated because the new leader communicates the best of the worker’s expectations. During this ti me, there is no specific plan of action, but the charismatic leader validates those in th e organization and generates excitement. However, this type of leader is well-liked by most of the workers in the company, but once the ideas are discussed and new ideas are generated, the superiors look for the plan. One rarely emerges. The leader then move s on to another position, where ideas, become the expectation. The next leadership phase, in Shapiro’ s theory (2000), requires a “planner.” When a planner follows a charismatic lead er, the job becomes especially complex. Planners often work with little of the fan-fair required of a charismatic leader. They tend to see solutions to complex issues. With a specific plan, that often follows an idea generated by the charismatic leader, the or ganization now develops a commitment to the plan, not the person. Within five years, th e people who were involved in the decision making have moved onto something else. Or el se, the plan becomes filled with rules and regulations that dilute the inte nt of the plan until it barely resembles the original goal. Next, in Shapiro’s (2000) lineage of leaders, emerges the “bureaucrat” (p. 78).

PAGE 105

95 The planner no longer fills the organization’ s intent, since the goa l in now lost in obscurity, and someone is hired who will tight en-up the system. When this happens, the primary focus becomes organizing the organizat ion and building a power base. This type of leader is structured, and task-driven. Now the people are dedicated to the position. Finally, there is the “synergist” (Shapiro, 2000, p.79) who combines both charisma and planning. This type of lead er must posses an unwavering commitment to the organization and the goal es tablished. This leader has a strong personal vision, based upon an experiential knowledge base and the ab ility to build a community that becomes a shared vision. Each of the phases of the Tripartite Theory describes the many organizational personalities that exist. In order for constr uctivist leadership to become part of schools, each of the parts of organizat ional change must be understood by those in positions to hire school leaders. Organi zational leadership occurs most frequently with the bureaucrat. When constructivist thinking requires shared leader ship, this type of leader would not function effectively. The “charismatic” leader requires those that will provide support and help create the plan necessary with the “planner.” Neith er personality could cr eate a constructivist environment alone. The “synergist” provi des the most likely combination for a constructivist environment. Since it is difficult to find such a person, Shapiro (2000) recommends the most logical solution: create a team of people who can serve in each of the roles. The characteristics of the synerg ist provide the most ba lanced personality to create a constructivist environment. Otherw ise, a balanced team with a charismatic,

PAGE 106

96 planner, and synergist member could best serv e in a constructivist culture. Through the Tripartite Theory the convergence of both or ganization and constructivist leadership can be demonstrated. Organizational Leadership-A Business Model School leaders adopt orga nizational management stra tegies surrounding effective leadership, often from a business perspectiv e. Although, if schools are managed from the position that uses a strict inte rpretation of organizational l eadership then constructivist thinking would become problematic to th e leader. The industrial model provides procedural strategies that in some minor wa ys could be adapted to the school level. Authors from the organizational leadership position discuss the im portance of developing functional and productive teams. Outcom es are based upon data-driven productiongenerated success. There is a significant dis tinction in the hierar chy. The leader is central to the organizati onal structure. The vision genera lly develops with the leader and possibly members of a central Board of Dir ectors. Members of the group have welldefined roles that are clearly delineated. School leaders who rely primarily on an organization leadership styl e usually have a more prin cipal-centered, controlled environment (Harvey & Brown, 2001). Summary In order for a school to evol ve, based upon a Constructivist philosophy, the leadership must have a pe rsonal vision that leads to a shared vision. Thus, a common

PAGE 107

97 purpose is formed when leaders and teachers ar ticulate their shared vision of how the construction of knowledge transfers from the sc hool world to the real world of work. The leader must create a colleg ial environment where risk-tak ing is encouraged among the staff and students. Discussions among all th e stakeholders should focus on solving problems within a collegial atmosphere. The leader asks questions in order for students and teachers to think at higher cognitive levels, constructing their own meaning. The leader internalizes the constructivist philosophy and its implementation enough to provide substantive feedback to teachers during the evalua tion process. Everyone in a constructivist school understands that learning is a process.

PAGE 108

98 Teachers as Leaders It is the intent of this section of the lit erature to demonstrate that in order for an organization to sustain itself over time while holding on to a committed vision, and strong philosophical base, teachers must learn to assume leadership roles in the school. The Principal-researcher will examine the lite rature from both business and education in order to analyze the issues surrounding th e concept of teachers as school leaders. Several areas will be investigated within this section: (a) shared decision-making; (b) the development of a community of lead ers; (c) the development of teachers as leaders; (d) qualitites and att itudes necessary for a teacher to assume a leadership role. Shared governance, servant leadership, teachers as leaders are all developed to improve school effectiveness and increase st udents learning (Glickm an, 2001; Schlechty, 1997; Sergiovanni, 1994; Smylie, 1997; Wei ss, 1993). Without teacher input and support, any educational effort to improve schools will not happen. (Darling-Hammond, 1987; Duke, 1982; Lieberman, 1990, 1996; Wei ss, 1993). Principals should look for potential leaders within the stakeholders. “It ta kes a leader to see the future leader within the person” (Maxwell, 1995). The importan ce of “getting the right people on the bus” becomes critical in the development of futu re leaders (Collins, 2001, p.57). In the words of Roland Barth (2001), “Teachers become more active learners in an environment where they are leaders....all teachers can lead...all teachers must lead” (p. 85). The research on teacher learning and leading is relatively new as a research topic. The research that is available, in the form of case studies, reinfo rces the value teachers place on themselves

PAGE 109

99 when placed in leadership positions and when they assist in creating a community of leaders (National Research Council, 2000). Developing a Community of Leaders The community of leaders terminology as it relates to shared leadership, originated with Roland Barth (1988). A comm unity of leaders assumes that teachers can lead and contribute to accomplishing th e work of the school (Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Cooper, Lambert, Gardner, & Sl ack, 1995). There are seve ral terms used in the literature that describe the same thing, providing a description of teachers becoming leaders. Capacity-building (Lambert, 2003), servant leadersh ip (Greenleaf, 1995), leadership density (Sergiovanni, 1994, 1999), defining the bench and defining the team (Maxwell, 2001), and a community of lifelong learners (Barth, 2001). Much of the literature places the resp onsibility of leadership on the school principal. However, the principal-resear cher believes that the work described by Schlechty (2001) on leadership roles can be tr ansferred easily into th e role that a teacherleader assumes. In that regard the teacher as leader must possess many of the same skills as the principal-leader; thinking like the le ader. “Grow a leader–grow the organization” (Maxwell, 1995, p.4). Within a school there are a variety of opportunities for adult learning where every teacher becomes a staff developer for every other teacher (Barth, 1990). The literature describes the leader of the school in many of the same ways as teacher leaders. (Schlechty, 2001; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 199 6; Lambert, 2003; Maxwell, 1995, 2001).

PAGE 110

100 The lines between the two func tions become blurred when many of the roles for both the principal-leader and the teacher-leaders are described in parallel terms. Reinforcing the vision Teacher’s input and shared decision maki ng is necessary if the vision and mission of the school will be fulfilled (Bolman & D eal, 1997). Vision, according to Daft and Lengel (2000) is the higher purpose toward which people work that provides meaning and inspiration for their collaborative efforts” (p. 20). If the visi on of a constructivist school remains throughout the development of the school then it takes teacher-leaders to share, perpetuate, and maintain the vision fo r themselves and others. A vision sets the school’s targets (Bennis & Nanus, 1985) and creates the learning organization (Senge, 1990; Shapiro, 2000, 2003). Teacher-leaders understand the vision of the school and the value of their contributions, teacher-leaders lead with a vision (Maxwell, 1995). A constructivist leader must understand effective ways to communicate the goals, mission, and implementation that exist in a constructivist school (Shapiro, 2003). Each person is able to make decisions with respect to the need s of the entire schoo l or team and takes personal responsibility for the success of the organization (Daft & Lengel, 1998, 2000; Combs, Miser & Whitaker,1999). “Leadership among colleagues is as much about teamwork as it is about being out in fr ont leading the charge” (McEwan, 2002, p. 43). Sergiovanni (1999) described community norms where schools should provide shared leadership where the emphasis is on following a vision rather than a person.

PAGE 111

101 Teacher leaders demonstrate through effective practices, how the vision materializes. Teacher leaders and leadership teams will e ffectively contribute to the overall positive growth of the school if ever yone agrees on common beliefs. A shared commitment to the ideas and goals of the school is best lead by teacherleaders because they encourage, inspire, motivate, and care for each other while generating everyone’s best ideas (Maxwell, 1995, 2001). This leads to the best overall coherence. When teachers gather together in a friendly form of collegiality there is a desire to learn from each other and become knowledgeable about the ideas, efforts, and writings of others. Examples include those such as focus and study groups (Fullan, 2001; Sarason, 1996). Developmental leader The term Developmental leader means that this type of principal focuses on the growth and development of others; helpi ng others succeed. A developmental leader understands that the best way to get others to succeed is to show support, and provide training and opportunities (Maxwell, 2001; Schlechty, 1990, Shapiro, 2003). Some administrators took the recomme ndations from the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986), and devel oped leadership roles and opportunities for teachers (Boyd-Dimock & McGree, 1996; Da ft & Lengel, 2000; Lambert, 2003; Nielson, 2001; Troen & Boles, 1992). Another training method is provided in a five-step process for training leaders. The process begins with modeling, followed by mentoring,

PAGE 112

102 monitoring, motivating, and multiplying (Maxwell, 1995). Leadership roles provide an important s upport for the teachers. It is hard for teachers to view themselves in leadership roles (Fullan, 1993; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). The most likely way that te achers will emerge as leader s is if there is support, not resistance from the principal. Teachers need to seem themselves as change agents Gayle Moller, a professor of educatio n at Western Carolina University is a advocate for encouraging teachers to deve lop a leadership role in the school She emphasizes that “every teacher is a leader. If you find out what a t eacher’s passion is and you build on that passion and you support him or her, you will have teacher-leaders in your schools” (p.1). The development of human forces and ingenuity means treating people the way you would treat a flower in your, which blossom not because you direct it to, but because you release its potential by pr oviding positive conditi ons of light, water, temperature, and soil (Daft & Lengel, 2000, p. 43). Learning is a reciprocal process between and among teachers. Teachers understand their responsibility for their own and their coll eagues’ learning. Lambert (1996, 2003) describes this type of learning as the “reciprocal processes of constructivist learning” (p. 22). Lambert (1995) refers to the reciprocal proce sses of leadership: 1. Evoke potential in a trusting environment 2. Reconstruct, “break set” with, old assumptions and myths 3. Focus on the construction of meaning 4. Frame actions that embody new behavi ors and purposeful in tentions (p. 22).

PAGE 113

103 Within that context there is a distinc tion between a teacher identified as assuming quasi-leadership roles such as a team or depa rtment leader and a c onstructivist teacherleader. In the former, the teacher frequently is the organizer of events, meetings, or even some staff in-service. In the latter, a cons tructivist teacher models in-depth levels of inquiry such as problem solving, high le vel questioning, and thoughtful probing into high level instructional prac tices. When constructivist teachers lead they ask questions of others, explore, investigate, examine, study, di scuss, and reflect on th e results of teaching practices (Lambert, 1996, 2003; Shapiro, 2000, 2003). Effective Teacher Leaders A highly effective teacher meets the fo llowing definition of a leader. “A person who is in a position to influence others to act and who has, as well, the moral, intellectual, and social skills required to ta ke advantage of that position” (Schlechty, 1990, p. xix). An effective teacher-leader po ssesses several qualities described by Maxwell (1995) such as: “character; influen ce; positive attitude; people skills, proven track record; confidence; self-discipline; e ffective communication skills; discontent with the status quo” (p. 47). When teachers see themselves as leaders, they are able to influence student learning through their mode ling. Teacher-leaders k eep their connection in the classroom, studying eff ective instruction, carrying on th eir leadership role both in and out of the classroom. The teacher-leader influences others to improve instructional practices (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). A constructivist teacher-leader engages in se veral types of leadership activities as

PAGE 114

104 described by Lambert (2003). (a) Ask the que stion of colleagues, “What are our current beliefs?” Lambert refers to this as “surf acing of ideas, assumptions, histories and prior knowledge.” (b) “Engaging in inquiry”(p.22) which involves discussing student work, developing classroom action research, c onducting observations, and reading and discussing research. Teachers then ask one another, “What are we learning?” (c) Teachers enter into dialogue with each other a nd reflect on their instructional practices. They ask, “What changes should we make based upon our findings?” (d) Reframing teacher instructional practices base d upon what they now know and understand. (Manz & Sims, 2001; Sergiovanni, 1995) observed ways in which leadership teams became self-managed. They were effectiv e in ways such as self-observation, selfevaluation, and selfproblem solving. Some ideas involved conducting role-playing exercises with team leaders. During these ex ercises groups were encouraged to evaluate themselves and give feedback to the team members. Effective constructivist teacher leaders also model ways they keep current wi th the latest research in practice, create classroom action research, experiment with new ideas, and share their findings with others (Sergiovanni, 1995; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). Elmore (2000) warns that schools shoul d not focus only on talented individuals, since that implies that it is mo re important to do what is exp ected, and do it well, than it is to do well with an individual’s personal knowledge base. He maintains that schools develop talents when the organizations crea te and nurture agreement on what is worth achieving. They “set in motion the internal process by which people progressively learn how to do what they need to do in order to achieve what is worthwhile” (p.25).

PAGE 115

105 In addition, not all members of the orga nization have the personality to step forward and become recognized. It is im portant to find the quiet, reserved, yet knowledgeable members and provide a platfo rm upon which they can comfortably lead. (Shapiro, 2001, 2003). Maxwell (2001) adds that every member of the team can become a starter given the proper coaching. Using a sporting analogy, Maxwell (2001) id entifies those who are starters on the team and those who stay on the bench. He stat es that “starters are front line people who directly add value to the orga nization or who directly influe nce its course. The bench is made up of the people who indirectly add va lue to the organization or who supports the starters. Maxwell (2001) recognizes that not everyone is a star ter. However, everyone on the team has value. At any given time, someone from the bench becomes a starter. Continuing the sports analogy, when team me mbers interact with one another in a positive and productive way, collegiality becomes the result. This type of professional support cannot be contrived, but requires teacher s to plan together, consult together or engage in peer coaching (Fulla n and Hargreaves ,1996). It is often from these types of interactions that lead ers emerge (Marzano, 2003). Principals’ roles Robert Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-L eadership (1995), provides insight into ways of viewing the role that principal’s pl ay in developing leaders within the staff. Encouraging risk-taking becomes an importa nt component of developing teachers as leaders. encourage risk-taking. Telling th e stories using anecdotes, analogies, and

PAGE 116

106 demonstrates successful risk-t aking. This seems to set the stage (Bethel, 1995). One place could occur in a setting described by Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Cooper, Lambert, Gardner, and Slack (1995). Individual or groups of teachers get together and tell stories. Lead by an individual facilitator, staff members collaborate as they retell and relive stories from the classroom of things that worked and didn’t; how children were learning. The stories give insights into a variety of aspects of teaching and learning (Manz & Sims, 2001). The principal must encourage teachers to organize into areas such as study groups, focus groups, and peer coaching. Th e principal must foster creativity and openness, establish risk-taking and flexib ility as establish norms (Fullan, 2001). It is up to the principal to model facilitative le adership so that teachers are more likely to learn to provide facilitative strategies within their own groups (Maxwell, 1995, 2002). Today’s principals should provide individuals with opportunities to take risks in a nonthreatening environment. In addition, they develop leaders when assuming new professional strategies with t eachers such as roles as “faci litators, inquirers, reflective practitioners, and human developers. ... This is done in an environment that practices cooperative engagement and collaboration” (Combs, Miser, & Whitaker, 1999, p.137). (a) Acknowledge those are have gone above and beyond what is expected, measuring progress by individual growt h. (b) Recognize effort. A positive environment is not a competitive one. It is important to recognize t hose members who step out of their comfort zone. (c) Recognize individual a nd teams. High achievers are usually more than willing to share the glory. It is acknowledging gr oup efforts that becomes equally important

PAGE 117

107 The next stage is the support stage and begins with the re cognition that teachers need support from principals and ot her teachers who emerge as teacher-leaders (Combs, Miser & Whitaker, 1999) describes three specific n eeds. (a) Emotional support is needed for people so they have someone to turn to when things are difficult. A servant-leader will often take on the role of mentor. (b) Physical support is also necessary. This means that there should be support for members of the or ganization to regenerate themselves with their families and their worlds outside the job. They quote Greenleaf who said, “An institution must firmly establish the contex t from people-using to people-building” (p. 143). (c) Spiritual support is al so necessary. This takes the form of hope. It is hope for the future. Servant leaders must make sure that the staff knows that what they are doing is valuable and makes a difference. It is the principal-researcher’s positio n that servant leadership does not have to mean only the principal in the servant leadership role. Teachers can serve the same role for their colleagues. The servant-leader/teacher must walk a very tight wire because one can’t demand or expect of people what they can ’t give. It is important to remain sensitive to how much risk a staff member can take. Schlechty describes the necessity for build ing a coalition as a team. He further analyzes team dynamics as teams are often groups of individuals working in parallel Building teams requires a common goal, a pur pose for existing (Manz & Simms, 2001; Maxwell, 2001). If groups have difficulty wo rking together, they n eed a real problem to solve. There is much learned by a team who works through a difficult time. The need to keep talented teachers in classrooms and schools is well known.

PAGE 118

108 Providing lead or master teacher opportuni ties recognizes the potential for those who could become mentors, assists in mainta ining the vision, and de velops professional growth. (Guiney, 2001; Maxwell, 2001; Sm ylie, 1997; Troen & Boles, 1992; ). Manz and Sims (2001) reinforce the need to provide a climate where motivation came mainly from the employees and their team members. Schlechty (2001) also emphasizes the need to give as much credit as possible to those who work on projects regardless of whether or not the project reaches the level of success predicted. People who make contributions to the futu re of the school, who take risks, step out and take the lead, should be celebrated as those who understand ways for the school to realize its vision. Staff memb ers want to be assured that he or she is a respected intellect and a valued colleague. Everyone wants to be involved and committed. (Schlechty, 1990; Sarason, 1996). Qualities and Attitudes Many researchers recommend the need to establish the norms of behavior for teachers and administrators (Blase & Bl ase, 2001; Blase & Kirby, 2000; Fullan, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1992. (a) How will staff resolve conflict? (b) How will staff address and solve professional problems? (c) How will staff share information about students? (d) How will staff communicate to third parties about othe r staff members? (DarlingHammond, 2003) suggests that when norms ar e made visible and arrived at through consensus, they should be displayed, as in a staff handbook, and reviewed during staff meetings.

PAGE 119

109 The attitude of the leader, combined with a positive atmosphere in the organization, “can encourage people to accomplish great things” (Maxwell, 1995, p. 18). Momentum is generated through consistent accomplishments. Leaders must understand the importance of momentum. To receive th e “most value of momentum, leaders must: (a) develop an appreciation for it early; (b) know the key ingredients of it immediately; (c) pour resources into it alwa ys” (Maxwell, p.18). “The f undamental characteristic of modeling leadership is that learning take s places not by actually experiencing selfleadership but by observing the self-leadership of another” (Manz & Sims, 2001). Maxwell (1995) identifies the qualities th at he considers constitute a “dream team” (p. 136): 1. Team members care for each other. In this way team bond and become a cohesive unit. 2. Each of the team members function as a single unit, they know what is important. Each team has a common goal and purpose. 3. The ability to communicate with one another, not only among the team members concerning what is important to the team but with each other. 4. Growth is important and necessary a nd is the next step in the team building process. The growth should include sh ared experiences and time together so teams can bond. It is up to the teacher leader to ensure that people grow both personally and profe ssionally, together. 5. When people work together, toward a common goal, and get to know each other, they learn to accept each other’s unique qualities. The result is a team that

PAGE 120

110 fits together. 6. Once mutual trust develops team members place their own needs below those of the rest of the team. 7. After each of the preceding steps is achieved, people begi n to identify their specific role on the team. By this time they know what needs to be accomplished and how each of the team members will fulfill their roles. 8. One final step in the development of a dream team, occurs when the team understands what is happen ing within the organization. The teacher leader must keep all of the players informed. Th e leader checks on other team member’s progress and listens to determine how the te am stands, so the leader is in a better position to know what it will take for the team to succeed. 9. Finally, Maxwell identified that a winni ng team is willing to give of their time and energy to make the team better. Groups of new teachers, made up of fi ve or six beginning teachers and one teacher leader, meets two times a month. During this time lead and novice teachers problem solve any issues that ar e of concern. This group is an important support system for beginning teachers (Maxwell, 1995). There are other conditions to support and sustain teachers in leadership positions according to Lambert (2003); Lieberman (1992); Maxwell (2001); Troen and Boles (1993). Teachers as leaders should occur in the school’s mission and accepted as part of the school’s cultur e. Teachers will more likely take on leadership roles if provided with time to experiment, reflect, develop, and create common interest groups. Finally, leaders

PAGE 121

111 must receive the support to develop their ow n skills and abilities as well as learn skills relating to working with their colleagues. National Board Certification One important addition to the support fo r potential teacher-leaders comes in the form of National Board Certification. In 1993, the first groups of teachers in California received advanced certificates. NBC teachers are judged by peers as accomplished educations; make sound professional judgment a bout student learning; and act effectively on those judgments. National Board Certifie d teachers demonstrate a high level of knowledge, skills, dispositions and commitments (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2001). The National Board Certification process is constructivist in nature. National Board’s five core components include: 1. Teachers are committed to students and their learning. 2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. 3. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning. 4. Teachers think systematically ab out their practice and learn from experience. 5. Teachers are members of learning communities (p. 1). Teacher leaders emerge as a result of th e process. Ninety-one percent of the

PAGE 122

112 National Board Certified Teachers surveyed sa id that the certification has positively affected their teaching practices. In Leading from the Classroom, a 2001 survey was conducted by Yankelovich Partners. It rev ealed information concerning the role that National Board Certified Teachers demonstrated in future professional endeavors. Many were receiving national recognition as leaders. They are asked to share their special skills with others, and demons trate teaching expertise. Th ey are taking the lead in developing, implementing, or testing new or im proved programs, instructional strategies, or curriculum for students and seek grants to support such programs. They are using National Board’s standards for dialogue when describing best pract ices in instruction, curriculum, and assessment to their colleag ues. Many NBC teachers advance the teaching profession by helping other teachers beco me Board Certified (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2003). The survey conducted by Yankelovich Partners report that 99.6 percent of National Board Certified Teachers said they are involved in at least one leadership activity–and on an average, National Board Certified Teachers are involved in almost 10 leadership activities. Twelve percent said th ey have been consulted as policy experts on issues regarding teaching and learning, ei ghty-two percent took on this role after achieving certification. Twenty percent of Na tionally Board Certified Teachers who serve on a committee or work for the U.S. or a st ate department of education, seventy-three percent took on this role after achieving certi fication. Additional data that demonstrates Nationally Board Certified Teachers’ roles as teacher-leaders involvement include: 1. Mentoring or coaching candidates fo r National Board Certification (90%)

PAGE 123

113 2. Mentoring or coaching ne w or struggling teacher (83%) 3. Developing or selecting programs or materials to support or increase student learning (80%) 4. School or district leadership (68%) (p.3). Challenges There are challenges that a teacher-lea der experiences unless specific groundwork is laid. A study conducted by Lee, Dedrick an d Smith (1991) found that teachers often experience problems and frustration if their ro les are not well defined. Teachers need to develop and determine their own roles with principal s upport if they are to feel successful. Without that support teachers often meet resistan ce from other teachers who want to maintain status quo. Another study by Wilson and Daviss (1994) identifies the views of teacher leaders and the challenges they faced. (a) The label of leader could set a person apart from their peers and stifles the ability to bring about s ubstantive change. (b) L eadership generally is perceived as the responsibility of one person, who also determines that he or she is the mouthpiece of the group. Given a strong group of people, this could be problematic. (c) As a group teachers should have ownership over the initiation and implementation of change. (d) Participatory decision-making is important. Each teacher should feel ownership in the organization. Group work is difficult. There must be the will to work together or the groups will fall apart. Leaders need to know the strength, weaknesses, and tendencies of each of

PAGE 124

114 the colleagues. (Schlechty, 2001; Shaprio, 2001, 2003). Groups must first learn to work together and develop common norms, assumptions strategies, processes, and structures from which to build. Daft and Lenge l, (1998, 2000) Shapiro (1995, 2001, 2003). Teams and individuals need a high group em otional intelligence (EI). Developing relationships, both inside and outside th e structure of the organization becomes important. When they know each other on a personal and informal level the emotional intelligence based upon mutual trust, a sens e of group identity, and a sense of group efficacy become the foundation for cooperati on and collaboration (Goleman, 1998; Elisa, Zins, Weisserg, Frey, Greenbe rg, Haynes, et. al. (1997). Focus on student growth The primary focus of teacher and ad ministrative interaction should be the students’ well-being (Eisner, 2002; Lambert, 2003). Effective principals work in concert with teachers to enhance teacher and student learning (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Teachers own research and discussion with colleagues create an environment where a school becomes a research institution primarily because teachers have access to important information about student developm ent. Within that context teachers can analyze, collect, and use data to drive in structional decisions (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, 2000; Gagnon & Collay, 2001; National Research Council, 2000). Individually and collectiv ely teachers can become the leaders of groups that analyze student data in order to provide a nd make sense of the information, to identify trends and subgroups. Then, a teacher leader coul d facilitate the ways in which strategies

PAGE 125

115 could be modified and adapted to those subgroups (Fullan, 2001). The most important goal of any leader, including teachers as leaders, must center around the improvement of student work and cr eating an environment where students are engaged in high quality, engaging work (Schlechty, 2001). The success of moving toward devel oping better methods of teaching and learning depends on giving the power to teache r-leaders to “initiate, shape, and steer innovation to those responsible for making ch ange work; and bringing teachers together to leverage one another’ s hard-won experience” (Wilson & Daviss, 1994, p. 167). Partnership and empowerment becomes the key in creating a work environment to sustain a lasting and enduring school cu lture. (Daft & Lengel, 1998, 2000; Fullan, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2001; Shaprio, 2000, 2003). Organizationa l fusion, identified by Daft and Lengel (1998, 2000), describes the “releasing of subtle forces in a large group in order to building relationships, connections, communit y, and a positive culture and value system” (p. 253). There are many ways that ultimately all t eachers can be leaders of their colleagues according to McEwan (1998). 1. Mentoring and coaching novice teacher 2. Collaborating with all staff members regardless of personal affiliation or preference 3. Learning and growing with a view to bringing new ideas to the classroom and school 4. Polishing writing and presentation skills to share knowle dge with others

PAGE 126

116 5. Engaging in creative problem solv ing and decision making with increased student learning as the goal 6. Being willing to take risks in front of peers 7. Being willing to share ideas, opinions, and evaluative judgments confidently with the principal (p. 101). Summary There is unlimited potential in an organiza tion that recruits ta lent people, raises them up as leaders, and continually develops them. There are specific identified processes in order for a team to become success. (a) Articulate the values, generally with key team members that appear on paper. (b) Compare values with practices, make sure there is a match, and the effectiveness of team boosts the energy and effectiv eness of the school. (c) Teach the values to everyone on the team consistently. (d) Practice the values. (e) Institutionalize the values by providing a foru m to build and maintain team member’s personal relationship with each other. (d) P ublicly praise the values (Maxwell, 2001). Teachers experience personal and professi onal satisfaction when they help their school improve. When teachers feel the i nvestments and membership in the school community, these positive experiences move into the classroom. They become professionals (Barth, 2001). When teacher l eaders treat their peers as trustworthy, work with them in collaborative problem solving groups, and show an interest in them as professionals all members feel as if they are contributing to the organization (Combs, Miser & Whitaker, 1999).

PAGE 127

117 The principal cannot be the only sour ce of leadership. For strong, positive schools to sustain themselves, leadership must come from everyone (Deal & Peterson, 1999). If everyone in a school community e ngages in leadership then constructing meaning and knowledge becomes a collective goal (Lambert, Collay, Dietz, Kent & Richert, 1996). Collective meaning ma king (Senge, 1990) results in a strong collaborative community. Developing an entire school where ever y teacher views their role as a leader requires authentic experiences. The principal’s role is one of facilitation. Decisions that directly affect the culture that comes fr om cooperative problem-solving groups produce leaders. When decisions become implemented, the staff experiences the results of their efforts. Creating a culture of leaders requires a methodical plan on the part of the principal and the teacher leader. Leaders e volve through a developmental process. They must grow and recognize their value as a leader in a collabor ative constructivist environment.

PAGE 128

118 Chapter 3 Method A single-site longitudinal case study method investigated the primary questions of this study. The use of qualitative res earch and the case study method for this investigation is consistent with the explanations of De nzin & Lincoln (1998); Fern (2001); Marshall and Rossman (1999); Merriam (1998); Morgan (1997); Stake (1995). The chapter begins with the purpose of the study, followed by a rationale for the use of a qualitative and case study method. Th e study’s design is described, followed by the procedures used. The ch apter ends with an examination of the data collection procedures. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this six and one-half-y ear longitudinal study was to examine teachers’ perceptions both of constructivism as an educational organizational change model and of developing a constructivist phi losophy in an entire elementary school. The study examined the background and steps that evolved throughout th e reform process. Qualitative Research Qualitative research concentrates on how individuals make sense of their world while interacting with othe rs (Krueger, 1998; 2000 Merriam, 1998). In qualitative research, it

PAGE 129

119 is important to understand the subjects’ pe rspectives (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Merriam (1998) described two characteristic s of qualitative res earch. Qualitative research reveals “how all the parts work togeth er to form a whole. It is assumed that meaning is embedded in people’s experiences an d that this meaning is mediated through the investigator’s own percep tions” (p. 6). Qualitative rese arch focused on processes, and contained descriptions usi ng the participant’s words as pa rt of the findings (Merriam 1998). An investigator usually spends substantia l amounts of time with the participants. Stake (1995) described the basis for case study research. The investigator maintained that human’s construction and perceptions begin from external experiences. Many researchers view the outside worl d from the perception that all th at is known is a result of an experience, nothing more. Another positi on prescribed to the notion that what is known is a result of “integrated interpre tations, or rational reality” (p. 100). Qualitative research requires inductive re search strategies. Often the research findings result in the development of themes or concepts. Stake (1995) explains the need for the researcher to determine how much he or she plans to rely on coded data. He asks the question, “Will our assertions be based on frequencies of contingent happenings, or on narrative descriptions? ... An objective tally of incidents or with a description of events to bring out the essential ch aracter of the case?” (p. 29).

PAGE 130

120 The Case Study Method The aim of research is not to stand fi rm on one position or the other, but to understand that each human perceives reality in a different way. Some view the universe in very different ways, yet a common view will occur for many. Using a constructivist approach helps a case study rese archer utilize rich narrative de scriptions (Stake, 1995). A specific characteristic of the case st udy method is the descriptive component identified by Merriam (1998) as a “rich, ‘thick’ description of the phenomenon under study that means the complete, l iteral descriptio n of the incident” (p. 28). According to Merriam (1998) a variety of methods for gath ering data can be used in a case study. Instruments in data collecting such as ch ecklists or survey items cannot capture the complex meaning involved in qual itative research (Merriam (1998). Case Study Dimensions Generalizability The case study method is chosen when th e researcher wishes to study a specific case in-depth (Merriam, 1998; Krueger 1998). The study involves only one elementary school, therefore, it is not logical to assume the study can automatically generalize across other school populations. However, there ma y be components from the study that would apply to other school settings.

PAGE 131

121 Subjectivity Prior beliefs, assumptions, and predispositions are a natural part of a researcher’s background of experiences that became part of the study. The researcher is the primary data collection agent and the documentation is interpreted through hi s or her particular theoretical position and biases The researcher makes the de cision on how to interpret the information (Marum, 1998). It is up to the researcher to include data that may be contrary to his or her beliefs. The analys is must be as objective as possible throughout the research investigation (Marum, 1998; Yin, 1984). The anal ysis of data would be approached as objectively as possi ble by the Principal-researcher. The research site being studied is also th e school of the Principal-researcher. The Principal-researcher will ev aluate the data along with me mber checking, two independent code checkers, an empirical reader, and three pe er examiners, explained in detail later in this chapter. Reliability and Consistency According to Merriam (1995) “reliability is problematic in the social sciences, simply because human behavior is never stat ic” (p. 205). Reliability requires the study could be replicated and based upon the assumption that “there is a sing le reality and that studying it repeatedly will yield the same re sults” (p. 205). The assumption that a study can be replicated if the observations are the same, assumes that the results will also be the same. However, “replication of a qualitative study will not yield the same results” (p. 206).

PAGE 132

122 Lincoln and Guba (1985) prefer to exclude the term “reliabili ty,” because it does not seem to fit the current need in social science research, and instead refer to the terms “dependability” or “consistency” (p. 288). Th e rationale for that position results in the question, not about whether or not the results ca n be replicated, but ra ther if the results could occur again, given the identif ied data, and still remain clear. Validity Denzin and Lincoln (1998) provide an explanation c oncerning valid research. “The constructivist ... argues for quality criteria that translate internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity into tr ustworthiness and au thenticity” (p. 277). Merriam (1998) describes Ratcliffe’s (1993) perspective on asse ssing validity. “Data do not speak for themselves; there is always an interpreter or translator” (p.149). In the case study method, internal validity is a “definite strength of qualitative research” (Merriam, 1998). Merriam continues. In this type of research it is im portant to understand th e perspectives of those involved in the ph enomenon of interest, to uncover the complexity of human behavior in a contex tual framework, and to present a holistic interpretation of what is happening (p.202). Triangulation Triangulation adds support for the reliability and internal vali dity of the study. Reliability and validity exist when the resear cher recognizes the need for accuracy in

PAGE 133

123 measuring and interpreting the meaning of data In case study research, however, the issues are not as concise as in quantitative measures. Yet, researchers have an ethical responsibility to ensure that the data ar e analyzed according to well-organized and thoughtful interpretation (Merriam, 1998). Triangulation protocols allow the research er to go beyond repetitive collection of quantitative data and find the validity in observed data (Stake, 1995). The strategy for using at least three forms of data collec ting increases both validity and reliability according to Denzin and Lincoln (1998). Triangulation has a variety of meani ngs. For the purpose of this study the Principal-researcher will utilize the e xplanation by Denzin & Lincoln (1998). “Triangulation is a mode of inquiry. By se lf consciously setti ng out to collect and double-check findings, using multiple sources an d modes of evidence, the researcher will build the triangulation process in to ongoing data collection”(p.199). It is important to recognize the value of presenting “multiple perspectives of activities and issues, discove ring and portraying the diffe rent views” (Stake, 1995, p. 134). The first data set used for triangulat ion, were the reflection statements made by teachers as they responded to guiding questions Reflections were obtained from teachers who volunteered to meet in the Media Center at the conclusion of the school year and write their responses to gui ding questions (Appendix 3). The questions were designed to solicit perceptions of teachers regarding their personal learning experiences during the year as teachers and team members (Appendix 4).

PAGE 134

124 Teachers identified their grade level. Na mes were optional. The questions were generated from some of the i ssues and concerns that deve loped in the Analysis of Dynamics of Change process (Appendix 2). The purpose of recognizing each grade level was based on the Principalresearchers’ inquiry into whet her or not growth and change occurred from one year to the other within each grade level. This activ ity occurred at the end of school year 20012002, and again in 2002-2003. The second data set used for triangula tion, are statements made during focus group interviews, to open-ended questions conducted by the Curriculum Resource Teacher (Appendix 6). In quantitative researc h, the instrument used would become the “proxy for what is really measured. By c ontrast, in focus group research there are no proxies” (Krueger, 1998 p.68). Two sessions occurred during interview sessions. The first interview session was comprised of groups of teachers selected acco rding to the number of years the teachers were employed at the school. For example, groups who taught at the school for five years, comprised one group, teachers who ta ught for three years comprised another group, etcetera. During the first session, conducted by the Curriculum Resource Teacher, the first 10-13 questions were asked, depe nding on the time for teacher responses. Sessions were held after school for 45 minut es for each group. Each teacher was invited to participate (Appendix 5). Each of the 60 teachers attended th e interview sessions. The assumption raised by the Principal-researcher: Teachers who taught for the same periods of time would have different per ceptions of their experiences. For example,

PAGE 135

125 teachers who taught together for five years w ould have different perceptions than those who taught for three years, etcetera. However, teachers were from different grade levels regardless of their years of experience at the school. At the conclusion of the first sessions wh en teachers responded to questions 1-13, the Curriculum Resource Teacher met with the Principal-researcher and discussed her conclusions. Groups of teachers who worked dur ing the same years, seemed to dwell on only a few keys issues that they recalled, a nd the dialogue might incl ude broader issues if the groups were reconfigured by teams of teacher s. The Principal-researcher agreed that the last 5-9 questions remaining woul d occur by grade level teams. These sessions required another 40 minutes for each grade level team. The discussions were held during times when the grade level of students went to “special area” classes of music, art, or physical education. This strategy generated richer dialogue, as described in chapters 4 and 5. The final data set for the triangulation that was used is entitled, The Southwood Story (Appendix 1), and described by Denzin and Lincoln (1998) as “interpretive interactionism” (p. 335). The narrative descri ption of a six and one-half-year study of the research question meets Denzin and Lincol n’s (1998) interpretation as “events and troubles that are written a bout are the ones the writer has already experienced and witnessed firsthand. The task is to produce ri chly detailed inscrip tions and accounts of such experiences”(p.335). Each of the three data sets was analyze d. A method of sorting written and verbal statements extrapolated from the teachers’ written reflections, fo cus group interviews,

PAGE 136

126 and journal entries. Patterns, themes and subtopics were identified, coded, and placed on a grid for use as part of the triangulation process. Member checking (Stake, 1995) occurred after the rough draft from the focus group transcriptions were completed by the Cu rriculum Resource Teacher. At that time, the transcriptions were returned to the teacher s. Participants determined if the content reflected the intent of the original statem ents. In this way, each participant had the opportunity to validate the statements, correct any misconcep tions, and check for accuracy (Stake, 1995). Teachers edited the tr anscriptions and returned them to the Curriculum Teacher. Then, the focus groups’ edited transcripts were given to the Principal-researcher for further review and analysis. Two independent code checkers were select ed by the Principal-researcher. They analyzed the coding, patterns, sub-topics a nd themes. They provi ded recommendations. One code checker is currently a doctoral candidate who has completed the Human Subjects Education requirements process from the Review Bo ard at the University of Central Florida. He understands the procedur es and techniques us ed in the interview process. The second code checker is a Na tionally Board Certified teacher who recently completed her Master’s Degree from NationalLouis University, where she analyzed data through the use of a coding system. An empirical reader was selected, ba sed on the recommendation of Stake (1995). An empirical reader was “useful because it reminds the writer both of privilege and constraint” (p. 126). The purpose of an empiri cal reader was to edit the document for readability and content, so that the text makes sense to the reader. The Principal-

PAGE 137

127 researcher selected a high school En glish teacher to fill that role. Three peer examiners (Merriam, 1998) r ead the documents to check for clarity and authenticity. The examiners were: one teacher, one guidance counselor, and one Assistant Principal, who worked at the research site for more than three years. Each of them, from the perspective of the Principal-re searcher, read the documents from a critical position and provided honest feedback. Overview of the Case It is important for the researcher to provide the reader with a se nse of being there. Many aspects of the physical environment b ecome foundational to the meaning provided the reader and must be explaine d with particular attention to detail (Stake, 1995). In the case of the research site, the physical plant becomes important. District and School The Principal-researcher would study one research site: Southwood Elementary School, one of 104 elementary schools, locate d in Orange County, Florida, in the 13th largest school district in the nation. Approximately 6,000 ne w students enter the school system each year. The School District offi ce is known as the Educational Leadership Center. Orange County School District is divided into fi ve areas: North, South, East, West, and Urban Cohort. Southwood Elemen tary School is one of 38 schools in the South Learning Community. Each Learning Community is supervised by an Area Superintendent.

PAGE 138

128 The research site, Southwood Elementary School, is a large urban elementary school comprising pre-kindergarten through grad e five. The Principal-researcher opened the school in 1997 with 670 students. The population grew, through the period of the study, to 950 students by 2003. This research site is located in a subdivision with average to lower average income homes, with a dive rse cultural community, and 80% of the staff with less than five years of teaching expe rience. By 2003, 12 of the staff achieved National Board Certification st atus, seven more candidates completed the process during the 2003-2004 school year. The demographics of the school, in 1997, were as follows: 54% white, 38% Hispanic cultures, 3% African American, and 5% were from other cultures. In 2004, the population was as follows: 48% white, 42% Hisp anic cultures, 3% African American, 7% were from other cultures. Fifty-four languages were spoken within the families of the school. Members of the 54 cultures were eith er recent immigrants, or first generation born in the United States. Thirty-three perc ent of the students were on free or reduced lunches. There was a 13 pe rcent mobility rate in 2003. Southwood Elementary School is a ne ighborhood school with middle to lower income homes in the Southchase subdivision. It is common for more than one family to occupy a home, or for a single mother or a fam ily to immigrate to the school area and live with relatives. In 1997 the school was built for 720 students at a cost of 13.6 million dollars. By 2003, the population expansi on required the addition of 13 modular (portable) classrooms. There was an average of seven classrooms for every grade level. The commitment to the arts provided six diffe rent programs for the students: (a) a vocal

PAGE 139

129 music class that incorporated the use of rhyt hm instruments; (b) chorus for grades four and five; (c) a Yamaha electronic keyboard laboratory program; (d) art; (e) physical education; and (f) a stringed instrument program for grades four and five. The research site at the elementary sc hool is designed to accommodate groups of four classrooms surrounding a central planning room. The de sign provides a variety of opportunities for teachers to inte ract throughout the day, partic ularly those that share a common planning area. There are 11 clusters of classrooms. The school population exceeds the ability to house every classroom within the main buildings. This requires portable cl assrooms, and creates a physical separation of some classes from their team members. Research Questions This case study was designed to descri be and analyze a si ngle-site of an elementary school. The six and one-half-y ear longitudinal study examined teachers’ perceptions both of constructivism as an educ ational organizational change model and of developing a constructivist philosophy in an entire elementary school. Teachers’ perceptions were viewed thr ough the specific constructs most frequently appearing in literature relating to devel oping an organization: (a) phi losophical foundations, (b) change, (c) perceptions, (d) leadership, and (e) teachers as leaders. In order to complete the investigations, the follow ing questions were answered: 1. What are the perceptions of teachers a bout constructivism as an educational organizational change model?

PAGE 140

130 2. What are teachers’ perceptions of devel oping a constructivist philosophy in a total elementary school? Research Design For purposes of triangulation, the research design utilized the three data sources noted above and obtained from participants employed at the research site: Teacher reflections, focus group interviews, and the Pr incipal-researcher’s six and one-half-year journal/story. Written reflections, from teachers occurred during May of 2001-2002 and again in 2002-2003 utilized guiding questions. Focus group interviews, utilizing open-ended questions, were conducted in December of 2003. One hundred percent or 60 teachers participated during each data collection process. The Princi pal-researcher journal/story occurred from 1997-2004. The six and one-half-year s of journals provided insight from the Principal’s perspective a nd either confirmed teachers’ perceptions or provided other views of the same situations. Gathering and Organizing the Data The organizations for the data sets we re developed in the following order: 1. Identify common statements made by classroom teachers when they expressed their views about work ing in a constructivist school. 2. Identify clusters of common statement to find patterns. 3. Once clusters of statements emerged, retu rn to the literature to determine

PAGE 141

131 if the clusters, word phrases, or expressi ons, occur in discussions or research. Review the literature in Chapter Two, as well as additional sources. If the same word phrases occur, determine the sub-topic and theme within the literature that refers to the same type of statements. Review the five constructs that most appear in the literature relating to organizations: (a) philosophical founda tion that is constructivist, (b) change, (c) perceptions, (d) leadership, and (e) teachers as leaders. Determine if the clusters of statemen ts are part of one of these broader themes, or fit into a sub-topic. Triangulating the data sour ces provided a way to dete rmine the common elements in answering the research questions. Teacher Reflections A variety of descriptions provides a connection between theory, practice, research questions, and personal experiences, and crea te a “cycle of inquiry,” according to Marshall and Rossman (1999, p. 25). This is co nsistent with one set of data that was used--teacher reflections. The Principal-researcher analyzed teacher reflections gathered under the following conditions and stated earlier. At the end of each year 2001-2002, and again at the end of the year 2002-2003, teachers gather ed in the media center to write their reflections of the school year. The two year s’ reflections revealed the impact of the fourth and fifth years the school operated.

PAGE 142

132 Teachers were provided guiding ques tions although teachers would be encouraged to expand their answers. The Pr incipal-researcher e xplained the purpose of teachers’ reflections. Teachers were told th at this was an opportunity for the Principalresearcher to read and analyze their percepti ons of the school year. It was a chance to think about what happened during the year as a teacher and team member. This provides a way to think about next year and ways to be come even more successful. The school as a whole can then benefit from their experiences and support them in any identified area. Teachers were then provided written and oral di rections that encouraged them to express how they perceived their year. Teachers were provided the following guiding questions: 1. How do you feel about this year and why? 2. What did you learn that made you a better teacher? 3. What did you learn that ma de you a better team member? 4. What are you looking forward to next year? 5. In what ways can the administrators pr ovide additional support to you? (Appendix 4) The Principal-researcher felt comfortabl e giving the teachers the questions, since the teachers knew that the Principal-researcher would analyze the results. Teachers were told they did not have to put their name on the reflections, but encouraged to put their grade level. The Principal-rese archer stated that, by knowing th e grade level, it could help identify if key successes, ideas, or issues were grade level specific; or if the statements reflected all teachers’ views. (Two teachers did not use their names, 59 put their names

PAGE 143

133 on their work; all placed thei r grade level on their written responses). Teachers were instructed to write as long as they choose, and that they could leave whenever they were through. The Principal-researcher left the room while the teachers wrote. The Curriculum Resource Teacher collected the reflections. All teachers wrote for at least 40 minutes, some for as long as 60 minutes. Gathering data from sources within the re search site provided authenticity to the study (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The author s described methods for the study as having four focused directions: backward, such as reflecting over the past year; forward, as teachers examine their needs for the upcoming years; outward, as the participant describes their experiences within the existing environment; and inward as teachers explain their feelings, hopes, and personal experiences. This is consistent with the decision to use teacher reflections as one of the sources of data. Focus Group Interviews Focus groups interviews expanded the op tions when used in matching research questions with qualitative methods (Morgan, 19 97). The specific feature of a focus group provided the researcher with th e opportunity to have the re sults stand on their own. The advantage of focus group interviews rests in the ability to gather a small group together and to learn about their experi ences and perspectives. From a researcher’s perspective, the opportunity to observe the experiences and id eas of a group as they interact with each other provides more in-depth opportunities to view how the participants u nderstand and

PAGE 144

134 interpret their situa tions (Morgan, 1997). Although focus groups can become the primary source of data, they can also be combined with other sources as part of an ongoing research study (Morgan, 1997). “The key defining feature of self-contained focu s groups is thus not the absence of other methods, but, rather, the ability to report the data from th e focus groups as a sufficient body of evidence” (p. 21). “There is a wide spread consensus that focus groups are valuable techniques for collecting qualitative data” (p. 71). Based upon this information, the Principal-rese archer utilized teacher focus group interviews as a method to gather valuable teacher perceptions. Data Source from Focus Group Interviews The Principal-researcher identified a staff member as the interviewer. The Curriculum Resource Teacher was selected b ecause of her knowledge of the school and her understanding of the school’s history. In th is particular case, th e interviewer served as a teacher for three years, moved to anothe r school for two years, and returned in the position of Curriculum Resource Teacher. The rationale for choosing her was based upon the notion that the participants might be more comfortable, open, and honest with a colleague they knew. The Principal-research er believed she would be the most logical person to solicit in-depth and honest respons es. Teachers appear to trust her. She conducted interviews utilizing questions generated by the Principal-researcher. Based upon the research of Morgan ( 1997) and Krueger (1998), the Principalresearcher reviewed the questions with the Cu rriculum Teacher. The Principal-researcher

PAGE 145

135 relied specifically on the work of Krueger’s Analyzing & Reporting Focus Groups Results (1998) to discuss the interviewing proces s with the curriculum resource teacher. The Curriculum Resource Teacher provide d teachers with the written request for participation. The letter contained detailed information concerning the intent of the study group meetings, in advance of the designated meeting time. The written request contained a detailed description of the purpose of the focus group meetings and contained several parts: (a) the purpose of the meeting; (b) the explanation that teacher partic ipation would be on a volunteer basis; (c) participation, in no way, would effect their eval uations, assessments, or job st atus; (d) participants would know that their comments would be audio ta ped, for the purpose of accurately identifying comments; (e) the Curriculum Resource Teach er would transcribe all the interviews before providing the Principal-researcher with the collective st atements; (f) the Curriculum Resource Teacher w ould not identify anyone by name; and (g) questions that would be used as discussion points would be provided (Appendix 5). At the time of the focus group meeti ng, the Curriculum Resource Teacher again explained the purpose of the meeting. T eachers received notification that their participation would in no way effect thei r assessment, evaluation, or employment. Teachers knew that the discussions were tape recorded. The teachers also knew that the Principal is the researcher who would also review the tape recordings, analyze the responses, and find common patterns and themes, among the comments made by the focus groups (Appendix 5).

PAGE 146

136 From this information, teachers understood that the purpose would be to hear their perceptions of the various as pects of what occurred in th e school, as the principalresearcher utilized a constructivist proce ss as an organizational change model, and created an entire elementary school that is constructivist and described in detail in Chapter Two. It was an opportunity to hear how the teachers and administrators could continue to improve, make suggestions about ways to continue providing a learning environment that creates a community of c onstructivist staff members, and identify strengths and weaknesses in current practices. Additional information provided the teach er stated that the teacher’s candor, expertise, collectiv e wisdom, and insight, would be grouped according to similar comments, from other focus groups. Patterns were formed and themes developed. Each group met in the Media Center on predetermi ned dates. Teachers were encouraged to reflect on the questions they received prior to the focus group meeting. The information included an additional purpose. Other schools attempting to create a change, especially to create a constructivist school, might benefit from teachers’ insight. Each group was identified, based upon th e number of years worked at Southwood Elementary School. For example, six teachers who worked at the school for the last six years became part of one group; four teachers, employed for the last five years; three teachers, employed for the last four years; 13 teachers, employed for the last three years, four teachers, employed for the last two y ears; and six teachers employed for the last year. The group employed for the last three ye ars was divided into two groups of six in one and six and one-half in the other in order to more effectively c onduct the interviews.

PAGE 147

137 One subgroup was identified. This group consisted of three teachers, who left the school to work at another location, and were hired back at Southwood Elementary. A total of seven focus groups met. This number generally met the criteria of from 4 to 6 groups for focus group research (Fern, 2001). Fo cus groups were comprised of from four to seven members, consistent with the recommendations of Marshall and Rossman (1999). The rationale for this configuration wa s based on the assumption that views may vary from one group to the other, depending on the length of time that teachers were part of the process of a constructivist philosophy. For example, those who are at the school for six years may have a perspective different from those who are at the school for one year, etcetera. The exception could be the group that returned to the school. They were interviewed to identify reasons w hy they, as teac hers, returned. The information was originally transcri bed by the Curriculum Resource Teacher. Upon completion of the transcriptions, teacher s received a copy to edit. They were given the time to determine if the statements they made accurately reflected their intent. They returned their comments to the CRT. The Curriculum Teacher made the recommended revisions. The CRT provided the Principal -researcher with the final transcribed documents. The Principal-researcher began the analys is, first by reviewing the audio tapes and reading the CRT’s transcriptions. The Curri culum Teacher did not transcribe the audiotapes word for word. Instead, phrases and key words were written. However, use of member checks to validate the audio tapes and re spond to the transcriptions is consistent

PAGE 148

138 with the comments made by Stake (1995). Audio taping is valuable for catching the exact words used, but the cost in making transcripts and the annoyance for both respondent and researcher argue strongly against it. … The amount of taped data a researcher can work with is very small. The researcher should deve lop skill in keeping shorthand notes and count on member checks to get the meaning straight (Stake, p.56). Within a few hours of the interview, the researcher should prepare a written facsimile, with key ideas and episodes captured. … Getting the exact words of the respondent is usually not very important it is what they mean that is important (Stake, p.66). (Appendix 6) The Curriculum Resource Teacher recorded the responses on a form that contained each of the following questions. Large spaces were provided between the questions where the CRT could record the responses. A new form was used for each group. In the final sessions of questions beginning between number 10 and 12, there were seven in each focus group. Focus Group Questions: 1. What professional experiences have pr ovided you with an understanding of constructivist thinking and learni ng for both you and your students? 2. What are your percepti ons regarding the school m oving toward constructivist approaches? 3. Based upon your perceptions how did this occur?

PAGE 149

139 4. What roles do you perceive to have developed in this process? 5. What roles if any did you and/or your team perceive they played in this process? 6. What roles did you perceive this administrator play? 7. What organizational and structur al changes do you perceive took place? 8. What still needs to be done to keep on moving in the areas of role, process, and structures? 9. How would you improve this process? 10. How would you improve the structures? 11. What do you perceive has been the impact on your practice? 12. What do you perceive has been the impact on team collaboration? 13. What do you perceive has been the impact on your students? 14. What experiences do you perceive have provided you with the knowledge and experiences to take on leadership roles? 15. What is your perception regardi ng how much decision making power you have? regarding the implementati on of the constructivism reform model and a constructivist philosophy? 16. What is the most important role that you perceive that you play in maintaining a constructivist philosophy? 17. What do you think is the most significan t problem in maintaini ng a constructivist? philosophy? 18. Given the opportunity to stay at th e school, what reasons keep you at Southwood? 19. (Only used with the returning group of teachers). What are the reasons you chose

PAGE 150

140 to return to the school to teach, af ter you choose to go to another school? Principal-Researcher Journal/story: Once the Principal-researcher accepted the position of opening a new school in Orange County, Florida, it became clear that the task was enormous and the waters were untested regarding a chronology and narrative of life in an elementary school. Beginning the day of appointment to the position, th e Principal-researcher began a journal. Throughout the next six and one-h alf-years, journal entries elaborated the many aspects involved in creating a constructivist school. The process of utilizing the case study method, and qualitative research, is identified by Stake (1995) when a researcher describes “in depth how things were at a particular place at a particular time” (p. 38) He continues by noting that “to the qualitative scholar, the unders tanding of human experiences is a matter of chronologies more than of causes and effects” (p. 39). This is consistent with the determination to use Principal-researcher’s journal/stor y as part of the investigation. Utilizing journal entries for qualitative resear ch is consistent with the description of Merriam (1998). A characteristic of qualita tive research develops when the researcher is the main collector of data and the subsequent data analysis. This process often requires the researcher to physically go to the site to observe the “b ehavior in the natural setting” (Merriam, 1998, p. 7). In the case study reporte d, the Principal-researcher was in the natural setting for the duration of the six a nd one-half-year study, and remains there in 2004.

PAGE 151

141 The complexity, over time, of the six a nd one-half-year research of this study, remains consistent with the explanations that are provided by Me rriam (1998) and Stake (1995). A case study includes as many variables within the research site as possible and describes the in-depth interaction, generally of a period of time. In this way there are unique insights into the history of how th ings came to be, when using a case study approach to the research. The Principal-re searcher’s six and one-half-year narrative (Appendix 1) would fulfill this specificity by te lling the story and engaging the reader in the details surrounding the study. The use of the case study method, and qualitative research, provided a link between the method of research and the rese arch questions: Teacher s’ perceptions about constructivism as an educational organi zational change model and developing a constructivist philosophy in an entire elem entary school. Focused questions regarding teachers’ perceptions and written documentation by the school stakeholders provided indepth and authentic perspectives. The proce ss of analyzing written and verbal responses to questions was consistent with those described by Merriam ( 1995), Stake (1995), and (Fern, 2001), Morgan (1997), and Krueger (1998). Principal-researcher’s journals pr ovided background information and a comprehensive view of the research site during its formative y ears beginning in 1997. Journal entries were used throughout the six and one-half years of the study. Teachers’ perceptions regarding the em ergence of a constructivist philosophy was generated from teacher reflections written at the end of the school year in 2001 and again in 2002. Questions directly related to research questions identified ea rlier, were asked during the

PAGE 152

142focus group interviews in Decembe r of 2003 generated direct Following the recommendations of Knodel ( 1993), the Principal-researcher used the same data organization methods for each of three different data sets collected from focus groups, written reflections from t eachers from 2002 and 2003, and the Principalresearcher narrative, using the following procedures: Teacher Reflections, Data Collection, Organization, and Analysis Process Teachers identified their grade level on the written reflections. The intent by the Principal-researcher was to determine if co mments were grade level and team specific. The year of the reflection was later identified as part of the grid to see if comments were year specific. 1. Identified statements and phrases from teach ers’ written reflections. First, for year 2001-2002, then again for years 2002-2003, to determine if the responses differed from one year to the next. For example: Question 1. What did you learn to be a better teacher? 1. Phrases were listed 2. Key words and phrases were underlined 2001-2002 K (kindergarten) grade 1 I felt better about myself I’ve grown so much this year. We all got along on our team I’ve learned new strategies Team made more effort to get along I was “enveloped” in support grade 2 grade 3

PAGE 153

143 I’m fortunate to be part of this team I changed my attitude to more I learned the importance of a strong positive professional environment Learned flexibility with my I’ve been mentally stretched instruction The Principal-researcher identified words and phrases that began repeating. For example, when teachers repeated statements th at related to working together such as “we plan together, we get together,” etcetera, those statements later became part of a larger grouping—collaboration. Initially, however, once the same statement was repeated, a single entry that identified the grade level of the responde nt was placed beside the statement and later on a grid in the column identifying the year. Organizational Grid An example of a grid placed statements into categories and grade levels (instead of tally marks) for individual statements. In this example, statements were identified and placed in possible categories. Then, categor ies became narrowed until the most dominate category emerged. This method provided a syst em that determined if statements are more predominate in one year than the other, or if the grade level becomes identified in one year more than in another.

PAGE 154

144Table 1 Organizational Grid Possible category 2001-2002 2002-2003 Teamwork/team building Teachers as Leaders Trust building --Our team gets along this year K,K,K, 1,1,3, --Team helps each other 2,3,4,4 --We’re becoming family 5,5,1,1,3,3,3,3,3, 4,4,4, --Becoming a family of professionals 4 --Some on the team are experts and help me K,K,1,1,1,3,5 The Principal-researcher used a grid as a way to sort similar responses, by data source, and the year the response occurred. Poss ible themes or sub-topics were placed in one portion of the grid (possibl e category). Later, final orga nizing themes and sub-topics were added. The use of the matrix follo ws the suggestions of Knodel (1993), and described by Fern (2001). “This matrix may be as detailed as the researcher cares to make it” (p. 228). “Once the overview grid is co mplete, the researcher can verify that the same issues were addressed by each group and th at the positions taken on these issues are the same across similar groups” (p. 229). Focus Group Interviews--N=60 Step 1. Identify statements Step 2: Underline key words and phrases Examples of organizing the data: Question 1. What professional experi ences have provided you with an understanding of constructiv ist thinking and learning fo r both you and your students? Teachers employed since 1997-1998:

PAGE 155

145 The Principal asked me about my philosophy and my expectations that made me look at who I was and think about where I wanted to go. There is no micro-managing I must think about why and how I do things, I feel empowered. When we wrote our thematic units over the summer it made me think more about raising students thinking to a much higher level, and design higher levels activities Teachers employed since 2000-2001: I keep learning I have the freedom to experiment and try new things. Understanding our personalities is helpful It helps me understand me and my team members better. I connect with team members and work together; we construct our own knowledge as we go Listed single statements/phrases, look ed for patterns, identified commonly used words and phrases that cluster to form identifying indicators or possible categories. Phrases Indicators/Possible Categories Felt better about myself (K) self esteem We got along (K, K) support, getting along (two kindergarten teachers, same grade stated the same thing) Grown so much 1, (mentally stretched) 2 learning (grade 1 and grade 2 teacher) Learned new strategies (4) learning from others “enveloped” in support (5) support (2) team support Part of team (3, 5, 5) importance of teams Importance of strong professional envi ronment professional environment

PAGE 156

146 Changed attitude-positive attitude Flexible change I think about how and why 2, 2, 3 metacognition (two second grade teachers, 1-3rd responded with similar comments Empowered empowerment Asked about my philosophy philosophy Thematic units-thinking thinking about curriculum Students thinking – higher leve ls higher-order thinking Principal-researcher journal/story: A summary of six and one-halfyears is divided according to Year One, Year Two, Year Three, and etcetera. Once a few key phras es and words began emerging, the Principalresearcher found corresponding entries in the jo urnal/story to illustrate the identified comments from the Principal-researcher’s perspective. Altho ugh statements often overlapped from one category to the other the Principal-researcher determined the most dominant category based upon the context of the written statement. This process utilized the triangulation process for validity and reliability. Year 4—Teachers’ employed in 2000-2001 Focus on creating a community of learners team, collaboration New teachers caused unrest change

PAGE 157

147 The philosophy of constructivism is slowly becoming internalized by the staff philosophy Everyone must own the change change collaboration Self-assurance needed for the teachers self esteem Key words began to cluster from all thr ee data sources. Clusters were created based upon common statements. Clusters of words were arranged and rearranged until the clusters generally favored a grouping. Often words or phr ases occurred in more that one category, however, the Principal-researcher generally selected one dominant category in order to assist in identifying themes and possible sub-topics. The decision about a category in which to place a word or phrase was often cont extually based. For example, the following words or phr ases occurred in the data sources: 1. learning new ways of teaching math 2. understanding 3. concept-based units-higher level of thinking 4. learning new strategies 5. feel more self-confident about my teaching Code checkers reviewed the clusters at different times to determine additional groupings or modify the Principal-resear cher’s conclusions. The example above illustrates a case in point. Phrases one through four clustered around ideas of both curriculum change and constructivist beliefs However, the checkers determined item five, although relating to curricu lum, fit best in the grouping th at related to self-esteem. That item was removed from this cluster and placed in another one. A new cluster of words formed. An additional theme evolved based upon a review by the code

PAGE 158

148 checkers. It was noted that several references were made regarding how teachers “felt.” Feeling words were identified and the additiona l theme of Affect was generated. At this point a sixth theme or construct was added to the identified constructs. The Principalresearcher added this additional construct to all subsequent discussion. However, there is limited research on the specific topic of Aff ect. This construct is generally embedded within discussions of other constructs and appears in the works of such authors as Maxwell (2001) and Palmer (1998). Identifying themes and subtopics Once clusters of words were identif ied around a broad idea, the Principalresearcher returned to the literature. During th e literature search, the identified clusters of words were examined within the literature. The same clusters were checked in Chapter Two for identification. For example, when “collaboration” occurred in the literature, the Principal-researcher analyzed the contextual topic used by the authors. Collaboration is a function of teacher lead ership that occurs when teachers work and plan together, as well as discuss st udents’ work (Barth, 2001; Maxwell, 1995; National Research Council, 2000). Collaboration fits under the broader theme of Teachers as Leaders in Chapter Two. Collabor ation became a sub-topic under the broader theme of Teachers as Leaders. In this exampl e, the Principal-resear cher continued to go back and forth among key words, finding supporti ng literature, and identifying clusters of common words, and the accompanying sub-t opics and themes, in order to better categorize and identify key statements.

PAGE 159

149 When statements did not obviously f it a specific category, the Principalresearcher examined past practices at the research site. For example, the Principalresearcher determined that when collabor ation occurs, someone among the teachers initiates the process; therefore, a teacher take s on a type of leadership role at that point Another step included identifying each of th e initial constructs that the Principalresearcher examined in Chapter two: (a) philosophy of constructi vism, (b) change, (c) perceptions, (d) leadersh ip, and (e) teachers as leaders and determine if any of the clusters of statements began to develop under these fi ve possible themes. A sixth theme/construct was added after code check ers added one more—affect. As the statements began to cluster, the si x constructs became identifying themes. The identified theme was assigned a code letter. If a cluster of statements were a sub-set of the topic, that statement became a subtopic, and then a numeral was assigned. For example, when a teacher commented that she “took on more leadership roles this year,” that statement became the indicator—teacher leadership. That statement reflected a theme--Teachers as Leaders. Therefore, that statement was coded with a TL. Collaboration, however, was part of the concept of Teachers as Leaders and identified as one sub-topic, or TL 1. The teacher identifi ed her grade level on her written reflections with a K, as a kindergarten teacher, the year 2001-2002. The researcher placed a K for kindergarten in the correct year on the grid, by the appropriate sub-topic of collaboration.

PAGE 160

150Table 2: Grid—Reflections, Focus Group Intervie ws, Principal-researcher’s Journals. Grid: Data Source-reflections-grade level; year employed Data Source-focus group interviews--2004 Data Source-Principal-re searcher journals—1997-2004 List individual statements. Clusters of like statements began to form into common topics. Reflections2001-2002 Reflections 2002-2003 Focus Groups 2004 Principal journal –’97-04 TL – Teachers as Leaders Collaboration We work together K, K, K (indicates three kindergarten teachers made a similar statement) I love my team we get along well. K,K, K, K, 1, 1, 1,1,1,2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, Because this also indicates Affect these marks would occurred again under A for affect ’97-‘98 There is constant dialogue—it is so important. Our team works so well together. ’00-‘04 The ultimate goal is that teachers develop as leaders so they can help pull their teams together. A Affect K,K,K,K,K,K,1,1, 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3, 4,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5 Teachers getting along are so important in order to build a coherent instructional program.

PAGE 161

151 Code Theme / Sub-topic identifying indicators CP Constructivist Philosophy Fosnot, 1996; Lambert, 2003; Use of the vision, higher order Larochelle, Bednarz, & Garrison thinking, thinking “outside the box,” 1998; Marlowe & Page, 1998; non-scripted curriculum Shapiro,1995, 2000, 2003). (Chapter Two). CP 1. (Sub topic 1.) understanding the concept Thinking about thinking; metacognitive skills; probing to think on my own; figure things out; not given an answer, but justify my solution; find the problem; explain; constructing our own knowledge; overlapping indicators exis t between the concept of constructivism, problem solving, and decision making CP 2. Problem solving – decision Questions, find ways to make it better, making Principal asked what I want to do, think first, plan, answers not given. CP 3. Reflective Practice Disc uss what happened, explain why, do it better next time, examine, pre-requisite skills, dig deeper, look back-and then look forward. CP 4. Risk-free environment Try it out, experiment, if it doesn’t work, try again, work it out, a nd think creatively. CP 5. Learner-centered How children learn, think of the kids first, observe, listen, watch, and provide opportunities, life-l ong learning, creative approach, kids can explain their thinking; create a rule. C Change Movement, disruption, anticipation of (Evans, 1996; Fullan, 1991; something being different than before 1997, 1999, 2001; Hall & Hord, 2001; Sarason, 1996; Wilson & Daviss, 1994). (Chapter Two)

PAGE 162

152 C1. Evolution of curriculum Understanding—math, integrated units, any subject area that changes as it is learned, finding better ways to instructResistance/excitement, adding on / substituting new strategies C2. Change of models Vertical team concept-resistance/excitement Looping concept – resistance/excitement C3 Change of teams Disr uption when someone leaves/joins the team, teachers choosing to move seen as negative/positive experience P Perception Believing, perspective The use of the word “perception” Statements relating to job satisfaction is limited in the research. Descri bing incidences that occurred. (Chapter Two) Statements often overlapped with Affect L Leadership Focus on the Principal – negative/positive (Barth, 1990, 2001; Lambert, 2003; experiences. Manz & Sims, 2001; Sergiovanni, 1999, 1992; Schlechty, 1990, 2001; Shapiro, 1995, 2000, 2003). (Chapter Two) L1 Support of teachers Feel supported, provided with ideas, suggestions, help with students, help with parents, not threatened by interaction, empowers us, trusts us to make decisions, L2 Feeling appreciated Spends time making teachers feel appreciated, recognized-publicly and in private, complimentary, L3 Provides a professional Provide materials and supplies because work environment teacher need them, values input into what teachers want, provided time to work with team mates, feel comfortable, safe.

PAGE 163

153 TL Teachers as Leaders The assumption by the researcher was that (Barth, 1990; Daft & Lingel, 2000; all items identified, relating to team building Glickman, 1993; Darling-Hammond, bel onged in this section. If someone 1987; Lieberman, 1998; Maxwell, 1995; in itiates a group getting together or Greenleaf, 1995). organizes a gr oup project, then a leader is (Chapter Two) recognized. TL1 Collaboration Collaboratin g, getting together as a group, planning together, working together, TL1 Trust building and Like my team, like working with my pod forming relationships members, work well together, get along, know value of communication, became a team TL3 Asked for help and Willing to ask for help, teachers help me, received it TL4 Value of personality U nderstand each other, understand styles and use of Gregor c myself, easier to work with people, laugh (Chapter 4) TL5 Value of positive FISH helped me, attitude, and play, make Attitude—FISH philosophy their day, importance of positive attitude TL6 Took on leadership roles Leadership, mentor, and committee work/chair. A Affect Feeling words: happy, love, excited, school (Maxwell, 1995, 2000; as a family Palmer, 1998). The Principal-researcher examined the frequency of similar responses by the teachers during focus groups, teacher reflections, and in the Principal-researcher journals, that provided common beliefs and issues among all the stakeholders in the school. The Principal-researcher journals would examine consistent beliefs and add additional

PAGE 164

154perspectives such as those suggested by (S take, 1995) as “bringi ng out the essential character of the case” (p. 29). The Principal-researcher’s journals were an alyzed utilizing the same process as in teacher reflections and focus group interview statements. As stated earlier, journal entries for years 1997-2000 were background experiences that provided insight into the history and events that lead up to year three at the research -site, when the philosophical foundation of constructivism began formul ating. The Principal-researcher listed statements that provided specific information and interactions that might form patterns at a later time. Statements that appeared in na rrative accounts of events and situations were also listed. Examples of triangulation, util izing journal/story account s are also provided in Chapters 4 and 5. Data Analysis The Principal-researcher analyzed and examined each of three primary data sources: focus groups; end-of-the-year reflec tions; and Principal-researcher’s six and one-half-years of journals. The analyzed stat ements were clustered into common patterns and topics. Broad themes ar e consistent with those identified in Chapter two: (a) philosophy of constructivism, (b) change, (c) perception, (d) leadership, and (e) teachers as leaders, and later in the research process (f) affect. Those statements that are not consistent from one group to the other we re analyzed for additional insight. An example of the grid described above provided a way to visually determine

PAGE 165

155consistencies among statements and across year s in which the statements occurred. For example, reflections statements oc curred during May of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. Focus group interviews were conducted in D ecember of 2003. The Principal-researcher journal/story occurred from 1997-2004. Summary This chapter contained the purpose and research questions, discussed qualitative research, and case study methodology. Qualitative measures were used since it provides a greater understanding of the research question (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Key issues such as validity, reliability, and tr iangulation were also discussed. Consistency and reliability were provided with additional reviewers of the text and data coding. Member checking occurred. Teachers in focus groups received copies of the audio tape transcripts for editin g purposes. Two independent code checkers reviewed the data from the written statements that were extrapolated from the teachers’ written reflections, the focus group interviews, and the journal/story. An empirical reader edited the Principal-researcher’s documents fo r clarify. Three peer reviewers read the documents for clarity and authenticity. Research focused on triangulat ing three data collections sources. First, teachers’ two-year reflections provided insight into how teams and individual teachers worked to improve and to sustain the constructivist culture of the school. Second, teachers participated in focus groups which center ed on teachers’ perceptions and insights

PAGE 166

156concerning creating a constr uctivist school. The last data source came from the Principal-researcher’s written chronicles dur ing six and one-half-years of the study. The story provides details and insight into the events a nd experiences that often support teachers’ perceptions, and add the dimension fr om the Principal-researcher’s perspective throughout six and one-half-years. The amount of text generated from the three data sources required a lengthy explanation concerning the organization of la rge quantities of written data. Further explanation occurred that described the findi ng of word and statement patterns, placing clusters of similar statements and words toge ther that became identified as indicators or possible categories. A review of the liter ature and Chapter Two, verified that the constructs most frequently appearing in lite rature relating to deve loping an organization: (a) philosophy of constructivism, (b) change, (c) perceptions, (d) le adership, (e) teachers as leaders, and (f) affect, c ontinued to remain the dominant themes based upon the three data sources. Examples described clusters (indicators) that created sub-topics within a broad theme. This occurred when statements did no t directly state the name of the theme within their explanation, but rather disc ussed a similar idea. Conclusions Analyzing dialogue and writt en reflections from the perspective of the classroom teacher and Principal provided important in formation when creating an organizational culture with constructivist educ ational practices. T eacher’s two-year reflections provided

PAGE 167

157insight into how teams and i ndividual teachers worked to improve and sustain the constructivist culture. Second, teachers’ fo cus group discussions became a platform upon which teachers could express their individual and collective feelings and beliefs. These insights created substantive information that further supported the need to listen to teachers and analyze their perceptions throughout the process of a reform effort. Finally, an analysis of the Principal-researcher’s six and one-half-years of journals examines details and events that provided an in-depth understanding of teachers’ perceptions and a leader’s experiences. Chapter 4

PAGE 168

158 Reporting the Data Introduction The purpose of this single-site six an d one-half longitudinal study described and analyzed teachers’ perceptions both of cons tructivism as an educational organizational change model and of developing a construc tivist philosophy in an entire elementary school. The study examined the background and steps that evol ved throughout the reform process. The purpose of this chapter was to report the data as they relate to the study questions: (a) What are the perceptions of t eachers about constructivism as an educational organizational change model? and (b) What are teachers’ perceptio ns of developing a constructivist philosophy in an entire elementary school? Research focused on three data collection sources: Teachers’ reflections written by each teacher at the end of the school year in 2002 and in 2003; focus group interviews from all teachers at the research site, gath ered in 2004; and six and one-half years of the Principal-researcher’s journals. These data were organized according to the descriptions provided in Chapter Three, and re ported later in this chapter. The intent of answering the research que stion, based upon written statements from three data sources, provided the Principal-res earcher with authentic dialogue from which

PAGE 169

159to draw conclusions providing authentic ity to the study. Marshall & Rossman, (1999) describe methods for qualitative study as havi ng four focused directions: backward, such as reflecting over the past year; forward, as teachers examined their needs for the upcoming years; outward, as the participant described their experiences within the existing environment; and inward as teach ers explained their feelings, hopes, and personal experiences. This is consistent with the decision to use writ ten and verbal insight from the three sources of data. A variety of descriptions provided a connection between theory, practice, research questions, and pe rsonal experiences, and create a “cycle of inquiry,” according to Marsha ll and Rossman (1999, p. 25). Teachers’ Written Reflections The purpose of using written reflections as part of the study relied on a teacher’s review of experiences during Year Three a nd Four. Each professional provided insight, comments, assessments, expertise, and percep tions to a discussion about the process and evolution of a school as it became constructivis t. The first set of data was obtained from teachers’ reflections at the end of the school year for 2001-2002 and again in 2002-2003. Participation was voluntary, however, in both ye ars, 100% (60 of the teachers present on the identified day) responded with their reflections. Each teacher focused primarily on the guiding questions provided for them (A ppendix 4) although many expanded with additional statements. Focus Group Interviews

PAGE 170

160The second data set used for triangulati on, were statements made during focus group interviews conducted by the Curriculu m Resource Teacher. In quantitative research, the instrument used would become th e “proxy for what is really measured. By contrast in focus group research there are no proxies” (Krueger, 1998 p. 68). Although focus groups can become the primary source of data, they can also be combined with other sources as part of an ongoing research study (Morgan, 1997). “The key defining feature of self-contained focu s groups is thus not the absence of other methods, but, rather, the ability to report the data from th e focus groups as a sufficient body of evidence” (p. 21). “There is a wide spread consensus that focus groups are valuable techniques for collecting qualitativ e data” (p.71). Based upon this information, the Principal-resear cher utilized teacher focus group interviews as a method of gathering teacher perceptions data. The final data set for the triangulation th at was used is entitled, “The Southwood Story” (Appendix 1), and described by Denzin and Lincoln (1998) as “interpretive interactionism” (p. 335). The narrative de scription, based upon the journals of the Principal-researcher over six and one-half years, meets Denzin and Lincoln’s (1998) interpretation as “events a nd troubles that are written a bout are the ones the writer has already experienced and witnessed firsthand. The task is to produce ‘richly detailed’ inscriptions and accounts of such experiences” (p. 335). Each of the three data sets was analyz ed. The Principal-researcher developed a

PAGE 171

161method of sorting written and verbal statemen ts extrapolated from the teachers’ written reflections, focus group interviews, and journal entries. Gathering and Organizing the Data Organization of the data sets: 1. Identified common statements made by classroom teachers when they expressed their views about work ing in a constructivist school. 2. Identified clusters of common statements to find patterns. 3. Reviewed five constructs that most appear in the literature relating to developing an organization: (a) philosophi cal foundation that is constructivist, (b) change, (c) perceptions, (d) leader ship, and (e) teachers as leaders. Construct six, (f) Affect, was added afte r code checkers reviewed the data. Determined if the clusters of statemen ts were part of one of these broader themes, created a sub-topic for those stat ements that did not specifically state the construct, but rather could be identif ied within one of the five constructs. 4. Reviewed the research to determine if other authors used similar expressions or statements in identifying a specific theme or idea. For example, Maxwell (1995) identified the behaviors of teacher leaders. He stated that teachers as leaders were ones who helped form relationships among their teams, while modeling the ability to build trust. Based on Maxwell’s work, the Principalresearcher identified trust building and fo rming relationships as a sub-topic of

PAGE 172

162Teachers as Leaders. The identified indicat ors fit into that sub-topic and theme. Determining the indicators, returning to th e literature, verifying the decision to place the identified indicators with the theme and sub-topic provided verification for the Principal-researcher. Organizational Grid The Principal-researcher created a grid as an organizer to place statements into categories and grade levels for teacher refl ection statements. In the example below, written statements or phrases were placed in possible categories. Categories then became narrowed until the most dominant categorie s emerged. This method also provided a system that determined if statements were mo re predominant in one year than the other, or if the grade level became identified with one year more than in another. The example below illustrates the organization of data from teacher reflections. Table 1 Organizational Grid Possible category 2001-2002 2002-2003 Teamwork/team building Teachers as Leaders Trust building --Our team gets along this year K,K,K, 1,1,3, --Team helps each other 2,3,4,4 --We’re becoming family 5,5,1,1,3,3,3,3,3, 4,4,4, --Becoming a family of professionals 4 --Some on the team are experts everyone helps me K,K,1,1,1,3,5 Possible themes or sub-topics were placed in one portion of the grid (possible

PAGE 173

163category). Later, final orga nizing themes and sub-topics were added, after checking against the literature. The use of the matrix followed the s uggestions of Knodel (1993), and described by Fern (2001). “This matrix may be as detail ed as the researcher cares to make it” (p. 228). “Once the overview grid is complete the re searcher can verify that the same issues were addressed by each group and that the posi tions taken on these issues are the same across similar groups” (p. 229). The first two questions were identified fr om the Analysis of the Dynamics of Change process flow chart (Appendix 2). This process provided teachers an opportunity to participate in a problem identification and problem solving model. Question one: “What did you learn this y ear that made you a better teacher?” This personal emphasis on the teacher help ed to understand why and how teachers make decisions and draw conclusions about their own professional growth during the year. The analysis of question one provided an understa nding of teachers’ roles in curriculum and instructional decisions. Teachers’ roles in curriculum decisions were identified in the Analysis of the Dynamics of Change flow ch art in the issues/concer ns section (Appendix 2). Question two: “What did you learn that made you a better team member?” also emerged from the Analysis of the Dynamics of Change–outcomes section, that identified three distinct areas relating to issues of team functioning: (a) Trust issues within teams; (b) teams functioning better; and (c) lines of team co mmunication established. An

PAGE 174

164analysis of this question could reveal insight from teachers’ perspectives into whether team issues improved. In an effort to elicit further insi ght into ways the school was becoming constructivist, questions three and four were more general. “Overall, what were the best parts about this year?” and, “What do you look fo rward to next year?” The analysis could compare year 2001-2002 to year 2002-2003 and determine if there was an identified change from one year to the next. Teachers wrote in narrative form and st atements were once again extrapolated. The Principal-researcher wrote teachers’ stat ements in a matrix configuration for each year. Rows represented statements; themes were identified based upon the most common phrases. This process for provi ding a reliability check is recommended by Knodel (1993) as reported by Fern (2001). Due to the broad scope of the constructs, each statement fit into one of the constructs. In many cases, statements overl apped from one category to the next. Categories also often overlapped. Statements were placed within the most predominant category as judged by the Principal-researcher. As soon as themes and sub-topics were identified, through cons istently repeated common statements, it became possible to co mpare one data set with the other for consistency and agreement. The Principal-re searcher extrapolated specific words and phrases from the context of teachers’ reflectio ns and determined if differences occurred. Some differences occurred in the Principa l-researcher’s journal/story, not with the

PAGE 175

165context of the statement, but because of the leader’s perspective. For example, question one: “How do you feel about this year and w hy?” The teachers’ statements indicated their belief that their teams were getting al ong, with such indicators as, “Our team helps each other. I paid attention to my team’s needs and wants. I enjoyed assisting my teammates.” The Principal-researcher’s jour nal comments stated, “Teachers appear to finally get along, especially within team X.” The same statement, but from two perspectives. Data Collection, Organization, and Analysis Process Each teacher identified their grade level on the written reflections. The intent by the Principal-researcher was to determine if co mments were grade level and team specific. The year of the reflection was later identified as part of the grid to see if comments were year specific. 1. Identified statements and phrases from teach ers’ written reflections. First, for year 2001-2002, then again for years 2002-2003, to determine if the responses differed from one year to the next. For example: Question 1. What did you learn to be a better teacher? 1. Phrases were listed 2. Key words and phrases were underlined

PAGE 176

166 2001-2002 K (kindergarten) Grade 1 I felt better about myself I’ve grown so much this year. We all got along on our team I’ve learned new strategies Team made more effort to get along I was “enveloped” in support Grade 2 Grade 3 I’m fortunate to be part of this team I changed my attitude to more I learned the importance of a strong positive professional environment Learned flexibility with my I’ve been mentally stretched instruction The Principal-researcher identified words and phrases that began repeating. For example, when teachers repeated statements that related to working together such as, “We plan together. We get together,” etcetera those statements later became part of a larger grouping—collaboration. Initiall y, however, once the same statement was repeated, a single entry that id entified the grade leve l of the respondent was placed beside the statement and later on a grid in the column identifying the year. If similar comments were stated by two or more teachers, the Prin cipal-researcher identified those comments as part of the clustering. Focus Group Interviews

PAGE 177

167N=60 Step1. Identify statements Step 2: Underline key words and phrases Examples of organizing the data: Question 1. What professional experiences have provided you with an understanding of constructivist thinking and learni ng for both you and your students? Teachers employed since 1997-1998: The Principal asked me about my philosophy and my expectations, that made me look at who I was and think about where I wanted to go. There is no micro-managing I must think about why and how I do things, I feel empowered. When we wrote our thematic units over the summer it made me think more about raising students thinking to a much higher-level, and design higher-levels activities Teachers employed since 2000-2001: I keep learning I have the freedom to experiment and try new things. Understanding our personalities is helpful It helps me understand me and my team members better. I connect with team members and work together, we construct our own knowledge as we go Listed single statements/phrases, look ed for patterns, identified commonly used words and phrases that cluste red to form identifying indicators

PAGE 178

168 Phrases (grade level) Indicators Felt better about my self (K) self esteem We got along (K, K) support, getting along (two kindergarten teachers, same grade stated the same thing) Grown so much 1, (mentally stretched) 2 learning (grade 1 and grade 2 teacher) Learned new strategies (4) “enveloped” in support(5) support (2) Part of team (3,5,5) importance of teams Importance of strong professional environment professional environment Changed attitude-positive attitude Flexible change I think about how and why 2, 2, 3 metacognition (two second grade teachers, 1-3rd responded with similar comments Affect Feeling empowered empowerment Asked about my philosophy philosophy Thematic units-thinking thinking about curriculum Students thinking – higher-level s higher-order thinking The Principal-researchers’ journal/story is divided into sections according to the

PAGE 179

169year the school was in existe nce, beginning with Year One. The journal/story provided supporting statements through comments, desc riptions, and explanations that both reinforced teachers’ percepti ons and provided the Principal’ s perspective. Phrases were extrapolated from the text, and organized ac cording to the system devised for Teacher’s Reflections and Focus Group Interviews. For example: Year 4 Focus on creating a community of learners team, collaboration New teachers caused unrest change The philosophy of constructivism is slowly becoming internalized by the staff philosophy Everyone must own the change change collaboration Self-assurance needed for the teachers self esteem Key words began to cluster from all thr ee data sources. Clusters were created based upon common statements. Clusters of words were arranged and rearranged until the clusters generally favored a grouping. Words or phrases of ten occurred in more than one category, however, the Principal-researcher generally selected one dominant category in order to assist in identifying themes and possible sub-topics. The decision about a category in which to place a word or phrase was often contextually based. For example, the following words or phrases occurred in the data sources: 1.learning new ways of teaching math 2. understanding 3. concept-based units-higher-level of thinking

PAGE 180

1704. earning new strategies 5. feel more self-confident about my teaching Code checkers reviewed the clusters at different times to determine additional groupings or modify the Principal-resear cher’s conclusions. The example above illustrates a case in point. Phrases one through four clustered around ideas of both curriculum change and constructivist beliefs However, the checkers determined item five, although relating to curricu lum, fit best in the grouping th at related to self-esteem. That item was removed from this cluster and placed in another one. A new cluster of words and phrases fo rmed. Code checkers agreed that an additional grouping of statements should cons titute another theme. This theme was identified as Affect. The Affect theme deve loped with the number of statements that reflected an emotional connection. For exam ple, teachers used such words and phrases as “I love my team, we laugh, I need to feel appreciated. Several references were made to “I felt…” Many of these statements refer to Masl ow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1954), reported by Shapiro (1995, 2000, 2003). On a staff of 60, with only one male, female emotional needs must be met. However, areas of Affect do not stand alone with isolated statements expressing emotional needs, but rather are c onnected to an existing theme. So, although Affect must be recognized as a critical them e, for purposes of explanation, and examples, reference requires review of existing statements. Comments and reflections were often embedded within these statements.

PAGE 181

171 Identifying themes and subtopics Once clusters of words were identif ied around a broad idea, the Principalresearcher returned to the literature. During th e literature search, the identified clusters of words were examined within the literature. The same clusters were also checked in Chapter Two for theme identification. For exam ple, when ‘collaborati on’ occurred in the literature, the Principal-researcher analyzed th e contextual topic used by the researchers. In this way, the contextual meaning from both the researcher and the teachers’ responses were consistent. “Collaboration” is a function of teacher leadership that occurs when teachers work and plan together, as well as discuss students’ work (Barth, 2001; Maxwell, 1995; National Research Council, 2000). Collaboration fits under the broader theme of “Teachers as Leaders” (Chapter Two). Collaboration became a sub-topic under the broader theme of “Teachers as Leaders.” In this example, the Principal-researcher continued to go back and forth among ke y words, finding supporting literature, and identifying clusters of common words, and the accompanying sub-topics and themes, in order to better categorize a nd identify key statements. The Principal-researcher reviewed the litera ture to determine if other authors used similar expressions or statements in identif ying a specific theme or idea. For example, Maxwell (1995) identified the behaviors of teache r leaders. He stated that teachers as leaders were ones who helped form relations hips among their teams, while modeling the

PAGE 182

172ability to build trust. Based on Maxwell’ s work, the Principal-researcher identified trust building and forming relationships as a sub-topic of Teachers as Leaders. The identified indicators fit into that sub-topic and theme. This method of determining the indicators, returning to the literature, ve rifying the decision to place the identified indicators with the specific theme and sub-topic, was used. When statements did not obviously f it a specific category, the Principalresearcher examined past practices at the research site and th e journal/story. For example, the Principal-researcher determin ed that when collaboration occurred, someone among the teachers initiated the process theref ore a teacher took on a leadership role at that point. Another step included identifying each of th e initial constructs that the Principalresearcher examined in Chapter Two: (a) philosophy of constructiv ism, (b) change, (c) perceptions, (d) leadersh ip, and (e) teachers as leaders and determine if any of the clusters of statements began to develop under these fi ve possible themes. A sixth construct was added later after code checkers identified (f) Affect as an additional construct. As the statements began to cluster, the six constructs became identifying themes. The Affect theme developed with the numbe r of statements that reflec ted an emotional connection. For example, teachers used such words and phrases as, “I love my team … we laugh, … I need to feel appreciated.” Several references If a clus ter of statements were a s ub-set of the topic, that statement became a sub-topic, then a numera l was assigned. For example, when a teacher

PAGE 183

173commented that she “took on more leadership roles this year,” that statement became the indicator—teacher leadership. That statemen t reflected a theme--Teachers as Leaders. Therefore, that statement was coded with a TL. Collaboration, however, was part of the concept of Teachers as Leaders, and identifie d as one sub-topic, or TL 1. The teacher identified her grade level on her written refl ections with a K, as a kindergarten teacher, the year 2001-2002. The researcher placed a K for kindergarten in the correct year on the grid, by the appropriate sub-topic of “collaboration.” Table 2

PAGE 184

174Grid—Reflections, Focus Group Interviews Principal researcher’s Journals Matrix: -Data Source-grade level; year employed List individual statements. Clusters of like statements began to form into common topics. Code Theme Sub-topic Reflections2001-2002 Reflections 2002-2003 Focus Groups 2004 Principal journal –’9704 TL Teachers as Leaders Collaboration We work together K, K, K (indicates three kindergarten teachers made a similar statement) I love my team we get along well. K,K, K, K, 1, 1, 1,1,1,2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, Because this also indicates Affect these marks would occurred again under A for Affect ’97-‘98 There is constant dialogue –it is so important Our team works so well together. ’00-‘04 The ultimate goal is that teachers develop as leaders so they can help pull their teams together. A Affect K,K,K,K,K,K,1,1, 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3, 4,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5 If teachers would just get along Many of these statements refer to Masl ow’s Hierarchy of Needs, reported by Shapiro (1995, 2000, 2003). On a staff of 96% female, emotional needs must be met. However, areas of Affect do not stand alone with isolated statements expressing

PAGE 185

175 emotional needs as such, but rather are conne cted to existing themes. So, although Affect must be recognized as a cri tical theme, for purposes of explanation, and examples, reference will require review of existing statements. The examples provided after each of the identified themes illustrated points of reference, extrapolated from authentic text written by teachers and the Principalresearcher, and used in the triangulation process: one example from the teachers reflections, one example from a focus group, and one example from the journal/story. The references from the journal story also identified the specific year in which the comment occurred. If no year is identified, it indicated that the statement spanned the entire six and one-half years. Constructivist Philosophy A review of the literature examined how researchers and authors described a constructivist philosophy that applied to th e workings of an elementary school. The language that expressed construc tivist beliefs drove the identi fied indicator that applied both to students and teachers. Most constructivists believe that lear ning occurs under a variety of conditions when: it is an active experien ce, learners are engaged in their learning, students know how to work independently, solve problems, build on prior knowledge, form new ideas based on past experiences, work collaborat ively, construct their own knowledge, make connections from the known to the unknown, and think critically (Bla se & Blase, 1998;

PAGE 186

176 Brooks & Brooks, 1993, 2000; Fosnot, 1996; Gagnon & Collay, 2001; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Lambert, Collay, Diety, Kent, & Richert, 1996; Larochell, Bendnarz & Garrison, 1998; Marlowe & Page, 1998; Shapiro, 1995, 2000, 2003; Wadsworth, 1996). With the exception of Shapiro (2003) ot her researchers and authors described segments of constructivist lear ning conditions, within a school environment, not an entire school. It is within that c ontext that the Princi pal-researcher iden tified how teachers’ statements were consistent with each of the individual portions that the literature described. Teachers and students lear ned in a constructivist environment that encouraged and supported a democratic environment that is risk-free, and learne r-centered (both for teachers, students, parents, and Principal). Constructivist learning occurred in a place that promoted self-assessment, reflective prac tices, small group instru ction, project-based learning, a democratic process, and goal setting (Apple & Bean, 1999; Blais, 1998; Fogerty, 1970). Teacher reflection statements were analy zed according to stat ements similar to those found in the research. Teachers identi fied words consistent with authors who described various aspects of constructivism. Once similar statements were clustered, and indicators identified, then subtopics evolved. Under the theme “Constructivist Philosophy,” six sub-topics emerged, based upon teachers’ written perceptions—examples are provided. 1. Understanding the concept of constructivism Reflections: I realize the importance of th inking more in-depth, and thinking more

PAGE 187

177 critically, so that both the students a nd teachers build their own understanding. Focus Group: This is a part of the constr uctivist philosophy that really works with students. Journal/story--Year 6: Test scores show that teaching constructivistically really works for students. Teachers can now see, with hard data, what constructivism is all about. 2. Problem solving and decision making within the staff Reflections: It is sometimes hard to figur e things out, and I wanted the Principal to just tell me what to do, but she just kept asking questions, so I had to figure out what I needed to do. I am a better te acher because I’m learning to ask more questions. Focus Group: I have spent much more time problem solving issues--of doing a better job with our students as we talk to our team and pod mates. Journal/story--Year 4: We had to make room changes because we are adding on more teachers, and there is a domino effect. I asked the teachers to decide where they wanted to have their classroom for next year. There were only a few “givens” but for the most part, teachers were given a blank map, it was posted in the conference room, and they were left on their own, by teams, to figure out where their room would be the next year. I have to model constructivist thinking and problem solving. I can’t make the d ecision and expect teachers to learn to think on their own. I don’t see th at we can have it both ways. 3. Reflective practice Reflections: I am thinking more in -depth about our instruction. Focus Group: The pull-out days really help me get with my team and think about why we do what we do with the studen ts. It’s great time to reflect. Journal/story—Year 1: During the su mmer writing teams’ work it was an important time to go back and reflect on what was happening in the classroom. Having a complete grade level for one week gave us the time we needed to talk about what we learned over the year about curriculum, instruction, and assessment..

PAGE 188

178 4. Working in a risk-free environment Reflection: I feel that I can try out new ideas, if they don’t work, I just need to try again and that’s O.K. Focus group: I like having a lot of o pportunities to try ne w ideas and bounce things around on the team that we can figure out. We know the benchmarks we have to follow, but we can get there a bunch of different ways. Journal/story—Year 2: Teachers need the opportunity to try new ideas, and figure things out on their own. They know there are basic parameters, benchmarks, but how else will they lear n, if they can’t try new ideas and not worry that they’ll get fussed at? 6. Thinking in-depth and critically Reflection: I have to really think when I’m teaching math. The math program is great, but I have to really get in their and dig so th at kids learn to understand math, not just do it. Focus group: I am taking more time to di scuss instructional strategies with my peers and with the administration. We are going a “mile deep and an inch wide.” Journal/story--Year 3: I know I drive st aff crazy when I keep asking questions instead of telling them what to do—making them think; so many of them want a recipe for teaching. There is no recipe in a constructivist school. That would be talking out of both sides of my mouth. They’ll learn it’s a process, not a program. 7. Focusing on the learner. Reflection: It’s all about the students. I spend a lot of time analyzing what each child needs. Focus Group: We spend our time talking about better ways to help our students become independent thinkers, not just griping about them. Journal/story: I am so impressed when I go into the different teacher’s pods and the teachers are spending th eir time talking about how to make things better for the students. I have been in schools wh ere, instead of spending time trying to figure out how to help kids, they spend their time griping about them. Not here.

PAGE 189

179 Change A review of the literature examined how researchers and authors described the concept of change and the impact change has on an organization. The language that expressed issues dealing with change drove the identified indicators. Teachers’ described their perspective of change in relation to issues such as changing instructional and curriculum practices from a traditional text book-driven approach to the constructivist approach described above. Change occurr ed when classrooms change, there are new members on a team, or a new instructional delivery model occurred. Therefore, the literature review focused on change from a teachers’ perspective. Significant change occurred when teachers trained to present st udents’ instruction from a scripted teacher’s manual changed to an instructional delivery model that is highly individualized with emphasis on experientia l, individualized, and higher-order thinking. Change was described by many contemporar y researchers and authors. (Adler,1977; Daggett, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1997; G oodlad, 1994; Schlechty, 2001, Shapiro, 1995, 2000, 2003). The effect of change on teachers was described in various ways by (Brown & Moffett, 1999; Hargreaves & Full an, 1998; Sarason, 1996; Wilson and Daviss, 1994) Chapter Two also described the comple xities of change from a variety of perspectives. Change The broad theme of “Change” provided three additional sub-topics, based upon

PAGE 190

180teachers’ perceptions: the evolution of the curriculum, change of delivery models, and changing teams. 1. Understanding a constructivist approach to curriculum and thematic instruction. Reflections: At first it was hard getting use to a new t eam, when some of our old team moved on, but eventually we lear ned to understand eac h other and learn from each other. Focus Groups: The days when our team is pulled out from the classroom and spend time discussing how to integrate our concept-based thematic units is so important because we talk about how to get better at things like performancebased assessment and high le vel thinking activities. Journal/story—Year 3: The changing of teachers for the first three years was so difficult. I know that some teachers can not handle a constructivist environment, and we need stability, we have to ke ep teachers who understand and support the vision, regardless how much cha nge of teachers is needed. 2. The impact of choosing different models fo r instruction, such as vertical teams or looping (described below). Reflection: I wasn’t sure if I wanted to loop with my kids or not, but I’m so glad I did, it was a good decision on my part. I know the kids so well that I didn’t waste any time building a community with them. When school started we just took right off. Focus Group: We have to be careful th at we don’t let teachers try too many things. There is an impact when teachers wa nt to get together for a vertical team because it makes us have to move classrooms. Journal/story--Year 2: It is so exciting when teachers figure out better ways to deliver instruction. ThisYear Two teacher s decided to loop with their students. It caused some initial anxiety when teachers thought they would have to go to another grade level because they would be displaced. As usual, with a staff this large, there is always room for adjust ing grade levels, without moving anyone out of their requested grade level. Vertical teams comprised of a mixture of grade level classes work within close

PAGE 191

181proximity of each other. For example, a ll second grade classrooms were generally located in close proximity to one another a nd comprised a horizontal team. A vertical team consisted of classrooms, located near ea ch other. However, different grade levels within a grouping of classrooms comprised a vertical team. A sequence could include any consecutive grades in any sequential combin ation. For example, within a cluster of classrooms one could find configurations su ch as: Kindergarten, grade1, grade 2, and grade 3. Members of vertical teams planne d together for purposes of providing more opportunities for flexible grouping among children in various grade levels. “Looping” is a term that identified a gr oup of students who keep the same teacher for more than one year. For example, a first grade teacher will move with the students and continue into the next year as their second grade teacher. The effects of change on an elementary teacher occurred in both positive and negative ways. Positive issues surround such topics as changing from one instructional strategy to another through re flective practices. Better ideas were often generated when new members came into the team. Once bonding occurred negativ e effects occurred when a team member leaves the team. Reflection: Negative effect of change--I wish we could keep our team members together on the same team and in the sa me pod, there are a lot of changes every year. Teachers move around too much, I wish they would stay. It’s the teacher’s choice. Focus Group: Positive effect of change --Change is an expectation when moving toward the vision such as providing better instruction that is child-centered, there is more focus on problem solving. Perception Often school leaders are expected to lead reform without an understanding of how

PAGE 192

182teachers are impacted. An examination of the lit erature is lacking on th e specific topic of the perception of teachers about constructivis m as an educational change model. The language that expressed issues dea ling with perception appeared to be embedded in all other areas, and not expresse d as a separate issue. For example reflections and focus group statements did not produce the word perc eption in any of the responses. The researcher reviewed literature in areas where perception of the workplace in general appeared. An examination of job satisfaction, in a 1997 statistical analysis report, identified job satisfaction among America’s teachers (N ational Center for E ducation Statistics, 1977). The survey of teachers throughout the United States answered the following question: “How do public school teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of the workplace relate to their level of satisf action?” Principal interaction, te acher participation in school decision-making and influence over school polic y were among the factors more closely associated with job satisfaction. The most satisfied teachers worked in a supportive environment (Perie & Baker, 1997). A st udy conducted by Goodlad (1984) found that teachers who were more satisfied with thei r jobs worked in an environment where teachers perceived they had grea ter influence over their use of time, and more control of their jobs (Chapter Two). Blase and Blas e (1998) conducted a study of 800 teachers who responded to an open-ended questionnaire where they described effective principals. The Principal-researcher concluded that the res ponses were teachers’ perceptions. Their

PAGE 193

183responses are consistent with some of the statements made by teachers in this research study and described in the summary of this chapter. Each of the statements identified in the literature that were also stated by the teachers appear in other themes as sub-topics Therefore, this theme of “Perception” was eliminated as a stand alone issue since it wa s embedded in all the other themes and subtopics. There is one exception that relates strictly from the experiences at the research site that is perception-specifi c. It was addressed by the te achers, although not identified as a perception, yet, was observed by the Prin cipal-researcher as a perception, and found in the journal/story in Year Three. At that time several teachers were needed for the year. It was decided that the school would benefit from more e xperienced teachers. A school in a neighboring area was losing many of its top teachers. The teachers had the same philosophical belief system. Hiring experien ced quality teachers from one school was an advantage, from the principal’s perspective. However, when new teachers were hired, even though the philosophical foundations were the same, some of their inst ructional strategies a nd curriculum beliefs were different from those already established in the school. Therefore, existing teachers believed that those coming new to the sc hool, were going to “take over and change everything.” Although it was the perception of the existing teachers, the Principal’s perception was one of hiring new and experi enced teachers with a broad range of new ideas to bring into the school resulting in two perceptio ns of the same situation.

PAGE 194

184This particular perception impacted the entire staff and was identified as an area of focus of the Analysis of the Dynamics of Change Process (Shapiro, 2003) and led to a plan developed within the Potent ial Line of Action (Appendix 2). Leadership A review of the literature examined how researchers a nd authors describe Leadership within the setting of a school. The language that expresses issues dealing with Leadership drove the identified indicators that apply to the Principal. At this point, indicators begin to shift from teachers’ perc eptions of what teachers needed and wanted in a constructivist learning environment to th e Principal, who is responsible for making it happen. The Principal-researcher found only two sources that specifically addressed the issues of constructivist leadership: Lambert (2003) and Shapiro (1995, 2000, 2003). Most of the literature regardi ng leadership tends to focus on the characteristics and traits of effective leadership. The Principal-researcher f ound one study conducted by Blase and Blase (1998) of 800 teachers throughout the United States. Teachers identified their perception of effective leaders from the perspect ive of principals as instructional leaders. Teachers believe that good instructional leaders: 1. Talk openly and frequently with teachers about instruction. 2. Provide time and peer connections for teac hers. … also attempts to develop core human and social resources.

PAGE 195

1853. Empowers teachers. 4. Understand and embrace the challenges of change. 5. Lead. Wise principals balance support and guidance with oppor tunity and leading from behind (pp. 164-167). It became necessary to examine broader interpretations of leadership and relate those concepts to construc tivist leadership. Sarason (1996) describes the issues surrounding the principal as a change agent. Th e process in which this occurs relates to developing a school culture that, in the cas e of this study, becomes constructivist. There is common agreement in the literature that it is the Principal’s responsibility to provide teachers with the resources need ed (National Association of Elementary School Principal, 2002; Daft and Lengel 2000. The leadership is also responsible for creating a culture of collegi ality that builds on common st rengths (Maxwell 2003). The lines begin to blur between teachers and lead ers as the relationship between learning and leading with a constructivist philosophy beco mes more powerful and reciprocal. Each view changes as it is influen ced by the other (Lambert, 1995). One major responsibility of a school leader is to understand and express a personal vision (Barth, 1990, 2001; C ovey, 1990, 1991; Deal, 1999; Gardner, 1991, 1996; Manz & Sims, 2001; Shap iro, 2000, 2003. It is important for leaders to clarify their own goals if they are to influence others (DuFour, 1996). A Principal with a strong belief system, and personal visi on about teaching and learning is not prone to bend to the

PAGE 196

186pressures of moving toward a more traditi onal approach. They keep on the course (Combs, Miser & Whitaker, 1999). Leaders who embrace open inquiry, the sh aring of problems and solutions, and collective responsibility, will foster creativit y, resourcefulness, and collaboration in the work of staff and the learning of childr en (Ackerman, Donaldson & Van Der Bogert, 1996). Everyone is encouraged to add their ideas and opinion s to the conversation and to discuss ways to make the overall learning of the school more effective (Comb, Miser, & Whitaker, 1999). This is the developmen t of a common purpose and shared inquiry. The leader must show appreciation and support teachers through their understanding of individual aspirations, goals, interests, needs, or dreams (Kouzes and Posner, 1987). Manz and Sims (2001) reinforce the need to provide a climate where motivation came mainly from the employees and their team me mbers. Schlechty (2001), also emphasizes the need to give as much credit as possibl e to those who work on projects regardless of whether or not the project reaches the level of success predicted. Maxwell (1995) identifies key qualities for teachers as leaders. Among the qualities: When people work together toward a comm on goal and get to know each other, they learn to accept each other’s unique qualities. The result is a team that fits together. The broad topic of Leadership focused on th e teachers’ perceptions of the Principal as a constructivist leader. This generated three sub-topics: suppor ting teachers, feeling appreciated, and providing a prof essional work environment. 1. Supporting teachers Reflection: The Principal worked ha rd to support me with some very difficult parents. I relied on her to get me through the problems I had with

PAGE 197

187them, and she did. Focus Group: The support level of the administrator is very high. I don’t have to worry about whether the support will be there or not. It always is there. Journal/story: I’ll never forget my teaching roots. I know the importance of teachers feeling supported. 2. Feeling appreciated Reflections: For awhile I was beginni ng to think that no one appreciated my hard work, so I’m glad we came up with a way to recognize us for the great things we do at the monthly staff meeti ng. It made me feel good when someone recognized me. Focus Groups: The Principal makes a point of telling us how much she appreciates us. We get special notice. Journal/story: It is important to r ecognize teachers and let them know they are appreciated. I just think I don’t do it enough. 3. Providing a professional work environment (described below) Reflections: We were given opportunitie s to take risks and choose to do something different for next year like loop with the students, or move to a different team, or cr eate a vertical team. Focus Group: During our pull-out days when we work together I feel as if I am being treated like a professional. The day is set up in the conference room, everything is laid out, like not ebooks, pens, stuff like that. Then, we always get something to take aw ay, like the latest teacher resource book on the things we’re talking about. It feels good. Journal/story: Teachers should not spend their time scrounging around trying to find things, or spending th eir own money on resources. We can find the money somewhere. If the te acher says they need something, I find a way to get it for them. Elementary teachers seem to thrive on “stuff.” Teachers as Leaders Within the broad topic of Teachers as Lead ers, all statements relating to team and

PAGE 198

188school-community building became identified in this topic. Teacher statements suggested that when teams develop a bond, team members reach out to their p eers and collaboration occurs. Teachers as Leaders are the natura l outgrowth of this process (Maxwell, 1995, 2001). Teachers also assumed leadership responsib ilities in a variety of other ways. Whenever a teacher saw an issue to resolve, a problem to solve, or a project to undertake, a leader emerged. Teachers did not always see themselves in overt and dramatic roles. Often they saw themselves as leaders in more subtle, yet, equally important ways, such as helping another teacher, or keeping the grade level team organized. Several authors and researchers address the concept of Teachers as Leaders that remain consistent with teacher s’ perceptions. Once again the lines continue to blur among the themes and sub-topics as the language in the literature repeats itself with emphasis on collaboration, leadership, collegiality, trust, and team building as it relates to teachers. Barth (2001) states, “Teach ers become more active learners in an environment where they are leaders … all teachers can lead … all teachers must lead” (p.85) Learning is a reciprocal pro cess between and among teachers. Teachers’ understand their responsibility for their own and their colle agues’ learning (Lam bert (1996, 2003).

PAGE 199

189 The broad theme of Teachers as Leaders fo cused on the teacher as a constructivist leader and generated six sub-topics: collaboration, trust building and forming relationships, asking for help and receiving it, understanding our pe rsonality styles, the value of a positive attitude, taking on leadership roles. Examples follow. Sub-topics emerged in areas of: 1. Collaboration Reflection: We worked closely as a team and created the best activities for our students. We planned a fa mily Egypt Night that was great. Focus Group: We connect as a team. We work together. We are constructing as we think things through. Journal/story--Year 6: The en tire school bonded over our cultural celebrations that took place over the course of the y ear. Teachers initiated, planned, and implemented an amazing a rray of experiences that involved the entire community. Everyone was so proud of their accomplishments. 2. Trust building and forming relationships Reflections: It is so much better now that we have worked together for a couple of years; we know each other and do stuff together outside of school. Some of us are running in a 5 K this week-end. Focus Groups: Vertical teams helped bu ild relationships w ith teachers we might otherwise not have been able to work with. It is fun working with other grade level teachers. Journal/story: What a great combin ation. The Assistant, Curriculum Teacher and I have become good friends. It is great to have someone that I can talk to. 3. Asked for help and receiving it Reflections: We have such a great team ; we are always helping each other

PAGE 200

190out. Focus Group: I needed help for my Exceptional Education students. The ESE teacher helped me and I also learned a lot. Journal/story: Teachers know that I will do anything I can to help them out, whether it is with parents or with resources; or whether it is covering their class so they can observe another teacher--that is my job 4. The value of understanding personality styles Reflections: I’m glad we know our personality styles, it helps me understand the people I work with better. Focus Groups: The personality workshops help me to understand myself and others better. They were fun. Journal/story: The use of Gregorc Pe rsonality Inventory is an important piece of information for each team me mber to know. I will continue to use it with each person I hire. Th e personalities are identified and compiled for everyone on the team. 5. The value of a positive attitude Reflection: I look forward to workin g with new people in my pod. I look forward to being together with my team. I get so many new ideas from them. Focus Groups: I really took to heart th e need to have a positive attitude and do what we learned: Make Their Day, Be There, and Choose Your Attitude. (Explanation follows) I really c hoose my attitude. It helps a lot. Journal/story: I’m so glad we initia ted the program for teachers to see the importance of “choosing their attitude,” It’s made a big difference for some of our teachers. Understanding individual pers onality styles was introduced and emphasized during the

PAGE 201

191year of 2001-2002. Teachers received di rect instruction when given the Gregorc Personality Inventory The majority of teachers identified this experience as a meaningful one. In 2002-2003, additional strategies for understanding how a positive attitude build an effective community was introduced to the staff. The program FISH, is based upon the positive attitude workers brought to th eir job at the Seattle, Washington, Fish Market (Lundin, Christensen & Paul, 2000, 2003). The light-hearted messages used in th e FISH philosophy describe ways that members of an organization can adopt slogans such as: Play, Be There, Make Their Day, and Choose Your Attitude, in order to become more positive in the workplace. This approach builds on the Gregorc. A variety of team and community building activities, built around this theme, are used at every staff meeting. It positively impacts the staff, as reported in the teachers’ responses. The majority of teachers identified this experience as important. The combination of understandi ng each person’s pe rsonality style and choosing a positive work attitude, created strategies for community building among grade level groups 3. Taking on leadership roles Reflection: I stepped forw ard this year and took on a leadership role. It makes me feel good to know that my opinion is valued. Focus Groups: I’ve taken on more leader ship this year with my work on the Literacy Council. Journal/story--It is important that teac hers take on leadership roles. They want ownership. Teachers will not follow the vision unless they have

PAGE 202

192ownership in it. Teachers must lead. There are more of them than there are of me. Teachers identified additional ways in which they viewed themselves in leadership roles. The process of becomi ng Nationally Board Certified provides teachers with process and reflection skills required to demonstrate effective instructional strategies. Teachers effectivel y mentor others as they model ways that elicit high level thinking and problem solving skills from the stude nts. This area overlaps with that of the Leadership category. Teachers often need opport unities to serve in a leadership capacity that become encouraged by th e leadership of the school. Discussion Research question 1: What are the perceptions of teachers about constructivism as an educational organizational change model? Research question 2: What are teachers’ perceptions of developing a constructivist philosophy in a total elementary school? Teacher responses in both themes, the Cons tructivist Philosophy and Change, revealed statements relevant to the first research quest ion. Subtopics were not ed earlier and stated again here. The evolution of the curriculum and understandi ng integration of thematic units, changing delivery models such as vertical teams and looping became the dominant sub-topics. Constructivist Philosophy

PAGE 203

193 Constructing one’s own knowledge, funda mental to the constructivist philosophy, is found in the strong emphasis on reflective practice and identified by the majority of teachers as important. In addition, teachers saw the focus of student learning, not based on the teacher’s needs, but on student needs. Change Change was an outgrowth of becoming a constructivist school. The curriculum evolved with instructional practices that ar e constructivist in the implementation. The process was a change from the single-te xtbook-driven program, experienced by many teachers prior to their arriva l at Southwood Elementary. Teachers recognized the importance of unde rstanding a curriculum that teaches higher order thinking within an environment th at encourages integration around big ideas. Within the process of changing to a constr uctivist learning environment, teachers are encouraged to try innovative ways to provide different delivery models. This concept was identified most frequently in the refl ections, by teachers, as a positive experience, such as the development of vertical teams a nd looping (identified earlie r in this chapter). Changing delivery models, at the request of t eachers, provides ownership in the process. Research question two: “What are teachers’ perceptions of developing a constructivist philosophy in a to tal elementary school?” This question is answered with statements identified in two themes: l eadership, and teachers as leaders. Leadership

PAGE 204

194 Subtopics remained consistent as note d earlier; support of the teachers, feeling appreciated, and providing a pr ofessional work environment. According to the most frequently noted statements, the leadership of the school provided a professional work environment. In addition, teachers fe lt supported and appreciated. Support and appreciation requires a cons cientious effort on the part of the principal in any environment. Creating a professional work e nvironment that is constructivist is the responsibility of the leader. Teachers as Leaders Many of the respondents noted that they had taken on leadership roles during the year. When teachers became leaders in a constructivist school they recognized the importance of maintaining a common philos ophy. They took the lead in solving problems, and determined ways to impleme nt a constructivist ph ilosophy through their own modeling. When teachers collaborated and built relationships within and among team members, solving problems and implem enting a constructivis t philosophy became a cycle of learning and team building for teachers. Teachers also noted the importance of unde rstanding personality styles of their peers as well as the value of creating a positive work attitude. These comments were consistent, beginning with the reflection data in 2002 and 2003. For purposes of readability, quotes from t eachers’ responses, used for examples,

PAGE 205

195are identified by the title: “Teacher,” followe d by a numeral or a letter. This does not imply that teachers were individually c oded as part of the data analysis. The questions for the focus group interv iews, by their specificity, addressed the research questions more directly and, therefor e, the responses were more focused than the reflections piece. Research question number one: “What are the perceptions of teachers about constructivism as an educational orga nization change model?” was answered more frequently through question 1 and 2. Question 1: “What professional experi ences have provided you with an understanding of constructivis t thinking and learning for both you and your students?” Question 2: “What are your perceptions regarding the sc hool moving toward constructivist approaches?” Consistent with the reflections themes the constructivist philosophy theme is central to both of these questions. Question 11: “What has been the imp act on your practice?” Question 13: “What has been the impact on your students?” Bo th questions 11 and 13 received similar responses from the perspective of the teacher. Question 15 is consistent with the reflect ions sub-topic of problem solving and decision making within the staff. Each of the identified questions provided insight into the research questions and teachers’ percep tions of utilizing a constructivist philosophy within their instructional practices. By the second year of the school, teachers identified the scho ol’s adoption of a specific instructional series in mathema tics. Teachers began making the connection

PAGE 206

196among instructional strategies, they were te aching constructivist ically through hands-on experiences, problem solving, and deci sion making, within a learner-centered environment. Working in a risk-free environment was noted in focus group interviews as an important part of learning to teach construc tivistically. Within this environment teachers think critically and in-depth while disc ussing instructional strategies and making curriculum decisions with their team members. Teachers tran sferred their own strategies for thinking and problem solving to their st udents. They discussed successes and why particular strategies did not work. For example: Teacher 1: I have the freedom to try new things. Teacher 2: The use of our math program helped me understand constructivist thinking. This math process helps the st udents learn to thi nk constructively. Teacher 3: We are well trained by our own staff. They help me understand constructivist thinking. Teacher 4: I connect and discuss professiona l issues with team members, we work together. We construct our own knowledge We are constructing ideas as we think things through. I am amazed to watch our children think abut how learning occurs–in such a constructivist way. They can explai n their thinking. Teacher 5: The principal asked me to e xplain my philosophy and I had to really think about it. That was a constructivist question because I had to construct what I believed into a real philosophy. Teachers’ perceptions consistently identified problem solving and decision making experiences as fundamental to working in a constructivist environment. Teachers overwhelmingly stated that they have tota l decision making power. 100% of the teachers

PAGE 207

197agreed: We have 100% decision making power The school is constructivist and provided freedom to make decisions and act upon them. Question 15 solicited different positio ns on the same question. Although all teachers believed they had 100% power, othe rs believed they had too much power. Others felt they had a 50-50 partnership betw een staff and the prin cipal. The general feeling among teachers related to the differe nce between management issues, that were believed to be the job of the principal, a nd power over curriculum decisions that were given to the teachers. Question 6: What roles did this administ rator play? This question’s responses were consistent with the theme of Leader ship from the reflections component. Teacher 1: She makes you stop and thi nk about what we do and why we do it. Teacher 2: She gives you time to process information, then try, if we fail, we try again, and succeed. She knows where to place people, she supports us. She has made me a better teacher. Teacher 3: She makes you feel like a pr ofessional, appreciated and respected. Teacher 4: She just likes to stand back a nd let the process work. She has a master plan, but let’s us figure out what to do. Question 12: What has been the impact on team collabora tion? Teacher’s responses were consistent with those identifi ed within the reflecti ons and the theme of Teachers as Leaders and Change Teacher 1: We think constructively when we gather around to talk about how we can do a better job with the students, or just help each other solve problems. Teacher 2: We really are practicing cons tructivist thinking the same way we want our kinds to learn. Teacher 3: One of our team-mates is always there to tell us about an idea they had or something that worked. We think and problem solve together.

PAGE 208

198 Question 4: What roles developed in the process? Question 5: What roles if any did you and/or your team play in the pro cess? Question 14: What experiences have provided you with the knowle dge and experiences to take on leadership roles? The responses to these questions are consistent w ith those identified duri ng reflections in the areas of Teachers as Leaders and Change. Teachers consistently described ways that they took on leadership roles. They further identified how they can take on any sc hool role that they would like. Teachers stated areas of leadership they assumed. Teacher 1: chairman of the science comm ittee; a member of the Literacy Council and therefore lead individua lized teacher Study Groups. Some noted their roles as Nationally Boar d Certified Teachers who mentor other teachers. Others are team leaders and School Advisory Council members. Teacher 2: I wouldn’t have taken on the le adership role I have, if the Principal didn’t tell me that I had so mething important to contribute to the committee, so I stepped up. Teams noted how they worked together to organize and take the lead with parent events in the evening. The team assumed combin ed leadership roles, or group leadership. Kindergarten: We organize a kindergar ten orientation day for parents and children. The parents receive an over view of how our kindergarten program works. We show them how we teach using hands-on experiential learning, problem solving, and decision making. Third grade: We showcase projects, artifact s, student products, thematic literature, games, and background videos with our Egyptian Night.

PAGE 209

199 Fifth grade: We have portfo lio nights where we have students present their best pieces of work to their parents. After listening to the audi o tapes, and reading the tr anscriptions, the Principalresearcher determined that there was one gr oup that could provide si gnificant insight: the current Curriculum Resource Teacher (interview er) who was a fifth grade teacher, left to go to another school, and returned in the CRT position. The former Curriculum Resource Teacher who returned to the classroom as a third grade teacher for the 2003-2004 school year could see the dynamics and insight into the school issues from the broad perspective of a CRT, and the classroom perspective of a teacher. The Principal-researcher interviewed each of them to determine their perceptions of the questions. Interviewer: With everyt hing you have heard and seen, including the questions presented to the teachers, would you please tell your perception of the answers to the questions? Current Curriculum Resource Teacher: Th e teachers’ view of power comes in a Catch-22 situation. 100% of the teachers believe they have the power over what they do and how they do it in the clas sroom, like instruction and curriculum decisions. They know they aren’t told what to do. Teachers seem to want to make only the decisions that are not controvers ial. They know that some decisions cause conflict. One teacher said, “I don’t always wa nt to think outside the box, I want a box, I want to know what is in the box, but I want to go out of it whenever I want.” The teachers want it both ways. However, the teachers tell us that the beginning teachers need more structure. But, I remember what happene d to me when I was first a teacher at Southwood. I knew I had to figure it out, and once I figured it out through indepth thinking and communica ting, I realized that I wa s expected to figure out how to figure it out. It’s a process. That’s the reason that the freedom to fail is a powerful part of why teachers are so reflective about what th ey do. Some don’t stick it out long enough to give themselves the confidence to know that thinking on their own is possible. Former Curriculum Resource Teacher: The process of constructivist thinking and learning is very individual. Each of us ha s to be very reflective about why we are

PAGE 210

200doing what we do. Now that I am back in the classroom, I see things from a different perspective. I try some thi ngs, reflect on them, regroup, toss the idea away, or share it with my team mates so everyone can benefit from the things I do that work. But, it is a hard job. The bonding my team has makes thinki ng together about how to get better at what we do that much more interes ting. We’re always trying new ideas and adapting to the children’s needs. Relationship building is key to th e success of any philosophy. In the constructivist philosophy it is even more important because it requires a lot of heads thinking to do the job well. I just read a book by Rick Warren called, the Purpose-Driven Life. He says that “You must want to grow, decide to grow, make an effort to grow, and persist in growing.” He has another great quote when he said, “We become whatever we are committed to.” Teachers fuss when they have to move their classrooms, but it doesn’t take long for them to adjust. So me have a harder time with any kind of change than others do. I think to have our constr uctivist school runs well, we have to get and keep committed people. I think we’re almost ther e. As long as teachers stay with us, and they are, we will just get better. Constructivist thinking dominated the beli efs of both teachers who are leaders. Consistent with the statements made duri ng the teachers’ reflections and focus group interviews, patterns and themes were f undamentally the same: The constructivist philosophy; change; perception; leadership; teachers as leaders, affect, and the accompanying sub-topics identifi ed earlier in this chapter. The teachers’ curriculum, instructio n, and assessment practices are based upon their understanding that knowledge builds from a learner’s past experiences, including students’ values, beliefs, and customs. This was combined with newly formed understanding and experiences that evolve th rough exploration and discussion. Teachers provided students the opportunity to draw i ndependent conclusions. T eachers’ facilitated students’ learning as they c onstructed knowledge in a riskfree environment where hands-

PAGE 211

201on, experiential learning, problem solving, a nd decision making dominated instruction. Teachers created a learning community within each classroom. Teachers also constructed their own knowledge in a school that encouraged and supported problem solving and decision ma king. Teachers created a community of learners through reflection and discussion of their current practices as they shared instructional experiences with other educators. The teacher s’ reflections and focus group interviews emphasized the same beliefs by th eme and sub-topic. Focus group interviews provided greater detail than teachers’ reflections. The Principal-researchers anticipated disc ussion about high-sta kes testing and the worry that the tests imposed on teachers’ instruction and on students’ learning. The subject did not come up in either teacher re flections or in focus group interviews. The assumption is that when student s were taught to think criticall y, and the standardized test required higher-level thinking, the test itself is only a test. Students taught constructivistally attain high levels of achievement and notable levels of improvement among all learning groups according to standardized test scores state and local recognition (Appendix 5). Principal-researcher’s journals The journal/story (Appendix 1) was e xpanded into the form of a story. Conclusions reached by the Principal-research er were generated from the position of someone who saw all the issues from many pe rspectives, and a six and one-half period. The research question, “What are the per ceptions of teachers about constructivism

PAGE 212

202as an educational organizational change model?” and, “What are the perceptions of developing a constructivist philosophy in a to tal elementary school?” often generated overlapping responses within the Prin cipal-researcher’s journal/story. Constructivist Philosophy Understanding the concept of constructiv ism, from the teacher’s perspective, developed in a variety of ways. Sub-topi cs: Reflective practice, problem solving and decision making, working in a risk-free envir onment, and focusing on the learner, take on a broader meaning when viewed fr om the Principal’s perspective. The Principal-researcher’s perspective: Year One The leader of the school must unders tand and advertise the vision of the school, demonstrating through both over t and subtle ways, the personal expectation of the direction of the school in this case a cons tructivist belief. From the first day of the school, the l ogo, theme, and school song dramatically illustrated the vision: Young Architects for Tomorrow. Curricular decisions were made by the Principal. Selecting instruc tional materials that were constructivist required purchasing materials that were hands-on, experiential, and based on students solving problems through decision making. Teachers needed to examine, in-depth, instructional strategies supported through these resources. Constructivistic teaching was imp lied, not stated, in Year One. Teachers were continuously challenged to think about why they made the decisions they chose. The curriculum was not a scripted program, it required constant

PAGE 213

203problem solving and decision making within th e staff. It appeared from teachers’ comments that the process was always a part of the culture. Understanding the concept of constructivism was a process of thinking, reflection, and continuous assessment. This was not entrenched until the end of Year Six. The journal/story provided frequent re ference to the challenges during the first year as the teachers began to understand, thr ough instructional strategies, in-service training, and continuous discussions, the implications of a constructivist model. An understanding of a learner-cente red environment was not evident in all classrooms in that first year. Grade level teams gathered to write con cept-based integrated curriculum thematic units of instruction, at the end of Year On e, during the summer. A curricular framework provided a clear picture of how to design high-level cu rriculum, instruction, and assessment that is constructivist. This becam e a valuable time for a team of teachers to understand the process of problem solving and decision making, thinking in-depth and critically about what curriculum looks like in a constructivist environment. Year Two Problem solving and decision making within the staff, (another sub-topic), began slow in Year Two. The writing teams shared how concept-based thematic units, written over the summer, were designed and constructe d. They described how the units used an integrated, learner-centered approach with an emphasis on higher-order thinking and problem solving. The curriculum began to evolve. A few teachers began developing as

PAGE 214

204leaders. Principal-researcher: Change, identified earlier as an im portant theme, and the disruption it caused among the staff, was evident in Year Two. The staff experienced many new members, as a result of several teach ers leaving after the first year, and the school expanding so quickly, it required an increase in staff members. Almost one-fourth of the instructional staff was added, several after January, to accommodate overcrowded classrooms. Teachers as leaders became important as mentors to others. The teachers began to understand a constructivist philosophy, but had not thoroughly internalized the process. Forming rela tionships began to develop among some teams and team members, but it was difficu lt for teachers to feel their team was stable. The Principal recognized the im portance of nurturing new teachers and encouraged teachers to become leaders. Vete ran teachers became trainers of staff. The Curriculum Resource Teacher conducted in-service sessions that reinforced curriculum areas that were highly constructivist. Several sub-topics did not emerge as impacting staff members in Year Two. Teachers, on the whole, began to experience a risk-free environment. Many were still looking for the “right answer” to an instru ctional delivery model. Constructivism was still a concept embedded in staff training and curriculum resources. Some staff members began to understand a constructivist approach. They were making the natural connections between the strategies for instruction that were encouraged and their own metacognitive processes. Issues of “personality styl es” and “attitude at work” we re only of mild interest during Year Two. There was no direct plan in place to make teachers feel appreciated. Year Three

PAGE 215

205 Understanding the concept of constructivis m began to evolve more directly in Year Three. Teachers began to understand math, and they transferred that realization into other areas of student learning. The concept-based integrated units of instruction helped guide constructivist thinking. Teachers were making the connections and, therefore, students began learning how to make critical connections among content areas of science and social studies, and process area of language arts, and mathematics. More teachers assisted others and relati onships began to form. Concept-based integrated instructional units were expanded by teams of teachers as they discussed and analyzed the expected student learning. Principal-researcher: Problem solving and decision ma king developed with Teachers as Leaders. Teachers volunteered to explai n instructional strate gies with others, feeling successful and a ppreciated in the process. Teachers realized the importance of learner-cent ered instruction, requiring students to explain their thinking and understanding. Equally impor tant, teachers became reflective and expressed their own intros pection about the success they experienced when teaching through a process, not a prescriptive program. Change had both a positive and negati ve impact. Teachers who decided to loop with their students were excited and en ergized to follow their children to the next grade. They were willing to share their enthusiasm with others. From a negative position of change, a key suppor t Curriculum Resource Teacher moved away, who was revered by the staff. Her replacement was recr uited in the spring from a prominent local school. Several teachers were recruited to join the CRT at our school for Year Four because they believed in the cons tructivist philosophy and worked in an environment that was originally designed to create a world-class class. That vision was abandoned, and the teachers saw Southwood as a place to realize their philosophical beliefs. The impact of a group of “outsiders ” joining the staff created serious issues of territorial defensiveness, am ong a vocal minority. This threatened the issues of Teachers as Leaders.

PAGE 216

206 Change was inevitable. The identified themes and sub-topics required consistent and persistent monitoring. Teachers as L eaders became leaders when they understand the vision and provided support to others when change occurred. When teachers became leaders, the lines between leadership responsibilities started to blur. Year Four The focus for the year centered ar ound building a community and building a community of learners. Issues of the previous year were looming. The size of the school continued to grow. Fifty-five teachers became 61, with 21 teachers new to the school. The issues became complex and often pers onalized. It was necessary to bring a consultant to the school to help sort out the issues (Daft & Lengel, 1998, 2000). The Analysis of the Dynamics of Cha nge strategy (Shapiro, 2003) provided six steps for defining issues. Developing a plan is a constructivist appr oach to organizational change, described earlier in this chap ter. The constructivist philosophy became internalized when teachers and students were provided the opportunity to experience the process continuously and in a variety of wa ys. Involving teachers in decision making regarding how to solve internal issues in th e school was constructivist in nature. The process accomplished every aspect of the id entified sub-topics teachers identified as important. The operational component provided teach ers with problem solving and decision making strategies through refl ective thinking. The Principal-researcher was a member of

PAGE 217

207the group, not the leader. Accepting teachers’ views on the issues and outcomes, without judgment, modeled the importance of placing teachers in a risk-free environment. Principal-researcher: Providing opportunities for teachers to take ownership in solving issues arising within the school setting sends an important message. (a) Opinions are accepted without judgment, (b) issues must be addressed openly and honestly, (c) solutions require all group members to ag ree to participate in the outcome, (d) ownership in the solution is advertised in the school community as a positive way to improve the culture of the school. Developing teachers as leaders begins with an important task that, when completed, positively Affects the learning environment. When issues became verbalized, a plan developed for the solution, an expectation of the success of the plan was agreed upon and the staff at a school can move forward in a positive direction. The identified subtopics of collaboration, trust building, and assuming leadership roles became a natura l outgrowth of the planning process. Year Five By Year Five, the staff stabilized, with only eight new teachers. An Assistant Principal was hired. A plan that helped create a community of constr uctivist learners was developing. Teachers became part of the solution. The plan developed through the Analys is of Dynamics of Change process remained foundational for maintaining the focus on our internal improvement process. This required specific attention and focus to ensure the plan remained alive at all times, and that each teacher knew th e plan. The plan included: 1. Improving the faculty’s understand ing and acceptance, of themselves

PAGE 218

208 and of each other. 2. Creating trust building ex ercises to help improve trust—with open discussions to reduce distrust. 3. Implementing team building exercises to improve the functioning of teams. 4. Improving relationships with t hose who came for the other school. 5. Decentralizing--reduce team sizes 6. Developing parent programs, including a Multicultural Planning Committee, and a Community Partnership Committee. 7. Implementing a Recognition Committee was established. A curricular structure was de vised (Shapiro, 2003, pp. 241-242). Maintaining focus on the plan required concentrated effort for follow-up. The importance of revisiting the entire plan with the school committee was also important in order to maintain the focus on the identifie d solutions. Every outcome required that someone would be accountable for the orga nizational plan to accomplish the task. The most challenging part of seeing a plan through to fruition is the dedication, commitment, and focus, to make sure that none of the planned outcomes were neglected. It is still the responsibility of the Principal to ensure a check and balances system, someone to organize the task, and someone to check the organizer. It is a delicate balance between providing teachers with the le adership role, and maintaining a watchful eye on the process, without unnecessary interference. As indicated throughout the jo urnal/story, every outcome re sulted from significant concentration to achieve positive results. Th e one area that was modified for a totally

PAGE 219

209successful outcome related to reducing team sizes. The size of the school could not eliminate the number of teachers on a team. However, the expectation of total team collaboration at all times required modification. By Year Five, with the population stabil ized, seven and eight grade-level team members became standard. Seven person teams formed naturally into groups of three and four because of the four-room pod confi guration. Eight-person te ams divided natural in to two groups of four. Some teams divi ded into different gr oupings when vertical teams grouped together. However, there was still the need to bri ng consistency to the individual teams for purposes of maintaining communication and re inforcement of the philosophical base. During group team meetings, it was understood th at all members of the grade level team meet together one time a month. Any othe r grouping was based on the individual needs of the teacher. Specific details on each activ ity to accomplish the goals of the plan are found in the journal/s tory (Appendix 1). Change is a part of every growing or ganization. Once teachers own the change, and change is viewed as part of the cultu re, the more acceptance occurs. As teachers participated in solutions to issues, engage d in the reflective process (identified as important by the teachers) and received the s upport of the Principa l, the constructivist process became internalized. Teachers we re immersed in constructivist thinking. Classroom observations by the Princi pal-researcher revealed consistent instructional strategies that were constructivis t. Children were explaining their thinking, investigating mathematical concepts, analyzing higher-le vel questions, and responding

PAGE 220

210thoughtfully. The Constructivist philo sophy became part of the culture. Year Six and Year Six and one-half Each of the identified themes and sub-t opics from teachers’ reflections and focus group interviews remained consistent. Each area was monitored carefully, to ensure continued implementation. The difference in Year Six, and into Year Six and one-half, came in teachers’ involvement, both directly and indirectly in maintaining the vision. The use of “constructivist” as a direct term was now part of every teachers’ language used to describe the school. The majority of teachers filled the ro les previously assumed by the teachers as leaders and the Principa l that reinforced the implementation of constructivism as an educa tional organizational model. The staff remained stable. The construc tivist philosophy and implementation were reinforced during teacher discussions, exam ination of student progress, and evaluating the needs of the staff. By Year Six, pr oblem solving and decision making, in-depth and critical thinking, and refl ective practice, was ingrai ned in the school culture. Change was no longer viewed as a negativ e issue, but associated with positive experiences while continuing to explore new models for the deliver y of instruction in such areas as establishing vertical teams a nd the effects of looping. When team members moved from a team and/or joined another one, or when new teachers became team members, they received immediate help from the entire team, with greater emphasis than in previous years. The importance of building team relationships was acknowledged immediately, and an obvious effort was made for collaboration.

PAGE 221

211The Principal-researcher relied on T eachers as Leaders to perpetuate the vision of maintaining a constructivist school Until Year Six, a constructivist school was being created. By Year Six, and into Year Si x and one-half, the Prin cipal-researcher met with individual teachers who assumed leader ship roles, to continue discussing the constructivist philosophy. This was one way to develop a philosophical maintenance plan. Once a belief system became part of the culture, teachers remained on a continuum of understanding. This required reinforcemen t by those who have internalized what constructivism is all about. Summary In this chapter, the data pertained to the study questions: (a)”What are the perceptions of teachers about constructivism as an educational organizational change model?” and (b) “What are teachers’ percep tions of developing a constructivist philosophy in a total elementary school?” were reported. Each form of data collection was reported separately within the confines of consisten tly identified themes among each of the data sources: (a) The constructivi st philosophy, (b) change (c) perception, (d) leadership, and (e) teachers as lead ers, the addition of (f) affect. Six identified sub-topics under the theme, “Constructivism” emerged: Understanding the concept of constructivis m, problem solving and decision making within the staff, reflective practice, working in a risk-free environm ent, thinking in-depth and critically, and focusing on the learner. Th ree sub-topics emerged under the theme, “Change:” The evolution of the curriculum and understanding integration of thematic

PAGE 222

212units, change of models such as vertical t eams and looping, and change of teams. Three sub-topics emerged under the theme, “Leader ship:” Support of the teachers, teachers feeling appreciated, and provi ding a professional work envi ronment. Six sub-topics emerged under the theme Teachers as Leaders: Collaboration, trust building and forming relationships, asking for help and receiving it, the value of personality styles, the value of a positive attitude, and taki ng on leadership roles. Both themes, “Perception,” and “Affect,” merged into al l of the other themes. Each of the sub-topics was consistent with other researchers’ studies identified in Chapter 2 and earlier in this chapter. Howeve r, the literature is limited in the discussion of teachers’ perceptions of a constructivist organization. Examples from events and statements ma de from the six and one-half-years of journals, reflected the same f undamental topics and sub-topics as those identified in both the teacher reflections and focus groups. The difference reported was based upon the Principal-researcher’s broad pe rspective of the entire school ov er a longer period of time. In their reflections, teachers examined th e issues from the pe rspective of Year Four and five, since they were writte n in years covering the 2001-2002 and the 20022003 school years. In Year Six and one-half focus group interviews revealed that teachers’ comments were seen from the pers pective of a broader scope of the school, their impact on the school, and the commi tment to the vision of the school as constructivist. Before analyzing teachers’ written reflec tions, the Principal-researcher assumed that teachers hired during the first two years would be more likely to identify negative

PAGE 223

213issues about the struggles and conflicts that developed over the years and teachers hired during the last two y ears would describe the difficulty in adapting to a constructivist curriculum. In reality, this assumption did not hold true. Regardless of the number of years at the school, and the issues, (with the exception of one group who still recalled the perceived conflict toward a group of experien ced teachers hired the third year, from the same school), responses were not year-specific. As a result, no conclusions were reached regarding the difference from year 20022002 and 2002-2003 reflection statements the year the statement was made. This did not preclude the actual statements from being equa lly significant. Comments still supported the themes and subtopics. The Principal-researcher determined that similar comments stated by two or more teachers became significant for purposes of cl ustering. Sub-topics remained consistent with the research. Teacher s’ perceptions of constructivism as an educational organizational change model became eviden t through narrative examples, triangulation, and the Analysis of Dynami cs of Change process. Chapter 5

PAGE 224

214 Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations for Further Research Introduction The focus of this chapter is to summ arize the data, make conclusions based upon these data, discuss implications of this study, and make recommendations for further studies. Many of the items f ound in Chapters One, Three, and Four are revisited. This time, however, they include additional insight s stemming from the re search process. A review of the problem examined in this study begin this chapter, followed by the statement of purpose, research questions, a nd significance of the study, along with a brief statement of the population studied at the re search site. The method is followed by the summary of findings and a discussion of an anal ysis of the data collected. The researcher then draws conclusions based on the findi ngs. Limitations to the study follow. Implications of the study are followed by the writer’s recommendations for future studies. Problem and Purpose Principals must understand, demonstrate, and support student learning, yet, it is the teacher who provides a learning environm ent that meets the needs of each child. The principal is accountable for student achieve ment with high-stakes testing. It is the

PAGE 225

215teacher who must provide instructional strategies and in-depth learning. A growing body of evidence demonstrates th e effectiveness of instruction that exists in an environment rich with litera ture, opportunities for pr oblem solving, decision making, and self-assessment. Children succeed when opportunities for learning exist in a risk-free setting, where cooperati ve sharing of information, higher-order thinking, and the ab ility to solve complex prob lems dominate curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices (see Chapter 2). Teachers identify instructiona l strategies based on the needs of individual students who bring to the educational setting their beliefs, values, cu ltures, prior ex periences, and language. A combination of these descriptors demonstrates some constructivist beliefs. There is limited research, however, on util izing constructivism as a school reform model. Equally important, there is limited re search on teachers’ perceptions on the impact that school reform in general might have on the teacher, and on teachers’ perceptions on developing a constructivist philosophy. Statement of the Problem School leaders are expected to lead reform without an understanding of how teachers are impacted. Purpose of the study

PAGE 226

216 The purpose of this seven-year longit udinal study was to examine teachers’ perceptions both of constructivism as an e ducation organizational change model and of developing a constructivist philosophy in an entire elementary school. The study examined the background and steps that evolved throughout the reform process. Fundamental to the purpose of the study a nd teachers’ perceptions is the ability to understand how a school develops a plan that can lead a school through the process of becoming constructivist. One dimension in school reform invol ves the strategies implemented in the development of such a plan. When teachers own the decisions on how best to implement a constructivist environment for the school community, an additional dimension involves methods used to create a constructivist belief system that teachers would embrace. Research Questions Teachers’ perceptions were viewed through the specific constructs most frequently appearing in l iterature relating to deve loping an organization: (a) philosophical foundations, (b ) change, (c) perceptions, (d) leadership, and (e) teachers as leaders. In order to complete the investigations, the following questions were answered: 1. What are the perceptions of teachers a bout constructivism as an educational organizational change model?

PAGE 227

2172. What are teachers’ perceptions of de veloping a constructiv ist philosophy in a total elementary school? Significance of the Study This appears to be the first long-rang e case study of teachers’ perceptions of constructivism as an educational organizationa l change model, and their perceptions on developing a constructivist philosophy fo r an entire elementary school. The Research Site Southwood Elementary School is the rese arch site. Located in South Orange County, Orlando, Florida, the school opened in 1997. The Principalresearcher is the founding Principal. The school is home to 925 students, pre-kindergarten through grade five, from 54 cultures. Middle class families, with both parents working, describe the socio-economic level of the population. Twenty -eight percent of the students are on free and reduced lunches. There is a twenty percent mobility rate. There are sixty instructiona l teachers ranging in age from 22 to 53. Nine teachers are certified teachers of the gifted allowi ng for a classroom based inclusion model for gifted students. Twelve teachers are Na tionally Board Certified, with seven more candidates completing the process in 2004. Twenty-eight percent of the staff hold Master’s Degrees. The major ity of teachers have less than six year’s experience.

PAGE 228

218Students who speak other languages are include d in each classroom, with two English as Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teac hers providing resource services to the teachers. Several staff members are bili ngual. There are two teachers for learning disabled students. The fine arts department provides pr ograms for every child in vocal and instrumental music, electronic keyboarding laboratory, art, and physical education. Chorus is provided for grades four and fi ve, and a stringed instrument program is provided for interested fourth and fifth graders. There are 225 computers throughout the cl assrooms, with 25 located in the Media Center laboratory. Twenty-five more co mputers were added in 2004 from money provided through PTA fundraisers, and School A dvisory Council’s use of state provided School Improvement money. Teachers are re sponsible for computer instruction in kindergarten through grade five. The research site achieved state a nd national recognition in 2002 and 2003 for improved test scores (Annual Yearly Progres s). The State Department of Education assigns report card-style lett er grades to schools, from cr iteria established by the State DOE. The letter grade identifies the level st udents’ achieved on the state’s standardized tests and if the students’ met the required standards for student improvement from one year to the next in grades three, four, a nd five. Based upon the state criteria, the school received a letter grade of A, each of the past two years (Appendix 6).

PAGE 229

219Statement of Method This was a single-site case study conducte d in the school described above. Three methods of data collection were used: Two sets of reflections, written by all teachers at the end of two different school years, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003, focus group interviews conducted with all teachers, and the Principal -researcher’s seven years of journals. The journals were compiled into story form called the “Southwood Story” (Appendix 1). Teacher reflections were written in Ma y, at the end of the school year 2001-2002, and again in school year 2002-2003, by all 60 teachers. Focus group interviews were conducted during December of 2003 by all 60 t eachers. Principal-researcher journals reflect the time from January of 1997 through December of 2003. This provided a way to analyze teachers’ perceptions of a constructiv ist learning environmen t and their role in the process of the evolution. Documentation was analyzed in teachers’ reflections for years four and five, in focus groups for year six, and Principal-resear cher’s journal/story for seven years. The data were analyzed through triangulat ion of all three data sources. Teacher reflections were gathered from the archives lo cated in the school vault. When the teacher reflections were written, they were perused by the Principal. However, they were not analyzed until this study was conducted. Anal ysis of teacher reflections provided an opportunity to evaluate teachers’ perceptions of their experi ences within a constructivist environment, from one year to the next, while providing insight into the research questions. Focus groups were conducted by the Curriculum Resource Teacher.

PAGE 230

220Audio-tapes were made. Tran scriptions were compiled a nd reviewed by the Principalresearcher. Member checking (Stake, 1995) occurred when rough drafts of the transcriptions were returned to the teachers to determine if the drafts reflected the intent of the original statements. Teachers edited the transcript s and returned them to the Curriculum Teacher. Finally, the focus groups ’ edited transcripts were given to the Principal-researcher for analysis. Two independent code checkers were sele cted by the Principal-researcher. One code checker, currently a doctoral candida te, completed the NIH process from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Central Florida. He understands the procedures and techniques used in the interview process. The second code checker is a Nationally Board Certified teacher who recen tly completed her Master’s Degree from National Louis University, where she analyzed data through the use of a coding system. They analyzed the coding, patterns, and th emes, and provided feedback (Merriam, 1998). An empirical reader was selected, ba sed on the recommendation of Stake (1995). An empirical reader is “useful because it reminds the writer both of privilege and constraint” (p. 126). An empirical reader ed its the document for readability and content, so that the text makes sense to the reader. The Principal-researcher selected a high school English teacher to fill that role. Three peer examiners (Merriam, 1998) r ead the documents to check for clarity and authenticity. The examiners are: one teacher, one guidance counselor, and one Assistant Principal, all of whom worked at the research site for more than three years.

PAGE 231

221Each of them, from the perspe ctive of the Principal-resear cher, read the documents from a critical position and prov ided honest feedback. After reviewing all documents, first, from the perspective of determining patterns, possible themes, and sub-topics; then, from the finding of themes and sub-topics, a coding system developed. During the firs t phase of document coding the Principalresearcher itemized all statements and exam ined the data sources to determine if the grade level of the respondents made a difference in the comments. For example, the assumption: In comparing years 2001-2002, a nd 2002-2003, one team more than another might identify specific areas that would not become evident with any other team. Or, comments could reflect a particular issue in one year more than another. The assumption from focus groups: Since the groups originally were divided according to their years of employment at the research si te, one group of teachers might identify one issue more than any other group. Gathering and Organizing the Data Organization of the data sets: 1. Identified common statements made by classroom teachers when they expressed their views about work ing in a constructivist school. 2. Identified clusters of comm on statements to find patterns. 3. Reviewed the five constructs that mo st appear in the literature relating to developing an organization: (a) philosophica l foundation that is constructivist, (b) change, (c) perceptions, (d) le adership, and (e) teachers as leaders. Determined if the clusters of statements were part of one of these broader themes, created a sub-

PAGE 232

222topic for those statements that did not specifically state the construct; but rather could be identified within one of the five constructs. 4. Reviewed the research to determine if other authors used similar expressions or statements in identifying a specific them e or idea. For example, Maxwell (1995) identified the behaviors of teacher leaders. He stated that teachers as leaders were ones who helped form relationships among their teams, while modeling the ability to build trust. Based on Maxwell’s work, th e Principal-researcher identified “trust building” and “forming relationships” as a s ub-topic of Teachers as Leaders. The identified indicators fit into that sub-topi c and theme. Determining the indicators, returning to the literature, verifying th e decision to place the identified indicators with the theme and sub-topic provided ve rification for the Principal-researcher. The Principal-researcher then met with the code checkers to review the raw data and validate the findings. They both agreed that there was a category missing, based upon the comments made consisten tly in the data sources. Th e category was identified as an affect category. That category identified comments that indicated teachers’ feelings about the constructivist e nvironment (Chapter 4). As indicated in Chapter 4, statements written from teachers’ reflections were based on years Four and Five, when the term constructivist was just beginning to surface among the teachers during discussions of stude nt learning strategies. Therefore, the actual term was not stated specifically. Ho wever, constructivist-based influence on teachers’ responses to the four reflection que stions were extrapolated and listed among the clusters of common phrases. By 2003-2004 the term constructivist was used consistently among the teachers.

PAGE 233

223 The following identifies the common statements and phrases used by teachers in the teacher data sources, and clustered into groups called in dicators. Themes developed from the specific areas of study that most fre quently appear in the literature relating to more global topics in the development of an organization: the philosophy, change, perception, leadership, and teachers as lead ers, and later, affect became a theme. (word clusters became identifying indicators) Code Theme / Sub-topic identifying indicators CP Constructivist Philosophy Use of the vision, higher order thinking, thinking “outside the box,” non-prescriptive curriculum. CP 1. (sub topic 1.) understanding the concept Thinking about thinking; metacognitive skills; probing to think on my own; figure things out; not given an answer, but justify my solution; find the problem; explain; constructing our own knowledge. overlapping indicators ex ist between the concept of constructivism, problem solving, and decision making CP 2. Problem solving – decision Questions, find ways to make it better, making Principal asked what I want to do, think first, plan, answers not given. CP 3. Reflective Practice Disc uss what happened, explain why, do it better next time, examine, pre-requisite skills, dig deeper, look back-then look forward. CP 4. Risk-free environment Try it out, experiment, if it doesn’t work, try again, work it out, think creatively. CP 5. Learner-centered How children learn, think of the kids first, observe, listen, watch, provide opportunities,

PAGE 234

224life-long learning, creative approach, kids can explain their thinking. C Change Movement, disruption, anticipation of something being different than before. C1. Evolution of curriculum Understanding—math, integrated units, any subject area that changes as it is learned, finding better ways to instructResistance/excitement, adding on / substituting new strategies. C2. Change of models Vertical team concept-resistance/excitement Looping concept – resistance/excitement (chapter 4). C3 Change of teams Disr uption when someone leaves/joins the team, teachers choosing to move seen as negative/positive experience. L Leadership Focus on the Principal – negative/positive experience. L1 Support of teachers Feel supported, provided with ideas, suggestions, help with students, help with parents, not threatened by interaction, empowers us, trusts us to make decisions. L2 Feeling appreciated Spends time making teachers feel appreciated, recognized-publicly and in private, complimentary. L3 Provides a professional Provi ded materials and supplies because work environment teacher need them, values input into what teachers want, provided time to work with team mates, feel comfortable, safe. TL Teachers as Leaders The assumption by the researcher was that all items identified, relating to team building belonged in this section. If someone initiates a group getting together or organizes a group project then a leader is recognized (explained in Chapter 4). TL1 Collaboration Collaboratin g, getting together as a group,

PAGE 235

225planning together, working together. TL1 Trust building and Like my team, like working with my pod forming relationships members, work well together, get along, know value of communication, became a team. TL3 Asked for help and Willing to ask for help, teachers help and received it me. TL4 Value of personality U nderstand each other, understand styles and use of Gregor c myself, easier to work with people, laugh. (Chapter 4) TL5 Value of positive FISH helped me, attitude, play, make Attitude—FISH philosophy their day, importance of positive attitude. TL6 Took on leadership roles Lead ership, mentor, committee work/chair. A Affect Feeling words: happy, love, excited, family.

PAGE 236

226Findings The Principal-researcher concluded that neith er factors of grade level, in the case of reflections, nor years of like experience in the case of focus group interviews, were significant enough to identify either as a contri buting factor when linked to the research questions. Statements in written reflections and in focus group interviews often overlapped from one question to the other. By the fourth year of the school, in comments written for 2001-2002, the majority of the teachers stated th ey were challenged in a positive way as they learned better instructional strategies than the prior year and they felt more comfortable with the curricul um. They felt more reflective. Several references were made about being mentally stretched. One teacher stated, “Even when I think I can’t think outside the box any further, I can, and I lo ve it. I couldn’t teach anywhere else.” It was evident that teachers recognized the need for positive s upport of each other in their quest for better u nderstanding of instruction. Th is required their continuous analysis of what was happening with their students. As a result, teachers commented frequently on the time they spent with their team mates, discussing better ways to work with students, making content materials more challenging and meaningful, and analyzing their curriculum. Their statements indicate that they recognized the value in working with their peers and they were flattered wh en others asked for their advice. Comments about accepting individual differe nces were evident. The level of

PAGE 237

227awareness was high in recognizing that, in orde r for a staff to grow, they must work and get along together. In a constr uctivist environment, it takes everyone jo ining together to create the environment necessary for all stude nts and teachers to succe ed. The impact of using specific strategies for helping staff members understand the importance of accepting one and others was evident in the interaction that was observed throughout the year, especially beginning year five. Teachers referred consistently throughout their reflections to the school as family. Statements from the reflections at th e end of the year showed significant growth in teachers’ working together, as the majority described how their teams collaborated. By the fifth year, bonding began to occur at higher rates than before. Fewer people were new to the staff since budget cuts required a reducti on in staff numbers by eight. Teachers that remained on the staff became even more committed to the constructivist approach being used in curriculum and instruction. Teachers identified areas where they we re taking on leadership roles. The National Board Certification process was al so emphasized from two perspectives; the professional growth teachers made when comple ting the process: and the level of support they received from others. Students continued to improve. Standardiz ed test scores were high, in spite of decreased emphasis on teaching to the test. Teachers began recognizing that children were learning at higher rates than seen befo re. They began commenting that they could see excellent results from the way students were taught. Teachers could see that the curriculum was highly individualized according to each child’s needs. In addition, there

PAGE 238

228was consistency in philosophy and the language expressing constuctiv istic learning, from one teacher to the other. Focus group interviews occurred in y ear seven. The staff returned to 60 members. Four teachers returned to the sc hool after leaving for one year. The returning teachers were strong supporters of the school and added a positive dimension to the staff. Additional findings, based on teacher res ponses, were identified in the same themes and sub-topics as indicated above. Fi ndings from teacher statements are supported from the Principal-researcher’s journals/stor y. Differences between the teachers’ written and interview responses compared to the Princi pal-researcher journals is the difference in perceptions since issues are often seen from tw o distinct pers pectives. Conclusions listed below are those found in teachers’ responses and the Principal-researcher journals. Research Question One What are the perceptions of teachers about constructivism as an educational organizational change model? 1. In year one and two, 12 teachers joined together in classes to receive endorsement as teachers of the gifted. This provided time together for teachers and the Principal-researcher to disc uss, think, and build a background in understanding about how to design higherlevel thinking activiti es within their classrooms. Teachers also developed an aw areness of individual differences in styles of learning and thinking for bot h themselves, as teachers, and their students. They discussed the need to uplevel all activities as soon as students were developmentally ready.

PAGE 239

2292. Summer writing teams (made up of each member of a grade level team) at the end of school year one, two, and three, provided time together to think about what students should know and be able to do. The curriculum design model for creating concept-based integrat ed thematic units of study became a clear system for curriculum design learning in a constructivist environment. 3. Teachers can describe what they ar e doing in their classrooms and why. Teachers feel empowered because they are not micro-managed by the Principal. They can explain the rationale for their decisions. 4. Teachers have the freedom to experiment and try new things. 5. Teachers are provided time for observing other teachers, and discussing their observations with each other. Valuable learning occurs for both teachers. 6. In-service workshops are generally in dividualized. Teachers select from a variety of topics and participate in Study Groups around specific topics. In this way teachers receive strategies for teaching based upon their individual needs and interests. Teachers develo p and facilitate Study Groups. In this way, innovative instructional strategies a nd ideas are shared by and with all teachers. 7. Materials and supplies are provided at the request of teachers, based upon the constructivist philosophy. Support ma terials provide te achers with a

PAGE 240

230continuous supply of necessary resources Constructivist instruction requires material rich in a variety of genres, te acher resources, integrated units, and handson experiences for all subject areas. 8. Teachers make the connecti on between materials and resources that support the constructivist approach to learning, and the strategies needed to implement and utilize the materials and resources provided. Research Question Two What are teachers’ perceptions of deve loping a constructivist philosophy in a total elementary school? Responses that were consistent from a ll data sources supported this question with the following statements: 1. It is important to have the same ph ilosophy so that everyone works with the same belief system and toward the same goals. 2. The Principal must provide the vision. Teachers feel successful because the vision never changes and everyone agrees with the philosophy (or they wouldn’t be here). 3. If the school only had pockets of te achers with the same philosophy, the school wouldn’t work. Everyone must beli eve in the construc tivist approach. People who do not believe in it can go to schools that have single textbooks and teach to the test. 4. We have to think about our own thinking, and that is part of the constructivist way.

PAGE 241

2315. I just really like the constructivist philosophy because we know that kids couldn’t become productive in the real world if all they learned came from worksheets and single textbooks. Our ki ds know how to problem solve and think at high levels. 6. Summer school operated for lower perfor ming students during the end of year five and six, with class sizes of less than 12, provided additional 7. Opportunities to implement and experi ment with strategies that were constructivistic. Teachers then adapted those ideas into larger class sizes during the academic year. Principal-researcher journal/story One area that significantly affects sch ools in the state of this research study (Florida). That is the area of student assessment. Within the research site, student assessment is conducted in both formal and informal ways. Student data is collected and analyzed, particularly from the perspective of students who do not maintain the expect ed levels of improvement. That analysis is done with each teacher, generally in pull-out days, so discussions can evolve into strategies for supporting the teacher. Students who experience difficulties, academically, socially, or behaviorally, are studied and analyzed w ith a team of support staff who assist the classroom teacher. Most frequently that support team consists of the Principal, guidance counselor, exceptional education teacher, and the

PAGE 242

232classroom teacher. Once again the process of problem solving is highly constructivist. The reality of assessment in the state of Florida is one of government control. State designated standardized testing is manda ted. As discussed earlier, principals feel enormous pressure that transl ates to pressure on teachers for students to perform at the highest levels possible. There is much at stake. Principals, who have a high level of student achievement, as determined by state cr iteria, are eligible for bonus money. Each school district also establishes their own criteria, that allows Principals the opportunity to apply for a bonus. If a school attains a high level of impr ovement in test scores, the teachers are eligible for bonus money. Lette r grades of A are advertised and often flaunted. Comparisons among schools receive headlines in the local newspapers. As a result, many schools believe that in or der to ensure successful test scores among the students, it can not rely on teacher’s ability to think, problem solve, or make decisions about student learning. Instead, ma ny schools resort to prescripted teacher’s manuals and specific textbooks, with accompa nying assessments. In this environment teachers do what they are told. Southwood Elementary test scores are hi gh. A letter grade of A was achieved for the last two years, with state and na tional recognition for improvement among the students. Yet, no one commented about standard ized testing in any of the discussions or in the written reflections. Students learn from constructivist strategi es for instruction. Each year students and teachers become more sophisticated in th eir ability to think, reason, solve problems and make decisions, while thinking at highe r levels. Teachers and students become collaborators in learning.

PAGE 243

233Southwood Elementary School is in its seventh year. Teachers understand a constructivist philosophy. They know what it looks like, and they believe in what they are doing. However, in the final analysis, there mu st be in place a philosophical maintenance plan. A plan revisits the school vision, goals, and expectations every few years. In year seven, Southwood Elementary used the Analysis of the Dynamics of Change (Shapiro, 1996, 2003), process to establish a plan that s ecures that the constructivist philosophy is maintained (written three years ago). An upda ted process includes revi ew of the previous plan, followed by a determination of which outcomes to keep at status quo, which outcomes need revision and which outcomes are no longer relevant. The Principal could make the decision to reconvene a Planning Committee and proceed with a new plan, or a teacher as le ader may lead the process. The Principal remains a participant. The Tri-partite th eory of Institutional Change and Succession supports the need for continuous review of institutional goals (Shapiro, Benjamin & Hunt, 1995; Wilson, C.; Byar, T., Shapiro, A., Schell, S., 1996).

PAGE 244

234Limitations to the Study This was a single-site case study where da ta were collected at only one school. The ability to generalize these findings to the rest of the school community would be unrealistic. In the year 2 004, at the completion of this study, government regulations and local and state control dominate the educatio nal systems in Florida.. High-stakes testing gives the perception that rigid, prescriptive curriculum will produce high scores on standardized tests. This belief hampers the opportunity fo r a constructivis t environment in other settings. Another limitation occurs in the high mobility rate of staff during the first years when creating a philosophical foundation. This ca n be attributed to a variety of unrelated factors: (a) teachers who n eed a high level of structure do not function well in a constructivist environmen t; (b) the opportunity to move to another school, if a teacher is unsatisfied (in a large metropolitan area) is possible; (c) a young staff is often mobile because of spouse transfers, marriages, pregna ncies, etcetera. When 85% of the staff remained at the school, philosophical issu es became more quickly implemented. The length of time it takes to stabilize the mobility of a large staff in school appear to be age-group specific. The younger th e virtually all female staff, the higher the mobility. A limitation exists in replicati ng the length of time for a constructivist philosophy to become a part of the culture. It takes much longer for teachers to acquire the skills necessary to implement a constructivist philosophy than it takes for teachers to

PAGE 245

235read a teacher’s manual and follow scripted di rections. In that environment no decisions are needed. Thinking takes longe r than just doing things. A local university recognized the value of placing the same interns at Southwood Elementary. In 2004, interns were allowed to remain at the school for both their Junior and Senior internships, at the request of th e University students. In this way, students learn to teach constructivisti cally from the beginning of their teaching experiences and become immersed in the constructivist culture. Interns, who are encouraged to stay at the school for two years, are usually hire d as full-time teachers upon graduation. Creating a constructivist culture requires a highly educated staff with a desire to learn, experiment, think, discuss, self-assess, and work together. Continuity, for purposes of implementation, requires a low mobility of staff that was willing to stay together for bonding, developing a high level of trust, and maintaining a community of learners. A Principal must have a thorough knowledge of every level of the curriculum, understand curriculum design, and recognize acad emic and personal needs of a staff in order to provide a constructivist climate for student and staff learning. The Principal must be willing to stay in the environmen t long enough for the philosophy to become entrenched (In the case of Southwood El ementary School, it took seven years). In essence, generalizability cannot be assumed.

PAGE 246

236Conclusions Based upon the data collected, and th e subsequent analyses, Southwood Elementary School determined the following to answer the two research questions: First, “What are the perceptions of teacher s about constructivism as an educational organizational change model?” Based upon analysis of the data sources, teachers employed at Southwood Elementary School for the last seven years, strongly support constructivism as an educational organiza tional change model within each of the constructs: (a) understandi ng the philosophical foundations of constructivism, (b) change, (c) perception, (d) leadership, (e) teachers as leaders. The construct of (f) affect evolved from the study. Each constr uct contains indicator s as described by the teachers. Following the indicators, a brief summary of the research occurs. Philosophical Foundations of Constructivist Teachers’ perceptions of the philosophical foundations of constructivism produced five indicators th at teachers deemed important based upon the analysis described also in Chapters Three and Four : understanding the concep t of constructivism, problem solving and decision making, reflect ive practice, worki ng in a risk-free environment, providing a l earner-centered school.

PAGE 247

237Understanding the concept of constructivism: Thinking about their own thinking; probing to think on my own; figure things out; justify my solutions; find the problem; explain Teachers designed a plan, using a constructivist approach, which provided an organizational model for the school. Teachers perceive the necessity of a c onstructivist change to implement the reform strategy. Teachers perceived the importance of c ontinuity of philosophical beliefs among the staff. Problem solving and decision making: Find ways to make it better; think first, pl an. Become part of the solution, construct our own knowledge, don’t expect an answer, figure things out. Finding solutions to defined issues becam e the responsibility of the teachers. Teachers took ownership in the solutions. Solutions were accompanied by commitments to ensure the issues were resolved. Teachers identified issues and concerns fr om their personal perspectives, and the perspectives of their colleagues. Curriculum decisions, recognition of staff, and parent involvement became issues to resolve. Those who saw an issue to resolve becam e involved in identifying the source of the issue, the background of those w ho experienced the issue, and possible solutions to design. Teachers recognized that decision making and problem solving was a

PAGE 248

238complex process that required thi nking, utilizing crea tive ideas, accepting individual differences of opinions, and patience. They solved problems relating to student learning when they thought together, shared, and figured out complex issues relating to curriculum, instruction and assessment.. Teachers who experienced problem solvi ng resulting in discussions where they examined and analyzed difficult educationa l issues think constructivistically. Reflective practice: Discuss what happened, explain why, exam ine, ask what prerequisite skills are missing, look back, then, look forward. Teachers were provided time away from the classroom to reflect, discuss, and plan ways to effectively implement c onstructivist practices. They spend time analyzing the effectivene ss of their instruction, cu rriculum, and assessment. Working in a risk-free environment: Try it out, if it works, make it better, if it doesn’t figure out why, experiement, try again, think creatively. Everyone thinks and learns in differe nt ways, and that is O.K. Trial and error are acceptable teaching st rategies, when followed by reflective practice. Providing a learner centered school: Think of the kids first, observe, liste n, watch, create life-l ong learners, kids can explain their thinking. Instructional strategies ar e based upon individual n eeds of the students. Continuous individual assessment pr ovides the guide for instruction.

PAGE 249

239Each of the constructivist pr ocesses engaged teachers in oppo rtunities to develop a school that would employ all of the experiences that were constructivist. They had personal ownership in the outcome. They participated in creating a constructiv ist model. Teachers soon recognized what had happened. They were using a constructivist approach to develop an educational organizational change model. This led naturally into the second research question: Secondly, “What are teachers’ percepti ons of developing a constructivist philosophy in a total elementary school?” Based upon analysis of the data sources, teachers employed at Southwood during the la st seven years strongly supported the constructivist philosophy for the total school. Change The second construct: Change, occurs in a variety of ways at the elementary school level. Change is specifi c as changing from one classroo m to another, or change as seen when a new person is hired onto a grade leve l team to change as illusive as teachers’ anticipation of something that might be diffe rent than before. Ea ch change produces a new set of dynamics within a school. T eachers’ perceptions of the philosophical foundations of constructivism produced three i ndicators that teachers deemed important: Evolution of the curriculum, change of models, change of teams. Evolution of the curriculum: Understanding how to teach math for unders tanding, finding better ways to get indepth and use higher-order th inking, learning more about wh at and how to instruct. Teachers instruct, based upon a child’s prior knowledge.

PAGE 250

240 Curriculum changes with the needs of each child as they acquire new understanding. Constructivist learning occurs when teachers make continuous adjustments in the curriculum, because of the students’ needs. Perception The third construct: Perception, is embedded in all of the others. Teachers’ views of situations, beliefs, and understandings, drive how the teacher responds to situations, decision making and problem solving situations. Leadership Teachers’ perceptions of Leadership pl aces the focus on the school Principal and produced three indicators that teachers deem ed important. The leader supports the teachers, expresses feelings of appreciat ion for the teachers’ work, and provides a professional work environment. Support of the teachers: I want to feel supported, I need support with my students, not threatened by interactions, empowers us, trusts us to make decisions provides us with ideas and suggestions. Leaders are members of a collaborative environment. Teachers want the Principal to express a nd demonstrate sincere beliefs that the teachers and leaders work together to make a school work. They join together with, and for students, parents, and other teachers. The Principal models constructiv ist thinking and problem solving.

PAGE 251

241Feeling appreciated: The Principal spends time personally acknowledging me for the work I am doing, recognizes me publicly and in private. Leaders frequently take time to interact with teachers to recognize their work. Principals personally spend time with teach ers to provide assistance with students, parents, instructional strategies. Teachers as Leaders Teachers’ perceptions of Teachers as Leader s provide the core support group that will maintain a philosophical maintenance plan. When a teacher initiates a group gathering, organizes a group project, or de velops a new idea, then a leader emerges. Teachers identify leaders as one of a group that can be depended upon for help. Teachers produced six indicators they deemed important: co llaboration, trust building and forming relationships, asking for help and receiving it, the value of unders tanding personality styles, the value of a positive attit ude, taking on leadership roles. Collaboration: There is collaboration on the team, we plan together. Teachers value a team that works together, planning, and brainstorming ideas. Trust Building and Forming Relationships: We work well together, we get along, we know the value of communication with each other, we became a team. Once a team bonds together, powerful learning occurs.

PAGE 252

242 Involvement in the plan provided a fram ework for community, team, trust, and relationship building. Asking for help and receiving it. I am willing to ask for help, we can depend on someone to help us out when we need it. Teachers become more secure in their inst ruction when they can rely on help from someone they trust and respect. There is value in understanding personality styles of the staff. We understand each other better, we laugh at ea ch other for our uniqueness, it is easier to work with people when you understand them. A system needs to operate in the scho ol, where each person learns of the personality of those in the environment. Reinforcing the concepts of individual personalities is necessary on a continuing basis. The value of a positive attitude: Spend time talking and laughing; the importance of a positive attitude. Creating an environment that recognizes and reinforces the importance of a positive attitude is critical to an environment that grows professionally. Taking on leadership roles: I’m taking on more leadership roles, mentor others, chair committees, organizing events. Leadership roles become the expectation for teachers as leaders.

PAGE 253

243Affect Teachers’ perceptions’ of areas of Aff ect produced expressions, rather than indicators. This appears from the research to remain the most fundamentally important of all the constructs. Without an environment that meets the needs in areas of affect, virtually no professional growth will occur fo r the staff. These are emotional words, expressions of needs and wants that creat e an effective work environment. Expressions stated by teachers included: I laugh, we are family, I love my team I am excited about working here, I couldn’t work anywhere else. A school environment that is constructivis t understands the importance of meeting the social and emotional needs of each of the staff, and students. Additional Conclusions: Teachers communicated, bonded, trusted, a nd developed stronger professional relationships when they shared mutu al beliefs about how students learn. Teachers recognized that leadership of the school should provide support for teachers in the appreciations of teachers’ work and providing a professional work environment. Teachers can not understand a constructivist philosophy unless they experienced the process. As a result of personal experience, t eachers understand how children learn more effectively with this process.

PAGE 254

244 Teachers described the importance of c ontinuity for student learning from one grade to the next. When the language for discussion of c onstructivist beliefs remains consistent, student learning con tinues to build on familiar concepts. The same is true for teachers. Wh en the language for communicating in constructivist terms remained consistent among teachers, the ability to build stronger instructional strategies became evident. Teachers frequently identified the im portance of everyone in the school supporting a constructivist philosophy. Constructivis t beliefs are built upon numerous concepts and described by teach ers with terms identified earlier such as: hands-on experiences, problem so lving, decision making, thinking at higherlevels, probing questions, understanding the background of students, and their prior knowledge. Students who are provided the same la nguage, processes, and strategies for learning from one year to the next are mo re successful because of the continuity in their instruction. Students experience constructiv istic instruction through: Math for understanding—stude nts explain their reasoning Concept-based integrated thematic units of instruction centered around science and/or social studies concepts Writing to explain

PAGE 255

245 Reading for background knowledge, includ ing narrative and expository text within content areas, and analyzing authors’ work Exploratory learning thr ough hands-on experiences Asking and responding to higher-level questions Music, art, and physical education integrate with classroom concepts. All of these instructional st rategies are constructivist-based and exist within each classroom at the research site. Teachers’ st atements, identified from the data sources, described the importance of everyone in the school subscribing to the same philosophy— a constructivist philosophy. Implications of the Study An entire elementary school, (which is unique in research l iterature), became constructivist. Teachers’ perceptions of both constructivism as an educational organizational change model and the developm ent of a constructivist philosophy showed positive results in the research study. Notwithstanding the limitations of this study described earlier in this chapter, the model of schooling found at this research site co uld be emulated by other schools willing to examine the reasons for the success of the sc hool. First, a Principa l must be willing to embed standardized high-stakes testing with in the context of th e thinking and problem solving, as part of an in tegrated curriculum. An entire school can embrace a constructiv ist philosophy contrary to Brooks and Brooks (1993, 2000). A constructivist reform change strategy can reform an entire elementary school.

PAGE 256

246 A constructivist approach to developing an organizational change model provides teachers with the ownership needed in order fo r teachers to see the school as belonging to them. They take pride in accomplishments for themselves, their colleagues, and the students. Schools willing to involve teachers in the active process of determining the best practices for instruction, strate gies for working together, a nd a willingness to create a democratic working environment, will creat e a school where collective ownership in successes and problem solving challenges result in positive outcomes for all involved. Student achievement is high when a philosoph ical belief that is constructivist is applied to curriculum, instru ction, and assessment throughout the entire school. Each student and teacher discusses learning by cons istently speaking the language of learning. High levels of thinking and problem solving generate high performance in assessment. Teaching children and teachers to think prepar es all members of the school to value and love learning. A family of learners develops in a co nstructivist school. The goal of preparing students to become productive and thoughtful ci tizens is supported in an environment where a community of learners exist. The role of Principal is pivotal. The principal must believe in, and model constructivism. A Principal must believe in, and model, constructivist practices for this to work. Constructivist principals value personal and collec tive opportunities to learn, think, question, explain, and solve problems toge ther with other members of the staff. They are more than managers of things, th ey are managers of thinking. The Principal must be the head learner.

PAGE 257

247Conclusions reached by the Principal-researcher are not unlike those found by other authors and researchers, identified in Chapter Two, often describing settings from a university or private school setting (Wilson & Daviss, 1994). However, the research site was a middle-class public school, highly divers e in cultures, large by elementary school standards, and in a state highly regulated by standardized testing and accountability requirements. A constructivist educational organizati onal change model is supported by the teachers who see the value in developing a cons tructivist philosophy in a total elementary school. Individual learning strategies are de scribed by many authors such as those identified in Chapter Two. However, the constructivist philosophy employs all of the best practices for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Current literature describes (in often dramatic detail) specific instructional st rategies that are often incorporated in bits and pieces and scattered randomly around the curriculum. The random approach for establishing a solid philosophica l foundation for instruction, is just that, random. As a result, language is provided students that expresses the concept that thinking about thinking is not internalized. Students need the repetitive nature of language, experiences, and problem solving. Consistency is needed in all areas of the curriculum (confirmed in Principalresearcher interviews with principals), Isaacson (2002).

PAGE 258

248A constructivist environment is consistent. A consistent constructive curriculum is not an oxymoron. It is not randomly sca ttered ideas that eventu ally find a place to land. A constructivist place for learning is well planned and well developed. It is a solid philosophy. Included in a constructivist environmen t is the importance of providing all teachers and students with opportunities to make decisions that effect their learning. It does require giving up control. Principals gi ve up control to the teachers, teachers to each other, and teachers to their students. A ll members respect the contribution each one makes to the learning experience. Important implications of this study exist in the level of student achievement and teacher ownership. Designing and developi ng a school philosophy and organizational plan can be accomplished within a construc tivist environment if a school community believes it is best for children and if they are willing to invest in the time and effort, remain patient, and stay the course. There are specific classes at the mi ddle and high school developed for high achieving students, tracked into advanced classes, that use high level questioning, project-based learning, and problem solving st rategies. Children do not need to wait until grade six before they are provided oppor tunities to think at high levels. Therefore, another implication is th e value of starting children learning constructivistically beginni ng at age five. Students at Southwood Elementary School understand how to learn, they speak the langu age of “explaining their thinking” at age five.

PAGE 259

249Finally, the school community must invest time in developing a philosophical maintenance plan, explained earlie r in this chapter. This requ ires continuous reevaluation on the part of all members of the school community. In this way, the philosophical position will be sustained over time. Summary of Implications 1. Constructivism can be used as an edu cational organizational change model to reform an entire elementary school 2. An underpinning of such a change strate gy requires developing and implementing a school-wide constructivist philosophy and practice. 3. The importance of affect in the learning envi ronment is critical to the success of a school. Teachers must feel appreciate d, valued, recognized, and accepted as part of the school family. 4. Teachers believe that individual test scores increase from teaching constructivistically. 5. A philosophical maintenance plan is necessary to continue the constructivist process. 6. The role of Principal is pivotal. The principal must believe in, and model constructivism. They are more than mana gers of things, they are managers of thinking. 7. The value of starting children learning c onstructivistically, beginning at age five, creates a foundation for unders tanding that is automatic for students at Southwood Elementary School. Students understand how to learn.

PAGE 260

250They speak the language of “explaini ng their thinking” at age five. 8. When teachers and the leader work togeth er to solve problems, make mutually agreed upon decisions, ask each other hard questions, seek solutions that acts in everyone’s best interest, then constr uctivist thinking beco mes internalized. 9. A common purpose was achieved. Additiona lly, both a system of communication and a system of collaboration were estab lished to develop the common purpose. This supports Barnard’s (1938) statem ent as reported by Shapiro, 2000), that these three are indispensable elements of an organization. 10. Teachers’ perceptions were identified based upon the major constructs (themes) that developed and the guiding prin cipals (sub-topics) that emerged. Recommendations for Further Research 1. Future studies may explore other sc hools that provide a constructivist environment for teachers and students in a public school environment. In this way schools with similar beliefs could collaborate. 2. Another researcher might return to the re search site, within a few years, to see if the constructivist philosophy e ndured, developed, and followed its philosophical maintenance plan. 3. Compare the achievement of students from Southwood Elementary School, with their progress through High School, with a constructivist background for learning; in matched pairs, and with students from a prescriptive program in two areas: academic success and love of learning. A long range study could be conducted that tracked the students from Southwood through to their post-

PAGE 261

251high-school years, to identify the valu e of teaching constructivistically beginning at age five. 4. Seek and find other constructivist princi pals who studied the process they are using to reform their public schools utilizing a constr uctivist philosophy. Examine their process used in creating an educational organizational change model and ways they developed a c onstructivist philosophy in an entire elementary school. 5. Identify students who completed all six years at the research site, during their middle school, high school, and post secondary years and track their individual progress. Summary of the Chapter In this chapter, the problem and the purpose were reviewed from Chapters One and Three, this time with a perspective of the researcher afte r conducting the study and analyzing the data. The research questions were answered from the perspective of two data sources from the teachers with the adde d perspective of the Principal-researcher’s journal/story. The limitations were extended from Chapter One. The summary of findings as they related to the study questi on was discussed and the conclusions were reported. Implications of the study were di scussed, and the recommendations for future studies reflected some of the pr oblems stated in the limitations.

PAGE 262

252 References Ackerman, D. (2003, January). Taproots for a new century: Tapping the best of traditional and progressive education. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (5), 344-349. Ackerman, R., Donaldson G., &. Van Der Bogert, R. (1996). Making sense as a school leader: Persisting que stions, creative opportunities. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Adler, M. (1977). Reforming education. New York, N Y: Macmillan Publishing Company. Apple, M. & Beane, J. (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision a nd Curriculum Development. Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making the words come alive. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research Alexandria, VA [Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development]. (1995). Toward a coherent curriculum. Alexandria, VA.: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

PAGE 263

253Ball, L. D. &. Bass, H. (1997). Making be lieve: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elem entary classroom. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 193-224). Chicago, ILL: Univ ersity of Chicago Press. Bamburg, J. & Andrews, R. (1990). School goals, principals, and achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2 (pp. 175-191). Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Barth, R. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey_Bass. Belden, N. (2002). Teachers survey data report: National board certified teachers. Center for the future of leaching and learning [Online] (Accessed 21/8/03). Bell, L. I. (2003, December/January). Strategies that close the gap. Educational Leadership, 60 (4), 32-34. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W ., Sidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart New York, NY: Harper and Row. Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Publishing Co. Inc. Bennis. W, &. Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper and Row. Benson, G. (1992, December). Chaos theory : No strange attr actor in teacher

PAGE 264

254 education. Action in Teacher Education, 14 (4), 61-67. Bereiter, C. (1985). Cognitive coping st rategies and the problem of inert knowledge. In J. W. Chipman & R. Glaser (Ed.), Thinking and learning skills, vol.2 (pp. 65-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaurm. Berger, K. S. (1978). The developing person. New York, NY: Worth Publishers. Berk, L. E., & Winsler A. (1995). Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, D. C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Berlak, A. &. Berlak, H. (1981). Dilemmas of schooling: Teaching and social change. New York: Methuen. Berman, P. &. McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VIII Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Bernard Powers, J. (1999). Composing her life: Hilda taba and social studies history. In M. S. Crocco & O. L. Davis (Ed.), Bending the Future to their Will: Civic Women, Social Education, and Democracy (pp. 189-192). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Birchak, B., Connor C., Crawford, K. M., Ka hn, L., Laser, S., Turner, S., (1998). Teacher study groups: Building community through dialogue and reflection. Urbana, ILL: National Counc il of Teachers of English. Black, S. (2000, September). Finding time to lead. American School Board Journal. Blais, D. (1988). Constructivism--a th eoretical revolution for algebra. Mathematics Teacher, 81, 624-631.

PAGE 265

255Blase, J. &. Blase, J. (1998). Handbook of Instructional Leadership: How really good principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Blase, J. &. Kirby, P. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in te achers: What effective principals do (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational object ives handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay. Bloor, D. (1974). Knowledge and social imagery. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. (1996). Tools of the mind: The vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Bolman, L. &. Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Boud, D. (1991). The challenge of problem based learning. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press. Bowsher, J. (1989). Educating america, lessons learned in the nation's corporations. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Boyer, E. (1984). Service: Linking school to life. In Combining serve and learning: A resource book for community and public service (p. Vol. 1). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Inte rnship and Experi ential Education. Bransford, J. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Ed.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470-497). New York, NY: Camb ridge University Press.

PAGE 266

256Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. In J. B. Bransford, A. & Cocking, R. (Ed.), How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Bredo, E. (2000). Reconsidering social cons tructivism: The relevance of george herbert mead's interactionism. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 127-157). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Brimijoin, K., Marquissee, E. & Tomlinson, C. A. (2003, February). Using data to differentiate instruction. Educational Leadership, 60 (5), 70-73. Brookover, W., Beady C., Flood P., Schwe itzer, J., Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School social systems and student achievement : Schools can make a difference. New York, NY: Praeger. Brooks, G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993, 2000). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision Curriculum Development. Brooks, G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999, Novembe r). The courage to be constructivist Educational Leadership, 57 (3), 18-24. Brown J. L. & Moffett, C. A. (1999). The hero's journey: How educators can transform schools and improve learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brown, A. & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a comunity of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory

PAGE 267

257and Classroom Practices, (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brown, J. C. (2001). Constructivist te aching strategies. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, LTD. Bruner, J. (1971). The relevance of education. New York, NY: Norton.Burbules, N. C. (2000). Moving beyond the impasse. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 308-330). Chicago, Il: Un iversity of Chicago Press. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Caine R. N. & Caine G. (1991). Making connection: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. Caine, R. &. Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibilities. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisi on and Curriculum Development. Caine, G. & Caine, R. N. &. Crowell, S. (1999). Mindshifts: A brain_compatible process for professional development and the renewal of education. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press. Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared : Teachers for the 21st Century. New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. Carpenter, W. (2000, January). Ten years of silver bullets: Dissenting thoughts on educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 383-389. Carr, J. F. &. Harris, D. E. (2001). Succeeding with standards: Linking curriculum, assessment, and action planning. Alexandria, VA.

PAGE 268

258Association for Supervision a nd Curriculum Development. Cawelti, G. (1984). Behavior patte rns of effective principals. Educational Leadership, 41(5), 3. Chittenden, E., & Gardner H. (1991). Authen tic evaluation and documentation of student performance. In V. Perrone (Ed.), Expanding student assessment (pp. 22-31). Alexandria, VA: Associati on for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Clark, D. L. &. Austuto, T. A. (1994, Marc h). Redirecting reform. challenges to popular assumptions about teachers and students. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 513-520. Clough, M. &. Clark, R. L. (1994). Creativ e constructivism: Challenge your students with an authentic science experience. The Science Teacher, 61(7), 46-49. Cobb, P. (1994, October). Where is the mi nd? Constructivist a nd socio cultural perspectives on mathem atical development. Educational Researcher, 25, 13-20. Cobb, P. (2000). Constructivism in social c ontext. In L. P. Steffe & P. W. Thompson (Ed.), Radical Constructivism in Action: Building on the Pioneering work of Ernst von Glasersfeld (pp. 152-178). New York: Routledge. Cobern, W. (1993). The practi ce of constructivism in scie nce education. In K. Tobin (Ed.), Contextual constructivism (pp. 51-69). Washington D.C.: American Association of School Administrators.

PAGE 269

259Cochran Smith, M. &. Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-11. Collay, M., Dunlap D., Enloe, W. & Gagnon, G. (1998). Learning circles: Creating conditions for professional development Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Colvin, S. (1911). The learning process New York, NY: Macmillan. Combs, A., Miser A., Whitaker, K. (1999). On becoming a school leader: A person-centered challenge Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism im plies for teaching. In R. Davis (Ed.), Constructivist views on the teac hing and learning of mathematics (p. 109). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Conley, S. &. Bacharach, S. (1990). From site management to participatory school site management. Phi Delta Kappan, 17(7), 539-544. Corbett, H. D., Dawson, J., Firestone, W. (1984). School context and school change. New York: Teachers College Press. Costa, A. (2000, April). Getting into the habit of reflection. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 60-64. Costa, A. &. Kallick, B. (2000). Habits of mind: Discovering and exploring. Alexandria, VA: Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle centered leadership. New York: Fireside.

PAGE 270

260Cox, P. L. (1983, November). Complimenta ry roles in successful change. Educational Leadership, pp. 10-13. Crandall, D., Eiseman J., & Louris, K.(1986) Strategic planning issues that bear on the success of school improvement efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 21-53. Crawford, M., & Whitte, M. (1999). Strategies for mathematics: Teaching in context. 57 (3), 34-38. Crowther, D. (1997, December). The Constructivist Zone. Electronic Journal of Science Education [Online] 1(2) (Accessed 1/23/03). Cunningham, W. (1993). Cultural leadership: The culture of excellence in education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Daft, R. L. &. Lengel, R.H. (1998, 2000). Fusion leadership: Unlocking the subtle forces that c hange people and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc. Daggett, W. R. (2001, June 24). The 21st Century classroom: A new focus on learning Presented at the Ninth A nnual Model Schools Conference. Orlando, FL: International Center for Leadership in Education, Inc. (Keynote address). Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey_Bass.

PAGE 271

261Davis, T., & Merrell, P. H. (1993). Turning teaching into learning. In ASHE ERIC Higher Education Report (American Society for Higher Education, pp. 93-98). Washington, DC: American Society for Higher Education. De Bono, E. (1994). De Bono's thinking course. New York: Facts on File, Inc. Deal, T. E. &. Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping School Culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Collecting and interp reting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publishing. Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society: Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. Dixon, R. (1994, January). Future schools and how to get there from here. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 360-366. Dooling, L. M. (2003). Dialogue as praxis : Philosophical hermeneutics, historical epistemology, and truth. In C. C. Gould (Ed.), Constructivism and practice: Toward a historical epistemology (pp. 33-46). Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Driver, R. &. Bell, B. (1986). Students; thinking and the learni ng of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67 (240), 443-456. Driver, R. &. Erickson., G. (1983). Studies in science education, 10, 37-60. Driver, R. &. Oldham, V. (1986). A c onstructivist approach to curriculum

PAGE 272

262development in science. Studies in science education, 13 105-122. Duffy, T. A. (1992). Constructivism and the technol ogy of instruction: A conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. DuFour, R. &. Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. Duke, D. (1982). Leadership functions and instructional effectiveness. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 66, 5-9. Dweck, C., and Legget E. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review 95 256-273. Dweck, C. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Ed.), Foundation for a psychology of education ( pp. 87_136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eggen, P. &. Kauchack, D. (1997). Educational psychol ogy: Windows on classroms (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Ehrencrona, A. (2002). Thomas Kuhn (Accessed 22/6/02). Eisner, E. W. (2002, April). The kind of schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 576-583. Eisner, E. W. (2003, May). Questionable assumptions about schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (9), 648-685. Elias, M., Zins, J. Weisserg, R., Frey K., Greenberg M., Haynes, N., et. al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Supervision Development. Elmore, R. F. (1995). Getting to sc ale with good educational practice. Harvard

PAGE 273

263Educational Review, 66 (1), 1-26. Elmore, R. F. &. Furhman, S. H. (2001, September). Holding schools accountable: Is it working? Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 67-70, 72. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Erickson, H. (1995). Stirring the head, heart, and soul: Redefining curriculum and instruction. Thousand Oaks Publication: Corwin Press. Erickson, H. (1998). Concept based curriculum and in struction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Erickson, H. (2001). Stirring the head, heart and s oul: Redefining curriculum and instruction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Felier, R. (2000, April). Teachers leading teachers. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 66-69. Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced focus group research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Finser, T. M. (1994). School as a journey: The ei ght-year odyssey of a waldorf teacher and his class Hudson, NY: Anthrosophic Press. Firestone, W. (1989). Using reform: C onceptualizing distri ct initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151-164. Firestone, W. &. Corbett, H. D. (1987) Planned organizational change. In N. Boyand (Ed.), Handbook of research on e ducational administration (pp. 321-340). New York: Longman.

PAGE 274

264Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other curriculum models Arlington Heights, ILL.: Skylight. Fogerty, R. (1997). Brain compatible classrooms. Arlington Heights, ILL Skylight. Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, pe rspectives, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fountas, I. C. &. Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers, grades 3-6: Teaching comprehension, genr e, and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fountas, I. C. &. Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided Reading. Portsmouth, NH.: Heineman Press. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum Press. French, J. P. &. Raven, B. (1959). The base s of social power. In Cartwright D. (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Friedin, N. &. Slater, M. R. (1994). School leadership and performance: A social network approach. Sociology of Education, 67 139-157. Fullan, M. G. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Fullan, M. G. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? New York: Teachers College Press: Columbia, University. Fullan, M. G. (1997). The challenge of school change : A collection of articles.

PAGE 275

265Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development. Fullan, M. G. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press: Columbia, University. Gadanidis, G. (1994). Decons tructing constructivism. The Mathematics Teacher, 37(2), 91-97. Gagnon, G. &. Collay, M. (2001). Designing for learning: Six elements in constructivist classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1996). The age of innocence re considered: Preserving the best of the progressive tradition in psychology and education. In D.R. Olson & N. Torrance (Ed.), Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching, and Schooling (pp. 28-55). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Garmston, R. (1995, April). Adaptive schools in a quantum universe. Association for Curriculum and Development, 52 (7), 6-14. Garrison, J. (1997). An alternative to von glasersfeld's subjectivism in science education: Deweyan social constructivism. Science and Education, 6, 543554. Giuliani, R. (2002). Leadership. New York, NY: Miramax Books.

PAGE 276

266Glass, G. V. &. Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Glatthorn, A. A. (1994). Developing a quality curriculum Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision a nd Curriculum Development. Glickman, C. D. &. Gordon, S. (2001). Supervision and instruc tional leadership: A developmental approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Goleman, D. (2000). Working with emo tional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. USA: McGraw Hill. Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Goodlad, J. (1996, November). Sustaini ng and extending educational renewal. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (3), 228-234. Gordon, S. P. (2000, November). Professional development for teacher and school renewal: Alternative pa thways, common characteristics. Presented at the University Council for E ducational Administrations Annual Convention. Albuquerque, NM.: University Council for Educational Administration. Gould, C. C. (2003). Constructivism and Practice. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Greenberg. J. (1990). Problem solving situations, Vol 1. New York, NY: Norton Press. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership New York: Paulist Press.

PAGE 277

267Greeno, J. (1991). Number sense as situ ated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3 ), 170-218. Gregorc, A. F. (1982). Gregorc Personal ity Style Delineator: Development, technical, and administrative manual, Co lumbia, CT: Gregorc Associates. Griffith, J. (2000). School climate on gr oup evaluation and group consensus: Student and parent perception of th e elementary school environment. The Elementary School Journal, 101 (1), 35-61. Guiney, E. (2001, June). Coaching isn't just for athletes: The role of teacher leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (10), 740-743. Gunstone, R. R. (2000). Constructivism and leaning research in science education. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on c ontroversial issues (pp. 254-280). Chicago, ILL: University of Chicago Press. Gunstone, R., White R. & Fensham P. (1988). Developments in style and purpose of research on the learning of science. Journal of research in science teaching, 25, 513-529. Gunter, H. (1997). Chaotic reflexivity. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The challenge of school change: A collection of articles (pp. 87-114). Arlington Height, IL: Skylight Professional Development. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hall, G., & Hord E. (2001). Implementing change: Pa tterns, principles, and potholes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

PAGE 278

268Hallinger, P. &. Murphy, J. (1987) Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 44 (1), 54-61. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell. Hargreaves, A. (1997). Rethinking educa tional change. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The challenge of school change (pp. 1-26). Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development. Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional policies of teaching and teacher development:Implications fo r educational development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4, 315-336. Hargreaves, A. (1998). What's worth fighting for out there? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. &. Dean F. (2000, Apri l). The three dimensions of reform. Educational Leadership, 67 (7), 30-33. Harvey, D. &. Brown D. (2000). An experiential approach to organization development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hayes-Jacobs, H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Associati on for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership, the moral art. Albany: State University of New York Press. Howe, K. &. Berv. J. (2000). Constructi ng constructivism, epistemological and pedagogical. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 19_40).

PAGE 279

269Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Huberman, M. (1990). The social context of in struction in schools. American Educational Research Association. Huberman, M. &. Miles, M. (1984). Innovation up close. New York: Plenum. Isaacson, L. (1993, 1994). Classrooms of the 21st Century: The busy educator's guide Orlando, Fl.: Orange County Public Schools. Isaacson, L. (2001). Unstructured interviews. Primary question: What strategies do principals use to realize their vi sion? Qualitative Research; Sociology, Orange County, FL. Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Johnson, D. &. Johnson, R. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Eding, MN: Interaction Book Company. Kanter, R. M. (1989). When giants learn to dance. Simon & Schuster. Katzenmeyer, M. &. Moller, G. (1996). Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership development for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Knapp, M. (1995, June). Academic ch allenge in high pove rty classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 770-776. Knodel, J. (1995). Focus groups as a method for cross-cultural research in social gerontology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 10, 7-20. Kohn, A. (1998). What to look for in classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

PAGE 280

270Kouzes, J. M. &. Posner., B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey Bass Publishers. Krueger, R. A. (1998). Analyzing & reporting focus group results Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Krueger, R. &. Casey, M. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Lambert, L. (1995). Toward a theory of constructivist leadership. In L. Lambert (Ed.), The constructivist leader (pp. 28-51). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lambert, L., Collay, M., Dietz, M., Richert, K., & Richert, A. (1997). Who will save our schools: Teachers as constructivist leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D., Cooper J., Lambert, M., Gardner, M., & Slack, P. (1995). The constructivist leader. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lampert, M. &. Ball, L. (1999). Multiples of evidence, time, and perspective: Revising the study of teaching and le arning. In E. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Issues in education rese arch: Problems and possibilities (pp. 374-398). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

PAGE 281

271Larochelle, M., & Bednarz, N. &. Garrison., J. (1998). Constructivism and Education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lashway, L. (Http://eric.uor egon. edu/publications /digests). (1996, July). Shared Decision Making [108]. ERIC Digest. College of Education, University of Oregon (January 3, 2004). Latour, B. (1995). One more turn after th e social turn. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (p. 276). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Lave, J. & Wegner, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lee, V. (1993). The organization of e ffective secondary schools. In L. Darling_Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 171-267). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Lewin, L. &. Shoemaker, B. (1998). Great performances: Creating classroom based assessment tasks. Alexandria, Va: Associa tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lewin, P. (2000). Constructivism and paidei a. In L. P. Steffe & P. W. Thompson (Ed.), Radical Constructivism in Acti on : Building on the Pioneering Work of Ernst von Glasersfeld (pp. 37-54). New York: Routledge. Lieberman, A. (1996). Forward. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The series on school reform (pp. ix-x). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

PAGE 282

272Lieberman, A. &. Miller, L. (1990). Re structuring schools: What matters and what works. Phi Delta Kappan, 71 (10), 759-764. Liontos, L. B. (Http://ERIC.uore (1994, March). Shared Decision Making [ED368 034]. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Eugene, Oregon (January 4, 2004). Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegi ality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A so ciological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Louis, K. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lundin, S., Christensen J. & Paul, H. (2003). Fish Sticks. New York: Hyperion. Lundin, S., Christensen, J. & Paul H. (2000). Fish. New York: Hyperion. Luttrell, W. (2000, Winter). "Good enough" methods for ethnograhic research. Harvard Educational Review, 70 (4), 497-523. Malen, B., Ogawa., R.T. & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school based management: A case study of the l iterature a call fo r research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Ed.), Choice and Control in American Education, Volume 2: The Practi ce of Choice, Decentralization and School Restructuring (pp. 289-342). New York: Falmer Press. Manz, C. &. Sims, H. (2001). The new superleadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers.

PAGE 283

273Marlowe, B. A. &. Page, M. (1998). Creating and sustaini ng the constructivts classroom. Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press. Marris, P. (1975). Loss and change. New York, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Marshall, C. &. Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research; 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Tran slating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R., Pickering, D., Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association of Curriculum Development. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and pe rsonality. New York: Harper & Row. Mattessich, P. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work St. Paul, MI: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. Mattews, M. R. (2000). Appraising cons tructivism in science and mathematics education. In D.C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on c ontroversial issues (pp. 161-192). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Maxwell, J. C. (1995). Developing the leaders around you Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Maxwell, J. C. (2001). The 17 indisputable laws of teamwork Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers. McCarty, L. P., & Schwandt, T. (2000) Seductive illusions: Von glaserfeld and gergen on epistemolgy and edu cation. In D.C. Phillips (Ed.),

PAGE 284

274 Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 41-85). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. McEwan, E. (2002). 10 traits of highly effective teachers: How to hire, coach and mentor successful teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. McLaughlin, M. &. Pfeiffer R. S. (1988). Teacher evaluation: Improvement, accountability, and ef fective learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers. Moffett, C. (2000, April). Sustaining cha nge: The answers are blowing in the wind. Educational Leadership, 57 (7), 35-38. Morgan, D. A. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Muncey, D. (1993, February). Preliminary findings from a five-year study of the coalition of essential schools. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 486_489. Napier, R. W. & Gershenfeld, M. K.(1999). Groups, theory, and experience (6th edition). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Co. National Association of Elementa ry School Principals. (2002). Standards for what principals should know and be able to do. Alexandria, VA National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2001). Leading from the classroom. Accomplished Teacher Magazine [Online] (Accessed 8/20/03).National Board of Professional Standards ( Http:// ).

PAGE 285

275(2003, 21/8). Education reform/ Why America need NBCTs. National Board for Professional Standards. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Newman, D. P., Griffi n, P., Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Newmann, F. (1995, April). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. In American Education Research Association. San Francisco, CA: American Education Research Association. Nicholls, A. &. Reschke, C. (1993). Education as adventure: Lessons from the second grade San Francisco, CA: Teachers College Press. Norris, S. &. Ennis, R. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1984). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis. Portland, OR: Null, W. J. (2003, Spring). Constructivism pa st and present: Hist orical reflections on a popular idea. Florida Educational Leadership, 3 (2), 7-11. Oakes, J. (1989). Detracking schools: Early lessons from the field. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 448-454. Ohanian, S. (2001, January). News fr om the test resistance trail. Kappan, 82 (5), 363-366. Ohanian, S. (2003, June, 2003). Capitalism, calculus, and conscience. Phi Delta Kappan,84 (10), 736-747.

PAGE 286

276Osborne, R. Freybert, P. (1983). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. Owens, R. (1998, 1995). Organizational behavior in schools. Needham Heights, MA: Prentice Hall. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publications. Paty, M. (2003). Quantity at the origin of the legitimacy of matematization in physics. In C. Gould (Ed.), Constructivism and practice (pp. 26, 121-122). Boston, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Peacock, J. &. Holland, D. (1988). The narrated self: Life stories and self construction. Symposium on self-narrative presented at the American Anthropological Association. Phoenix, AZ. Perie, M. &. Baker, D.P. (1997/ ch/pubsinfo.a sp?pubid=97471, August 25). Job satisfaction among Am erica’s teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and teacher compensation. National Center for Education Statistics. Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education (January 20, 2004). Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: From training me mories to educating minds. NewYork, NY: Free Press. Perkins, D. (1999, November). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57 (3), 6-11. Perrone, V. (1991). Expanding student assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association

PAGE 287

277 for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers. Peters, T. (1994). Tom peters seminar: Crazy time s call for crazy organizations. New York: Vintage Books. Peterson, P. L. (1993). Inventing and re inventing ideas: Cons tructivist teaching and learning in mathematics. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), 1993 ASCD Yearbook (pp. 134-157). Alexandria, VA: A ssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Phillips, D. C. (1997). "How, why, what when, and where: Perspectives on constructivism in psychology and educati on. In J. S. Carlson & R. Calfee (Ed.), Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology (p. 190). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 2 4(7), 5-12. Phillips, D. C. (2000). An opinionated acc ount of the constructivist landscape. In D. C Phillips (Ed.), Ninety-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 1-16). Chicago, IL: Univ ersity of Chicago Press. Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and reasoning in the child. New York, NY: Harcourt. Plummer, K. (1996). Symbolic interactio nism in the twentieth century: The rise of empirical social theor y. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The blackwell companion to social theory (p. 224). Oxford, En gland: Blackwell. Pogrow, S. (1996, June). Reforming th e wannabe reformers: Why education

PAGE 288

278 reforms almost always end up making things worse. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (10), 656-663. Posner, G. J. (1992, 1995). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Postlethwaite, K. (1993). Differentitated science teaching. Philadelphia, PA: University Press. Prestine, N. &. McGreal, T. (1993). Benc hmarks of change: Assessing essential school restructuring efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33 (3), 371_400. Putnam, H. (1990). Realism with a human face. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Randomly selected elementary school pr incipals. (2003, April 22). Determination of common issues and concerns that a seated principal experiences (L. Isaacson, Ed.). informal setting. Reigeluth, C. (1999). Instructional design theories and models: Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Resnick, L. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. Richardson, V. (2003, January). The dile mmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 401-406. Richardson, V. &. LeFevre, D. (2000). Staff development and the facilitator. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 483-500.

PAGE 289

279Riechman, D. (2003, 9/9). [Discussion over testing, education, and educational budget] Bush puts focus on education plan. Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, FL). Riordan Karlsson, M. (2000). Constructivism. Westminster, CA: Teacher Created Materials. Rita, R. (1998). Integrated constructivism : Open ended laboratory exercises that promote student inquiry. The Science Teacher, 65, 5. Roberts, D. &. Babinski, L. (1999). Br eaking through isolation with new teacher groups. Educational Leadership, 56 (8), 42-47. Rockmore, T. (2003). Different worlds, hist ory, and progress. In C. Gould (Ed.), Constructivism and Practice (pp. 17-30). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Rosenholtz, W. (1989). Teacher's workplace: A so cial_organizational analysis New York: Longman. Saphier, J. (1985, March). Good s eeds grow in strong cultures Educational Leadership, 42, 67-73. Sarason S. B. (1996). Revisiting: The culture of the school and the problem of change New York: Teachers College Press. Saunders, W. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Impli cation and teaching strategies for science. School Science and Mathematics, 92 (3), 136-141. Savery, J. R. (1996). Problem based lear ning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design (pp.130-143).

PAGE 290

280Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational cultu re and leadership San Francisco, CA.: Jossey Bass. Scherer, M. (1999, November). The unders tanding pathway: A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 57 (3), 12-16. Schlechty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publications. Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the school house: How to support and sustain educational innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publications. Schon, D. (1971). Beyond the stable state. New York, NY: Norton. Schools examination and assessment council (London Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority). (1990). Pack C. Vol. 38: A guide to teacher assessment London: SCAA: London Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority. Sellars, W. (1991). Science, Perception and Reality Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview. Selley, N. (2000). The art of construc tivist teaching in th e primary school: A guide for students and teachers. London, England: David Fulton Publishers. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The ar t and practice of the learning organization New York, NY: Doubleday. Senge, P. M. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth disc ipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.

PAGE 291

281Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999). Rethinking leadership. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight Training and Publishing Inc. Shapiro, A. S. (2003). Case studies in constructi vist leadership and teaching. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Shapiro, A. S. (2000). Leadership for cons tructivist schools. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Shapiro, A. S. &. Benjamin.W. (1994, 14/November). Changing the Culture of a School. [Restructuring process]. In Changing the Culture of a School Southern Regional Council on Educ ational Administration. Atlanta, GA. Shapiro, A. S., Benjamin W., & Hunt, J. (1995). Curriculum and schooling: A practitioner's guide Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publications. Shelley, N. (1999, 2000). The art of constructivist te aching in the primary school. London, England: David Fulton Publishers. Shields, P. (1997, December). The promise and limits of school based reform: A national snapshot. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (4), 288-294. Shulman, L. (1989). Teaching alone, lear ning together; Needed agendas for the new reform. In T. Sergiovanni & J. Moore (Ed.), Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reforms to Issues that Count (pp. 166-187). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Shulman, L. (1999). Taki ng learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11_17. Sigel, O. &. Hooper, F. H. (1968). Logical thinking in children. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Silver, H., Strong, R., Perini, M. (2000). So each may learn: Integrating learning

PAGE 292

282 styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sirotnik, K. (1999, April). Making sense of educational renewal. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (8), 606-610. Sizer, T. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigni ng the american high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Slavin, R. (2001, January). Putting th e school back in school reform. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 22-27. Slezak, P. (2000). A critique of radical so cial constructivism. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in educational: Opinions and second opinions of controversial issues (pp. 91-126). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Smircich, L. (1983, September). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 64-94. Smith, K. K. (1989). The movement of conflict in organizations: The joint dynamics of splitting and triangulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 1-20. Smith, L. (2001, 7 February). Can schools re ally change? Charting the dimensions of substantial change efforts. E ducation Week (Bethesda, MD), XXI, 30, 32-33. Smylie, M. A. (1997). Research on teacher leadership: Assessing the state of the

PAGE 293

283 art. In B. J. Biddle (Ed.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 521-577). Netherlands: Kl uwer Academic Publishers. Snowden, P. E. (1998). School leadership and ad ministration: Important concepts, case studi es and simulations. USA: McGraw Hill. Soder, R. (1999, April). When words find their meaning. Phi Delta Kappan, 80( 8), 568-578. Soloman, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupil's understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14 63-82. Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing and the making of meaning San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks Publications: Sage Publications. Steffe, L. P. (2000). Perspectives on constr uctivism in teacher education. In L. P. &. T. Steffe, P.W. (Ed.), Radical constructivism in action:Building on the Pioneering work of ernst von glasersfeld (p. 278). London: Routledge/Falmer. Streifer, P. ( 2001, April). Data driven decisions: New ways to get answers. The School Administrator, 58 (4). Swartz, R. J. &. Perkins, D. N. (1990). Teaching thinking: Issues & approaches. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications. Taba, H. (1966). Teaching Strategies and Cognitivi e Functioning in Elementary School Children (Cooperative research proj ect). Washington, DC. San Francisco: San Francisco State Co llege: Office of Education, U.S.

PAGE 294

284 Department of Healt h, Education and Welfare. Taba, H., Durkin, M. C., Fraenkel, J. R., & McNaughton, A. H. (1971). A teacher's handbook to elementary so cial studies: An inductive approach (2nd Edition). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Tanner, L. (1997). Dewey's laboratory school: Lessons for today. New York: Teacher's College Press. Terrence, E. D. &. Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership San Francisco. CA.: Jossey Bass. Tobin, K. (2000). Constructivism in scie nce education: Moving on. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in edu cation: Opinions and second options on controversial issues (pp. 227-253). Ch icago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Troen, V. &. Boles, K. (1992). Leadership from the classroom: Women teachers as a key to school reform. In Leadership from the classroom: Women teachers as a key to school reform. American Educational Research Association. San Francisco. Trubowitz, S. (2000, October) Predictable problems in achieving large scale change. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (2), 166-168. Vaill, P. B. (1984). The purposing of high performing systems. Sergiovanni, T. J. &. Corbally, J. E. in Sergiovanni, T. J. (Ed.), Leadership and Organizational Culture. Urbana, ILL: University of Illinois Press. Villani, C. J. (1996). The interaction of l eadership and climate in four suburban schools: Limits and possibilities (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham

PAGE 295

285 University, 1996). UMI No. 9729612 Von Glasersfeld, E. (2000). Problems of constr uctivism. In L. &. T. Steffe, P. W. (Ed.), Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glasersfeld (pp. 3-9). New York: Routledge. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995) Constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructivist activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaurm. Von Glasersfeld, E. (2000). Problems of constr uctivism. In L. P. Steffe and P. W. Thomas (Ed.), Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of ernst von glasersfeld (pp. 3-10). London, England: Routledge Falmer. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press. (Originally published 1930, New Yo rk: Oxford University Press). Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Piaget's theory of cognitivie and affective d evelopment: Foundations of constructi vism, fifth edition. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers. Weinstein, P. &. Margerum-Leys, J. (1998). Untangling the web: Technology in the constructivist classroom. In B. &. P. Marlowe, M.L. (Ed.), Creating and sustaining a constructivist classroom (pp. 119-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

PAGE 296

286Weiss, C. (Http:// ations/digests). (1993, Fall). Shared Decision Making [EJ475 129]. ERIC Digest. Teachers College Record 95 (January 4, 2004). Wheatley, G. (1991). Constructivist pers pectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75 (1), 9-21. Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett_Koehler. Wiggins, G. &. McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision a nd Curriculum Development. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performan ce: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Wilson, B. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood, CA: Educational Technology Publications. Wilson, K. G. &. Daviss., B. (1994). Redesigning education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Wilson, L. C., Byar, T. M., Shapiro, A. S. & Schell, S. H. (1996). Sociology of supervisions: An approach to comprehensive planning in education.. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Wiske, M. S. (1996). Teaching for understanding: Linki ng research with practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating rese arch into classroom practice.

PAGE 297

287Alexandria, VA: Association for supe rvision and curriculum development. Wonycott-Kytle, A. &. Bogotch, I. (1997) Reculturing assumptions, beliefs, and values underlying the pr ocess of restructuring. Journal of School Leadership, 7 (1), 27-49. Wright, E. (2000). The topic of entity as it relates to ernst von glasersfeld's constructivism. In L. &. T. Steffe, P.W. (Ed.), Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering wo rk of ernst von glasersfeld (p. 17). London UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Yackel, E. &. Cobb, P. (1996). Sociom athematical norms, argumentation, and intellectual autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477. Yager, R. (1991). The construc tivist learning model, toward real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58 (6), 52-57. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods Beverly Hills, CA. Sage Publishing. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde. A. (1993, 1998). Best practices: New standards for teaching and le arning in american's schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

PAGE 298

288 Appendices

PAGE 299

289 Preface As an elementary principal and teacher fo r forty-five years, I have always been fascinated with how children learn. A case study approach provides me the opportunity to investigate, analyze, a nd practice the many intricacie s involved in creating a nontraditional school that implements a constructivist philosophy in a kindergarten through grade five elementary school, with 100 empl oyees. The journey starts with the opening of a new school and chronicles the adventures over a six-year pe riod that changed the school from teacher-centered to student-cente red environment. A constructivist model was created to reach the goal whereby constructi vist teachers lead other teachers. In this environment teachers and students develop into active, inquisitive, problem solvers. The story of Southwood Elementary School takes place in Orange County, Florida. The school system is the 14th largest school system in the nation and the 5th largest in Florida. There are 104 elementary schools that provide for 72,000 elementary students. There are five regional Learni ng Communities. Southwood Elementary is in the South Learning Community. The school opened in 1997 with 670 students. At the completion of this story, six and one-half y ears later, in 2004, there were 960 students. The District Office is known as the Educational Leadership Center. Each Learning Community provides an Area Superinte ndent and a variety of support services. The Principal-researcher’s supervis or is the Area Superintendent.

PAGE 300

290 The Southwood Story As the story of Southwood Elementary unfolds, the reader will experience a journey through trials, tribulations, joys, sorrows, adventures, and learning as the teachers, students, parents, and me, the Princi pal-researcher, grew to become the learners in a constructivist school we are today. In order to understand how the Southwood Elementary learning community evolved, it be comes necessary to know the details of the story. The Odyssey chronicles the first six ye ars as I tell a story th at unfolds through my lense, the Principal-researcher, and continues to this day. It was January 1997, when my lifelong dream came true. I was appointed to open Southwood Elementary School for 720 students. After a lifetime in education beginning in 1959, in roles ranging from teacher to superv isor to principal, I thought I could handle anything. In many ways ignorance is definitely bliss, as not knowing is sometimes better than knowing, especially if knowing a lot evolves from not knowing nearly enough. For the next six months I woul d have a new home at the district office, known as the Educational Leadership Center, to dr eam and learn from the ground up, how to create a school I was fortunate on several other levels : (1) Three other prin cipals would also open schools in the fall of 1997, with the same structural design. We were housed in adjoining cubicles and became each other’s best supporters. (For the purpose of understanding each principal’s style I will re fer to the Gregorc Personality Styles indicators that I will explain later); (2) The other principa ls and I became very special

PAGE 301

291friends. Although we had different philosophies and each of us carried, luggage designed in different ways on this journey, inside, each of us had a strong vision and belief in children that brought us together on the sa me path; (3) The Central Office staff, including our Elementary S uperintendent and Directors of Purchasing and Budget, became our support system; (4) Each of us prin cipals could bring a board a secretary and very early into the process, a Technology Sp ecialist; (5) In July I was assigned an assistant principal. In addition, an administra tive intern helped for three weeks; (6) There was the expectation that the four prototype sc hools would be technolog ically advanced. Sprint Communications became the provide r of our technology system. The stateof-the-art system would pr ovide a central hub from whic h all media was retrieved. Teachers would access videos and laser disks fr om their classroom telephones, the clocks were viewed from the classroom televisions and fire alarm systems were centrally controlled. The use of technology was unlimited. This was a school for which the parents ha d waited seven years. It was located in a single subdivision. It would be a neighborhood school, although the neighborhood encompassed several square miles. How ex cited I was the first day I drove onto the muddy field, which would be a school home within an area called the Southchase subdivision. Muddy had implications for later. Th e school was in a very low area and required an enormous amount of land fill in or der to keep it from potential flooding. This fact not only increased the cost of the school, but prolonged the start ti me significantly. I could not conceptualize what it would be like to see this state-of-the-art, prototype school. It was hard to imagine. In six months more than 700 little people, their families, and school would converge. The Principal-rese archer began losing sleep from this point

PAGE 302

292on, trying to think of all the variables that must be considered in the plan. It was a very unsettling time. A portable trailer on the property that housed the construction supervisors became familiar territory. I knew that it is a man’s wo rld in the domain of construction workers. It was imperative that the workers knew the principal of the school. In that way there were better communication, and a personal c onnection with all the builders involved in such an extensive project. I realized early on that everything we would accomplish, hinged on building positive relationships. On a weekly basis and with pastries in hand, I would invade the male world of constr uction workers to beg a crash course on How to Read a Blueprint, 101. The men seemed to look forward to their morning coffee break with fresh doughnuts and bagels. They seemed to enjoy talking about the project, while they were eating. The learning curve was enormous, but before I was through I could find every outlet, plumbing fixture and A/C unit in a series of drawings. Blueprin ts, spread all over a large table in the hallway of the Educational Leadership Center, became a familiar gathering places as all four of us principa ls hovered over pages to figure out the latest questions. “Where were the cupboards? Ho w many bathrooms were there, and where were they? Seventy-two bathrooms? Th e custodians will love that!” There were hundreds of questions. For every answer there were a hundred more questions. I became so persistent about sp ending time during the cons truction phase that I was given a personalized hard hat. The construction supervisors must have felt it was easier to accommodate my determination than fight it. I wore it proudly as I walked the slowly developing structure at the work site. Concrete slabs were poured for the cafeteria. Pipes,

PAGE 303

293and electrical outlets protrude d; walls appeared; months late r and with more construction glitches than I wanted to hear but fortunately revealed to me over my strategic boxes of doughnuts with the Guys the school began to evolve. However, back at the Educationa l Leadership Center, the flurry of activity that began the first day on the job never quit. Previous schools built in Orange County eight years earlier were of a modular design and did not hold up over time. No one knew what to expect of four new schools, with the same brick structure design, opening the same year, in four parts of the county, with new contractors a nd construction workers. An oversight company also became part of the mix. The corporate heads are referred to later. When we asked where the guidelines were, such as lists of what to order, procedures, or people to contact, the answer was clear. “We assigned you to create a prototype school. Do it! Pretend you are bui lding a home.” With th at, the four of us returned to our adjoining cubicles and co llected our thoughts. Never had I felt more overwhelmed. Where do we begin? I’ve been through the building of my house. I’ve been through a major school renovation project. But I’ve never built a house for 800 people, with 200 more students expected at any time. Ever y organizational and problem so lving skill I could muster from my own experiences, combined with logic and common horse sense was put to the ultimate test. I later realized this requir ed constructivist thinking beyond my wildest imagination. The following description of each of the pe rsonalities and tasks assigned to create four prototype schools speaks directly to what happens in a constructivist environment.

PAGE 304

294The people and their newly formed experien ces could not succeed unless they utilized a constructivist approach to thinking, doing, a nd understanding. We had to take our previous experiences and understandings, comb ine them with the information given and create new conclusions through problem solvi ng, social interactions, and the construction of new meanings. Very quickly we put our insecurities asid e and went to work. The value of diverse personalities, driven by a common missi on, became obvious. Automatically, the secretaries got together and created th eir own accountability systems for ordering, keeping track of the budget and hiring pe rsonnel. They each took their individual strengths and collectively created and devised ways to keep track of the multitude of details. The secretary was selected because of her calm and met hodical personality. She kept a running record, and a daily schedule of everything we did during the next seven months. She organized volumes of documents, and kept all records highly organized. Her Concrete Sequential personality has served us well to this day. Each of the four secretaries demonstrated high levels of competency and strengths based upon their individual personality types. They supported each other an d made an impressive team. The Technology Specialist came aboard w ithin three months. She, too, had to create the most logical approach to de velop state-of-the-art technology from her background of experiences, then adapt it to an elementary school. There were no models from which to develop a plan. She set a bout learning all she c ould, applied logic, imagined what would become possible, and set about to make it work. She had never worked in an elementary school before, but could solve problems, generalizes her past experiences, adapts to the present circumst ances, and make the solutions work for an

PAGE 305

295entire school. She has the abil ity to see a task and create an impressive product. Her Concrete Sequential personality fit perfectly. Creating stat e-of-the-art technology was a complex process. Until this time, advanced technology had not been part of elementary schools. She continues to amaze me with he r ability to generalize her technology skills into the world of elementa ry education and demonstrat e constructivist thinking. The strengths of each of the principals ju mped out as we volunteered to take the lead in our own areas of inte rest, each person with different tasks, keeping the end in sight. Each of the four principals had four ve ry distinct personalities. I would take on the curriculum and the media center books, determining what we needed, where we could get it, and explain why we would we want it. I would meet with the curriculum people at the county level for suggestions. I also spent num erous hours with curriculum vendors. Sales people spent days with me as they tried to figure out how they could match my vision of an integrated, hands-on, inter active curriculum with traditional materials that dominated the market at that time. It was new to the vendors that schools, Southwood in particular, would purchase all instructional materials th at were based upon the State Standards yet thematically developed. Af ter hours, and sometimes days of conversation they would say, “It sure would be easier if you stuck to one book for each student in each subject.” I wouldn’t budge, they wanted the business, so they figured out ways to support the organizational and instructional belief. The vendors learning curve were extremely steep. Ultimately, they managed to coordinate materials they never created before. A variety of literature titles we re organized by thematic units in order to create a wide variety of opportunities for students and teacher s to read a wide range of genre around a central theme. Litera ture surrounded every theme, for ev ery grade level, on a variety of

PAGE 306

296reading levels. The challenge of organizing such vast quantities of materials was mind boggling. As a classroom teacher for many years, I remembered the difficulty I had been getting what I needed when I needed it. I wanted to maximize every possible minute for teachers to use teaching and planning, not scrounging fo r materials. I had to create a system. I envisioned a plan that would organize scie nce, social studies books, and materials in thematic units, coordinated together into pl astic tubs. Math mani pulatives would support a new math program designed for explorator y and investigative understanding of math. They too would also need plastic containers –enough for every child to have one set of whatever the teacher needed. Math manipulativ es were organized for each teacher within individual plastic tubs: fracti on parts in one tub–third grade; fraction squares in another tub–first grade; wooden geometric shapes–kinde rgarten. This was a perfect focus for me since I have a passion for curriculum and an Abstract Sequential personality. I kept thinking constructively. Another principal focused on the details for writing the school handbook, following the procedural issues from the county. She reminded us that creating school songs should be part of the hiring of the music teacher and directed us to get our logos to the graphics department so that stationery could be printed immediately. She and her secretary developed a system to sort and organize resumes. The rest of us followed her lead in getting resumes reviewed, the inte rviewing process started, and a system for keeping track of the candidates. She exhibi ted the behaviors of a Concrete Sequential leader. A third principal concentrated on th e furnishings for the schools. She

PAGE 307

297investigated what we would need, how mu ch, but most important to her–how the furnishings should look. She made us all cons cious of the need to make our offices, entry ways, and foyers look professional. She saw to it that the colors were coordinated. It was her Abstract Random pers onality that provided the look that would set a positive image at the schools. Our Concrete Random co lleague had the ability to look at each of the complicated issues and unfamiliar problems a nd pull us all together to figure out what to do. She would take the time to find other people to help us out. She would call on heads of construction, budget, purchasing, a nd technology to set up meetings for us and get difficult questions answered. We spent days talking an d thinking in a constructivis t fashion regarding how we would guide our schools, what would we want our perfect school to look like, and act like. We discussed how we could best serve our communities and our students. Each in our own way would develop a vision. We knew that our schools would serve very different student populations; our socioec onomic and cultural backgrounds ranged from one end of the continuum to the other. Ou r school would be the middle to lower-middle in an economic class, and we would have mo re cultural diversity than the other three schools. Our parents were then contacted. Letters and meetings were held in each of the communities to begin developing a mission ba sed upon the parent’s expectations. Our collective parents all wanted basically the sa me things for their children. They wanted their school to: create high academic standards; deve lop a love of learning; establish a place where their children would succeed; keep their children safe; develop a desire for their children to work effectively in a cu lturally, and economically diverse environment;

PAGE 308

298and provide a place where the children would become good citizens. There were many days spent planning, lis tening to more vendors, negotiating with the purchasing department, and pleading with budget, to convince everyone involved of the necessity for the hundreds of pieces of fu rniture and equipment we needed for the office, media center, the cafet eria, art, music, physical education, and classrooms. Additional time and the same processes were needed to determine color scheme, carpets, tile, cabinets, and counter tops. Curriculum materials and supplies were a high priority. Media Center equipment and supplies, books at all levels and topics, ha d to be ordered. As elementary schools we were unable to hire a Media Sp ecialist right away so it was up to the principals, a task I took, to select the first group of books that w ould become a starting po int for our students and make up the core selection for the Medi a Center. I developed a new found respect for the time-consuming task for a Media Specialis t. Time was a huge factor. We needed everything ready before school started. Southwood Elementary school would be a literature-based progressive school for lack of another way to describe it at that time. Our reading, writing, math, science, and social studies would be taught using a con cept-based integrated curriculum design and a constructivist philosophy. The integration of subject areas when possible, was the expectation. I continued to state my belief, “All students should be taught as if they are gifted.” Parent meetings were held to convince th e parents that a classroom-based model for serving the needs of the gifted would serve th eir bright children more effectively. Pull out programs, which require students to leave the classroom for one day a week to attend

PAGE 309

299their gifted class, was the existing model at all other schools. Eventually, albeit somewhat hesitantly, the parents agreed to let their child ren remain in their classrooms. Our selling point was that if all children are receiving the instruction that th ey would receive in a classroom for the gifted, then whether a child was labeled gifted or not, they would have all of the same up-leveled learning experiences Each of our schools took a different path in terms of instructional philo sophies. My colleagues were much more comfortable with a traditional approach. They wanted a book for each subject for each child. The enormous task of hiring an entire staff of 90 people, at one time proved formidable. Once the requests for applicants were advertised, the resumes came flooding into the office. One problem, four schools were all vying for the same teachers. We knew our philosophy, now to find the teachers to fit it. I knew from the beginning that experienced teachers would come from the area around the school. But the majority of our teachers would be new. I was very ex cited about the backgr ounds of the teachers, because they came from all over the country, mostly the east coast. However, their cognitive knowledge came from their univers ity experiences, the application level for teaching came from their supervising teacher s, and often there was a disconnect. Until this time I had not realized the impact that a supervising teacher has on an intern. It was necessary to ask first year teachers to expl ain both teaching philosophies, theirs and the experience from their student teaching. I fo cused on those who had the motivation and potential to learn. We would train them. Because of some hiring re strictions, we were unable to fill many of our key positions right away, so that issue required some scrambling for key positions, as the time became tighter and tighter. However, the dist rict assigned me an assistant principal who

PAGE 310

300had expertise in the excepti onal education department, a nd an administrative intern helped out for a short time. A key position is that of the Curriculum Resource Teacher, known as a CRT. I interviewed many candidates. None of th em had the experience or philosophical understanding that I needed to help me. I wa s beginning to give up when I found a perfect fit. She was experienced, philosophically in t une, bright, energetic, a nd filled with great ideas on how to work with staff. She had expe rience in the position. It was she who kept saying, “a school community is about building relationships.” I had no idea at the time how true that statement was. We both had root s in the Pacific Northwest, so our training, background and educational experien ces were similar. I was so grateful for her ability to jump right in. We knew the value of hiring new teachers but it does come with a commitment to train on the job. We believed that we c ould do it. This belief is not without its challenges. When brand new teachers enter the school, they come to the table with only one reading course, two at the most, with one of the courses usually Children’s Literature. A beginning teacher’s internship experience is based on whatever philosophy and strategies that the superv ising teacher demonstrated. It is all the beginning teachers know. One teaching of math class, no teach ing of spelling classes, hopefully, one teaching of writing class and usually the begi nning teacher developed one integrated unit of study. (This is the unit that is proudly di splayed in the teacher’s interview portfolio usually through photos of student doing things, but I have never heard a teacher describe any in-depth learning as part of the process). As a result, beginning teacher s need to enter a culture that is fairly autocratic.

PAGE 311

301“This is the way we do business here,” implies a different set of expectations than, “how should we do business here?” What is the diffe rence, and why did the difference create a problem? An autocratic culture for the beginning teacher defines fairly specific boundaries regarding curriculum, instruction and assessment. Guidance must be constant and regimented because beginning teacher s must develop a solid background of experiences and understanding so they can build on that knowledge. Whatever philosophy of instruction that the culture of the school defines, must be clearly articulated, demonstrated, nurtured, and suppor ted constantly for the beginning teacher. The hiring continued. Hundreds of resume s were sorted and identified. There were frustrations. I would find a teacher that I think would fit, receive a verbal commitment, only to have them change their mind and go with one of the other schools. Risk-taking teachers were more willing to “get excited” over the prospect of working in a literature-based school, those from a more traditional background, wanted a textbook and scripted instructions for each subject. It worked both ways, and all of us principals recognized it as a fact of life, irritating as it was. I continued the j uggling act of trying to keep all the balls in the air: constructi on, budget, personnel, curriculum, parent and teacher communication, policies, you name it. As each group of 10 staff members I hire d, came every month to a party at my home. I did this so we could start building a family unit. I felt that each person new to the group would become more comfortable if we would meet and visit informally. The first time we got together I had a buffet lunch for 10, the next time was an ice cream social for 20. We met two more times until the numbers outgrew my house and time ran out. But this was the first message to the staff. We are family

PAGE 312

302 Every time I would visit the construction site I was also coun ting the days before the teachers came. I would ask the same question. “Will we be ready when school starts?” The answer, “We’re getting there. ” I have a pet saying, “Never worry about something until you have to.” I was getting worried. School was getting closer to the date the teachers came. We could hire teachers for an additional week before the rest of the county teachers. The benchmark--how fa r along is the construction in each of the other schools? We all planned to occupy our schools for several weeks before the teachers came in order to get furnishings in and the teachers feeling secure in their new school. Our school was not even close to bei ng ready by July. The reason? The school site was on such a low level, more soil was required and it took more time to prepare the land than was expected, or necessary at the ot her sites. Electrical companies were going bankrupt or leaving town. A common problem because of a very low unemployment rate and low-bid subcontracting, causi ng serious delays. Contract ors started working out of sequence. So, one group would complete their part of the job only to have the next group come, who needed access to the area that was just completed. There were more delays. Suddenly I was hearing conversation among the upper level administrators, including our new superintendent of one m onth, centered around what they planned to do with us. Each of the other schools, although running a tight opening schedule would be opening before school started. I was not included in the discussions about the options. Construction was six weeks behind schedule. There were some stated options. We could start school in portable classrooms on another school’s campus until the school was ready. I could only imagine what a nightmare that would have been! Fortunately, our

PAGE 313

303newly hired superintendent said that we would be in the school even though it was behind in construction. He made it clear when he said, “Opening Southwood for the first day of school is the only option, anyt hing else in unacceptable!” In the meantime, our supplies, equipm ent, furnishings, and materials were arriving at the warehouse where they would re main until we could move them to the school. I planned to accomplish organizing, and getting settled into the school weeks before school started. Howeve r, we had no school yet, so with a lot of persuasion I was able to get permission for us to go to the warehouse and begin sorting books, organizing thematic units, and finding materials. By this time the Media Specialist joined the team. The Technology Specialist, Assistant Principal, Administrative Intern and I converged on the warehouse that stores all materials, supplies and equipment for the entire Orange County School System, all 156 schools. We found a corner, gathered our stor age boxes, set up a table and began the process of sorting, organizing and creating our thematic units At the same time our Technology Specialist began working to show our new Media Specialist a plan for keeping track of the inventory on a data ba se. This was a brand-new concept to our recent graduate with a media degree. This wa s not going to be a sterile library with an entire book coding system based only on De wey Decimal categories and methodically developed card catalogues. Nor was it th e quiet, organized, cl ean and air-conditioned House of Study that was her university experience. This was the real world of adaptation a nd flexibility. We were in a warehouse in Orlando, Florida, in the mi ddle of summer, with 95% temperatures, and no air conditioning, categorizing books by themes. I stood with the county core curriculum

PAGE 314

304guides, identified potential themes, and or ganized the materials and books that would occupy thematic-labeled “boxes.” We were th ere for several days, doing what we could to get things together. The Technology Speci alist was developing a data base system on the spot, using her background of experiences in a constructivist mode to create the known from the unknown. The Media Specialist was unprepared for such an experience. Chaos and creativity were not part of the curriculum. I could see she was overwhelmed, but she kept trying to understand how to adapt to this unfamiliar terrain. Then, one day a lovely lady stopped by my cubicle and introduced herself. She was my new Assistant Principal. I was delighted. An experienced member of the Special Services Department, she was knowledgeable and organized. She would set about the task of identifying the students who would attend the school and sort out the special needs and gifted students who were arrivi ng from other schools and rezoned to our school. She and the intern would iden tify class placements for the students. Then, one week before we met with teachers, one kindergarten teacher casually announced she’d decided not to take the positio n. Last minute hires are always so risky. The choices were minimal. I could hire a su bstitute to begin the year, however, with kindergarten children that is not an option. I could increase the class sizes and spread the children out among the other teachers. No, that would mean too many children in each class. I guess that means that I have to hi re someone I am very uncertain about. But, with one day left until preplanning and sc hool two weeks away, I felt I had no choice. Almost every time that I hire someone at the last minute or sometime during the year, there is a potential problem. Good teacher s were hired quickly, but poor teachers are not. This kindergarten teacher was horri d. Yet, she was a veteran of 29 years’

PAGE 315

305experiences. After an entir e year, and hours of documentation, she was hired by another school the following year. (The receiving principal, also de sperate, didn’t take time to call and ask about my recommendation–She, t oo, began the documentation process for her dismissal. I was not surprised). Time was growing closer and the cont ractors and Central Office staff became more and more frustrated over the constructi on delays. Once again we had to adapt. Instead of our teachers meeting at the school for the traditional preplanning days before school started, we would meet at the Central Office for our preplanning days. The Management Team and I were happy th at we could meet somewhere. Year one We were actually quite optimistic. We thought that our time together would be much more productive away from the school sinc e teachers would not be worrying about getting into their classrooms. We had a cap tive audience and provided hours of carefully and methodically planned educational experien ces. We worked for days getting the preparations together for the opportunity to share the wonderful experiences they were about to receive at Southwood. We knew we would prepare them well in the next five days. There was only one small flaw in our design. We didn’t factor in our target audience of new teachers, 35 out of 42. Most of them made multiple major changes in

PAGE 316

306their lives very quickly. Most just graduated, found a job, many of them were recently married, adjusting to a “married life,” move d to a new town, found an apartment, their spouse was dealing with new job anxiety, and teachers were handling mountains of paper work to become qualified to teach. The best training in the world that we provided fell on deaf ears when each of them was dealing at the lowest level of Mallo w hierarchy. They were on survival mode. We then bombard them with all of our fabulous educational expertise, in areas that many of them had never experienced before, either in college or during their internship. We were talking integration of curriculum and classroom-based models for serving gifted students. At the same time they were thi nking, “When will they turn on my telephone? When will we get paid? How much will my first paycheck be? They don’t start my insurance until when?” The more experienced teachers knew enough about what we were talking about to absorb most of what were saying, but smar t enough to know that school wasn’t ready yet and we were in a very difficult situation. They were thinking, not so much about the information, but about logistics. “When will I get in my room? What will my bulletin board look like? How many desks or tables will I have, and how will I arrange them? How many students will I have?” The point is at that time I should have recognized that when everyone is on the lowest level on the hierarchy of needs it’s almost impossible to make leaps forward. We revisited each id ea and best practice strategy later when everyone was in a more receptive frame of mind. The moment of reckoning was near. Woul d we or would we not be able to start school on the first day? Fi nally, one week before school began, during preplanning, the

PAGE 317

307answer was, “Yes and No.” I could allow the teachers to come to school on Sunday, no earlier than 10:00 a.m. and stay no later than 6:00 p.m. They could bring only what they could take into their classrooms in one lo ad, because there would be pallets of boxes being hauled around and construction crews working outside. We ordered that the teachers could bring only four things: (1) a significant other person or persons to help them, (2) an allen wrench, (3) a hammer, (4 ) only the number of boxes they could carry in one trip. They would be put ting together their own desks, chairs and tables. All staff, except the Management Team had to leave the school by 6:00 p.m. Yes, school would start the next day, on Monday morn ing, and no, it would not be ready. I tried to calm down the deer in the headlights looks of the teachers by saying, “Children will come to this beautiful new sc hool to see their brand-new teacher. They will be so excited. What do we need more than anything? We need a teacher who will smile and make the children feel wanted. Do they really need a desk? Do they really have to have a book in their hands on the fi rst day of school? Hopefully. But what if they don’t? We have paper. We have pencil s. We have chart paper. Will they still go home the first day believing that they love th eir new school and that they have a teacher who loves them? Of course! You can accomplis h that without a desk or a book on the first day of school.” Teachers didn’t whine, although first year teachers maintained their frantic look when it was first mentioned. Then I knew I selected good people when I watched them begin thinking. Quickly, brainstorming happe ned. “Well, we can sit on the floor and figure out with the students what they want the room to look like.” “Yes!” What a wonderful way to build a constructivist environm ent. The students could all create their

PAGE 318

308classroom from scratch. Then it is theirs. It isn’t the teacher’s versi on of what they want. It is really theirs. Instea d of elaborate bulletin boards that new teachers had so proudly displayed in their interview portfolios, a sign reads: “Student work will be displayed here.” How perfect this is. This wasn’t the teacher’s version of what a great bulletin board would look like with the perfectly pa inted commercially designed decorations, perfectly lettered and perfectly mounted. Inst ead, it will be real children’s authentic work, straight from their hands and displayed for all to see. Children will decide what they want on their bulletin boards. It w ill become theirs. This was the way to begin building a constructivist school. As Principal, I continued to go to the construction site every day, following the progress and making hundreds of mental notes about how to orchestrate the confusion that I knew was coming. Meanwhile, the Ma nagement Team of two, the Assistant and Intern were working fast and furiously to keep things organized in spite of the situation. Letters were sent home telling parents of the starting time for school, nothing more. Maps were placed on each room’s door listing the room number and exactly how many desks, chairs, teacher’s desks, teacher’s chairs, fi ling cabinets, and tables should go into the room. Beginning on the Friday before school started, the warehouse employees and I, under the watchful eye and serious command of a take charge ex-military chief, who is the director of the warehouse staff, gave me my marching orders. Arrive at 0400, floodlights will shine, put your hard hat on, we ar working shoes and gloves, semi trailer will be parked, ready to unload. Coffee at 0410. Start time 0420. From that moment, working 18 hour da ys, hauling and unloading pallets of

PAGE 319

309furniture first, materials late r, the task of putting a school together began. The priorities were clear. Put students in de sks first. Everything else wi ll come as fast as possible. Seven hundred forty-five desks and chairs, then ca feteria tables were si tuated first. Filing cabinets, refrigerators and tables came next We would leave around midnight and return again at the scheduled 0400 hours, Friday, Saturday, then Sunday. Electricians were running wires, the sod was going in, the last of the parking lot was being finished. We knew the building that housed our kindergarte n and first grade classrooms would not be ready. The ceilings still need ed installation. Cardboard was taken from the furnishings immediately, flattened and hauled to the dum pster. A cardboard cutter became my best friend. There was more cardboard than we ha d dumpsters to hold them. So, as soon as we unloaded the semi-trailers of furniture, we loaded them back up again with cardboard. I looked like Rosie the Riveter from World War II fame. On Sunday, at the magical hour of 10:00 a.m. the floodgates opened and the pace picked up to even faster as the teachers a nd their helpers arrived. The school looked like an unearthed giant ant hill where human scurrying was raised to new and renewed heights. Jogging became the movement of choice as materials began arriving. Vendors began hauling in supplies and materials. We took advantage of any human who stepped on the grounds. Corporate people who were use to walking around looking ever so official, with blueprints in their hands, supervising the construction, we re recruited to become part of the elementary school world. They soon learned what math mani pulatives looked like. They began counting them out into respective containers for each classroom, commenting to each other as they went. “Aren’t these cute? Don’ t you wish they had these when we were in school? What

PAGE 320

310do you think they call these?” I can only imag ine the stories they told at corporate headquarters. That job was just the begi nning for them. If they only knew what still awaited them. Maintenance volunteers ar rived and began assembling kindergarten furniture, play kitchens, sand and water tabl es, easels, and tables Friends, parent volunteers, husbands, anyone we could recruit, turned a potential Medi a Center into one large warehouse. Teachers arrived and followed their marc hing orders. Everyone stayed in the classroom. There were boyfri ends, girlfriends, husbands, gr andparents, moms and dads, teenagers, and volunteer parents, working furi ously to put as much together as possible for the teachers. Teachers quickly learned the art of manipulating an Allen wrench. The Management Team worked in every area. The office staff’s primary focus was to organize lists of children, so the parents a nd students would know their assigned teacher and classroom. Phones weren’t working, so that helped. I continued to cut, haul, organize and pray. As pallets of materials were hauled into the Media Center, I would examine the contents and direct the handler to a corner of the room wh ere the boxes were taken by a designated person that would unpack, count if necessary, and assemble when needed. I would then check off the items from the packing list, and assign each item to the designated room. The Drill Sergeant-Ware house-Director created a monster in me, except instead of barking orders, I pointe d a lot, and wrote room numbers on items whizzing by me on the way out the door. The Superintendent came by and was generally ignored because we were all racing around. He would make su re that we would have studen ts in the door. I noticed

PAGE 321

311several whispered sessions between the Supe rintendent and the leaders of the project going on in the courtyard. This led me to know that the school w ould open as scheduled, ready or not. By 4:00 p.m. Sunday, Corporate staff me mbers, business coats flung over chairs, ties unknotted and sleeves rolled up, began hauli ng chairs from the trailers to classrooms. Eleven hundred chairs were carried to thei r new homes over the heads of the Corporate men who had to get into the trenches. The school was definitely not ready. Th e books would not be shelved in the media center for the first day. The computers would stay in the warehouse until later. Parents were told that traffic patter ns would be temporary. We knew that on the first day it would be bedlam because there was no time to hold the traditional “Meet your teacher.” Some things would not become available on day one. Computers a nd computer tables, media center books, some office furniture, boxes of materials and supplies, would remain stored in the warehouse until later. Cooking ut ensils, pots, pans or cooking supplies of any kind were ordered too late to start school. They were not here. I kept praying, “Please God, don’t let a nyone find out what I have forgotten to do.” As in the movie The Field of Dreams “We built it, and they came.” All 731 students and their parents in pr e kindergarten through grade fi ve arrived at the scheduled time. Just as predicted our students and pare nts would never know all that went on to get to this point. Parents did not see us working 20 hours on Sunday, nor the last of the sod being laid 30 minutes before the student s came Monday morning. They didn’t even acknowledge my droopy eyes from eight hours sleep in four days. It’s amazing what

PAGE 322

312layers of make-up and hair spray will camouflage. The Management Team and office staff didn’t blink. They were at school before the crack of dawn ready to go back to work. One hint to parents that we weren’t quite ready came in the form of semi-truck trailers that were still parked at the front and sides of the building where parents and buses would eventually drop off and pick up th eir children. That first day we let people park any place they wanted. We had no time to develop a traffic plan. Parking became very creative. The Assistant Principal, CRT, Guidan ce Counselor, Technology Specialist, and office staff joined me before the crack of da wn. We all stood at the front of the school greeting everyone answering questions and di recting children and parents to the new classroom. We stood outside gr eeted everyone with smiles, answered questions and directed children and parents. Imagine how a beginning teacher would feel under these unusual circumstances. They were overwhelmed. Regardless how we ll trained a teacher is, they would have a hard time adjusting to this situation. They ha d been so busy taking care of their personal and basic needs, they didn’t have time to think about such thi ngs as--school would actually start, and children would actually ar rive. Suddenly I was hearing, “What do I do on the first day of school?” “I won’t have a textbook fo r every subject?” “What, no workbooks?” “What will I do?” I kept thinki ng, “Let me see, didn’t we cover all that during preplanning? Oh, You weren’t listen ing. Amazing!” The Curriculum Resource Teacher and I had our work cut out for us. In spite of all, the first day came. Teachers looked professional, dressed perfec tly, and acted as if this was a natural

PAGE 323

313first day of school for them. All of them deserved awards for Best Actors Under Pressure They did not let anyone know that their hands were stiff from assembling furniture and their backs ached from lifting de sks 12 hours earlier. In addition, they had to pull from every fabric of their creative bei ng to figure out what to do on that first day. As expected the children left knowing they we re in the best possibl e care, with the best teacher in the world. Parents didn’t fuss a bout the congested traffic. We met our goal: Each child had a classroom and a teacher. The same number of ch ildren who arrived in the morning ended up with someone at the end of the day. I knew that if stray children ended up in the wrong place, eventually, everyone would get sorted out. (Just kidding!) Of course, our greatest fear is that on the first day of school we’ll lose a child. We didn’t, what a miracle! Our first staff meeting, at the end of th e first day, was held with people sitting on the floor. They were even laughing at how th ey “rose to the occasion” and pulled off a great day for the children. They all had that “we made it” look. As I stood before the group, I could not have been more proud. We celebrated the day and agreed upon adjustments for the next day. Groups pla nned their instruction and provided quality curriculum, without a basal text. This was an opportunity to show staff what constructivist thinking looked like. The teacher s agreed that everything they thought they had to get ready for the students were be st when the students created their own classroom. This was a great demonstra tion of a child-cente red constructivist environment. I wished we could keep that belief in place. We had a long journey ahead of us. Workmen continued scrambling around us before and after school. They were

PAGE 324

314not allowed to continue with any disruptions to the school until the school let out for the day. They would continue to work around th e clock for the next several weeks. As a result the fire alarms that would “wak e the dead” with a hi gh pitched, screeching, pulsating, loud noise would go off continuously for weeks. There was no doubt that we met the required number of fire drills that first year. Consistently during the first few years, both my secretary and I were called out in the middle of the night to respond to a false alarm. We would be wakened, usually around two or three a.m. with the infamous, “We have an alarm going off at Southwood and we need someone to respond.” On several occasions I stayed at the school af ter responding to the alarm and my day would begin at 3:00 a.m. Materials and supplies eventually found their way to our school and into the classrooms. Most nights and every weeke nd I would work at school. I held the wonderful books that were purchased, in order fo r teachers to have the rich literature that would surround the thematic units of instruc tion, that teachers and I would later design. I would methodically count and inventory the boo ks, matching them carefully to the core curriculum from the county and thematic units The wonderful books and stories in science and social studies were meticulously la beled and placed in pl astic containers. I wanted to help teachers have greater accessibility to the idea of thematic units as soon as possible. I loved opening boxes; box opening and feeling books became my passion. The slick surface and beautiful pictures on child ren’s books are inspiring. Seven years later, I still cannot pass a box, without se eing what is in it. When b oxes arrive, I still look for books. It’s a known fact that no box passes by th e office until I open it. Then, I start

PAGE 325

315digging, followed by the usual, “Look at these books, aren’t they beautiful? Won’t the children and teachers just love them?” Through the challenges we developed a well-oiled machine. Our Management Team comprising the secretary, guidance counselor, curriculum resource teacher, technology specialist and I managed to get th ings done. We accomplished what seemed at times, the impossible. No one person coul d possibly have done wh at we were able to do collectively. We drew on each other’s strengths, we saw each other through frustrations, we solved problems, thought “outside-the-box,” and created school policy based upon common sense. My 60 hour week s would become 80-90 hour weeks in the months to follow. We only created a buildi ng. We were just begi nning the real job. As the challenge of the first weeks settled into a routine, ou r Curriculum Resource Teacher began gathering together additional curriculum needs for the teachers. Now our real job hit us in the face. It appeared that the amount of time and information given to the staff during those ten days of pre-planning, had evaporated. After all, we had “given them” information, they had not processed it, and they certainly coul d not transfer what they heard to their instruction. Just think of the assumptions I ma de. (1) If, during an interview a teacher articulately expresses a philos ophy that I wanted to hear, th ey could put that philosophy into practice. (2) When a poten tial teacher receives a percei ved “quality education” from a progressive and reputable university, received good grades and participated in a meaningful internship, they have the foundational skills to hit the ground running (3) If a teacher displays enthusiasm, articulates we ll, projects intelligence, looks professional, and appears personable, that image will contin ue regardless of their developmental level.

PAGE 326

316(4) If a teacher displays confidence in approaching cu rriculum, instruction, and assessment in a progressive, non-traditiona l environment, great teaching will happen. What a myth! Only a few of the entire staff of 52, could adapt to a different culture quickly. All too soon, the vision of problem solving, higher order, critical and constructivist thinking was fading and I saw numerous examples of teachers reverting back to a traditional instructional style. More black line copies were made. It seemed that in the hectic pace of getting settled, teachers began reverti ng to what and how they were the most comfortable teaching, had been taught, or w ould keep the students under most control. Remember, we did not have one book for each s ubject, complete with a detailed teacher’s manual on what to do and when to do it. E ach person responded to the challenge in different ways. For example, I had three key positions with people totally unprepared for the unusual situation that came before them. Th e Media Specialist was now walking around with no purpose. She did not know how to remain flexible. She was trained to organize books according to the Dewey Decimal System. Our Media Center was still the school warehouse. She spent most of this hectic time in her office arranging file folders and staring at her computer. The Food Service Manager went into her mode of operation under pressure. We found out that the equipment she needed to c ook with would not arrive for three more weeks. She started raising her voice and maki ng decisions about how she would feed the children that made no sense. I reverted to calling the County Office and getting the Director of Food Service to come out and calm our person down, and arrive at some

PAGE 327

317logical options. Naturally, th e solution was to order only finger food, and plan on sack lunches for the children whose parents could not provide lunches fo r the first few weeks for their children. Eventually, the equipment arrived. We assumed we could get back on the food track. However, our school Food Mana ger could not organize under pressure. I keep thinking, “What questions should I ha ve asked during the interview that would provide me with better insight before I accep ted the recommendation of her supervisor?” During the year, many of us from the Management Team handed out food as the lines backed up. The Manager would bring in he r disabled mother to help out. At the time it was very serious, but looking back, it was a hysterically funny sight. Although our Technology Specialist still won’t forget, her clothes covered with spaghetti sauce during more than one such occasion. I will take the lib erty of inserting a story at this point to demonstrate the importance of organization, common sense, and problem solving skills needed in order to work through unusual challenges. Our Food Service Manager was notorious for her inability to calculate the proper amount of food that would be needed. She wa s always running out of food, and the last teacher on the lunch schedule and her class was consistently underfed. The Manager could not figure out how to fix the problem One day, once again running out of food, (hotdogs to be precise) one of the teachers walked by with her lunch. Realizing she miscalculated again, for the same group of students, the Food Manager ran up to the teacher, grabbed the hotdog off her plate, with her bare hands and handed it to one of the children. The teacher stood wide-eyed while the Manager said, “Well, I have to feed the children.” Naturally, the teacher was given no alternative menu and had no lunch that day. Of course, the Food Manager was dismisse d as soon as it was possible, but it took

PAGE 328

318the entire year to compile enough acceptabl e documentation to tran sfer her to a less skilled position somewhere else. Teachers met the challenge in a variety of ways. More experienced teachers were confused that our content materials and supp lies didn’t give them the scripted teacher’s manuals they were so used to. Truly, during th e interview process the teachers told me all the answers I would want to hear. Yes, they ag reed that every child should be treated as gifted. Yes, they taught using higher order and critical thinking. They always worked with small groups of students and instructed according to each child’s needs. But when reality hit, they wanted the security of single books for each student and workbooks or worksheets to keep students working, with penc il and paper for assessments so they could work with the required small groups. In th e teacher’s defense, they were extremely conscientious and were fearful that if they did not have a book in each child’s hands for each subject and a scripted teacher’s manual they would not teach something important. They too continued to operate under the old assumptions that if the information was contained between the pages of a content ar ea book that was what the students needed and that was all they needed to learn. If they did not have a workbook or worksheet, they would not assess students corre ctly worse yet, they could not keep them quiet. There were no County Level curriculum guidelines de tailed enough to do more than create a starting point for inst ruction. The more difficult pare nts expected instruction and homework to look like their own experiences. The Curriculum Resource Teacher and I knew we could not lose sight of our vision, in spite of the extreme learning curve we experienced from the teachers and some parents. We felt we had no choice but to ad mit that we should hit every curriculum area

PAGE 329

319head on, yet that was unrealistic given the experience level of th e staff. The alternative was to spread out curriculum, assessment, a nd instruction in each of the content areas over the next few years. Then, another real ity hit. Teachers would teach the way they assess. If we were to revert to the traditional reporting sy stem, teachers would revert to the traditional teaching procedures of inst ruction that were fact-based and assessed through worksheets and letter grades. Teachers soon realized that a traditiona l letter grade for every subject was not realistic. They were quick to point out that when integrating the curriculum, it is very difficult to separate one subjec t area assessment from the othe r. For example, reading, writing, math, art, and social studies are comb ined when teaching the concept of Change when teaching about Egypt, during the study of Ancient Civilizations. How would a teacher divide the assessments? It was much more clear to the parent s if we identified the skills necessary in every subj ect area and determine if the child reached mastery, developed the skill, or is just learning. We knew that whatever we did, whatever traditions we wanted to establish, would set precedence. It was then that the CRT and I agreed that we could not use a traditional letter grade report card. We were willing to go way out on a limb. The County does not require the same report card for every school. However, the accountability must be there. The CRT did a very courageous thing. About the first month into the new year, she developed a committee and created the unima ginable. She was able to develop a nongraded report card that through her ability to convince the community of the merits of eliminating letter grades, met the approval of the staff and parents. We agreed that if it was ever going to happen, it would have to be right away, or we would be backtracking

PAGE 330

320with our parents for years. The report cards were ready for the first marking period. I had seen the public relations disaster created for some of my colleagues when they tried a non-graded reporting system, but th ey had a long history within the school, we did not. Once in place our new report card would become standard for the parents. The teachers agreed, received training on pare nt conferences, and the first report card was given to parents during the first marking pe riod. This amazing fete was accomplished in eight weeks. There were several advantages of our ma rking system. Each grade level receives its own report card. In that way the skills, concepts, and topi cs that teachers instruct, are broken down so that parents see the progress th eir children are making in specific tasks or concepts. They know their ch ildren are either progressing or mastered the skill or concept, in each area of study. An additiona l area, and I believe most powerful section, refers to a listing of the Characteristics of a Successful Learner. Each parent and child knows exactly the characteristic that either is a strength (mastery) or needs improving. The statement of expectation explains the unde rlying reason the child is successful as a learner, or it is an area that ge ts in the way of the student’s prog ress. It is that part of the reporting system that most clearly identifie s specific areas relating to how a child functions within the academic environment. The system is much more specific and detailed. Marking System: + = Mastery: Applies knowledge/skill in different ways. Transfers and extends knowledge.

PAGE 331

321Check + = Achieving: Has made significant progress toward mastery. Attempts to transfer and extend knowledge. Check = Developing: Has made some progress toward mastery. Applies knowledge/skill in a limited way Minus = Needs improvement: Sel dom applies knowledge/skills. Seldom works independently and requires additional support. Characteristics of a Successful Learner: Hardworking = A hard worker, sticks with a job until it’s done. Organized = Can plan and manage time and resources to accomplish tasks. Cooperative = Able to work successfully with others. Resourceful = Can sort out probl ems alone; works independently. Thinks Critically = Uses logical judgment makes thoughtful decisions, solves problems. Empathetic = Aware of and concerned about the feeling of others ; gets along with and supports other children. Creative= Thinks of unique ways to express ideas Responsible = Follows established expectations. Listening/Speaking = is attentive and receptive to directions and discus sions; talks to promote a successful learning environment. Assignments = complete work and turns it in on time. Quality = Produces personal best work. Every other area on the report card is id entified by benchmark requirements and

PAGE 332

322marked according to the system noted above. Parents know more than they would if the child received a “C” in ma th. What would that mean? The teachers were amazing. During our first parent conference they explai ned the rationale, described the components of the reporting system, placed it in the cont ext of each child, and most parents accepted and understood the purpose. I believe that another reason for the success of the non-graded reporting, using marks, not grades, and a comprehensive list of skills and performance objectives that teachers marked, is based also on the culture of our community. Heavily Hispanic, the parents as a whole, are not as concerned about letter grades as some other cultures. Over time, and with the support of parents and teach ers, we have maintained that system of reporting. We refined the reports for each gr ade level every year. The reporting system set the tone. Teachers realized that the philosophy of the school was not a traditional one. Our students would learn to think an d understand, not just do and tell. We did several other things that consider ing we were in the first year, demonstrate the acceptance of risk-taking as a standard operating procedure at Southwood Elementary School. We determined that students woul d develop internal motivation. We spent several sessions with the teachers discu ssing the need to do away with the many traditional reward systems that have emerged over the years. We did not want this school to be bumper-sticker driven so that parents could publicly proclaim, “My child is better than your child.” Discipline, in most other schools, was based on systems that reward the best behaved students and publicly announce those who weren’t. In a traditional setting one would see a student’s names on the board, a sure sign the name was up there because they broke some rule such as apples, clearl y identified with each child’s name, falling

PAGE 333

323from trees, proclaiming some young person just “fell from grace.” (Upon inquiring about her day, I once heard a child say, “It wasn’t a good day, Mom. My apple fell from the tree.” (I wasn’t going to live with that memory at Southwood). Instead, we established a system of re wards based upon each child determining an achievable goal. The goal is written, usually displayed as a reminder for the child, that identifies the plan to improve in some ar ea of study. One teacher for example, has each student’s quarterly goal placed on the child’s self portrait, and displayed on a wall. We would see such things as “My Goal: Read two chapter books a month,” “Learn my six times tables,” “Stop talking when the teacher asks me to stop.” Each quarter the CRT and I go to each classroom and pr esent a certificate to each chil d who achieves their goal and receives a Notable Achievement Award. Goal setting is part of learning for the real world that we believe should be devel oped at the youngest age possible. We also developed a classroom-based m odel for serving our gifted students. In addition, the art, music, and physical edu cation department created a Renaissance Program for talented students. The children, identified by the teachers as talented, received special training in ei ther keyboard, chorus, art, or physical education. Programs developed by the team of highly talented te achers were presented twice a year to the parents. Further demonstrati ng our commitment to the perf orming arts, we developed the largest elementary stringed instrument pr ogram in the county, and also provided an additional music experience with th e electronic keyboard laboratory. It seemed as if we had barely op ened the doors when we knew that the expectation of our County was clear. Present a Dedication Ceremony. We had to drop everything for the few weeks to create a cer emony that we could be proud of. We

PAGE 334

324agreed that we would use our students as th e focal point of our dedication. Teachers in the art, music and physical education, and a second-language department, were willing to take on the task of orchestrati ng this event. Behind the scenes there had been a flurry of activity. The p.e. teacher (now our Assistant Principal) was instrumental in organizing others. What appeared as smooth sailing, by those of us on the Management Team, on the surface resembled the paddling duck, cal m on the surface but paddling like crazy underneath. Four a.m. became the starting tim e for some of us that morning. By 6:00 a.m. parents were at school getting a balloon arch ready. All of the heads of the co nstruction project, all school board members, dignitaries from the community, Sprint executives, and he ads of departments from the County Level were present. We featured our beautiful ch ildren. Our cultural diversity was celebrated by showcasing many of our children, in their na tive dress, speaking the language of their country, welcoming everyone. A fourth grade student, with a magnificent voice, sang the National Anthem, the color guard from the RO TC program at the ad joining high school helped us celebrate. The Superintendent spoke, the County Commissioner provided us with a proclamation. The celebration went o ff without a hitch, thanks to the incredible work of everyone. At the end of the cerem ony the adults were exhausted, but we smiled as we visited with the dignitari es that stayed to mingle at a reception in the media center. Through bloodshot eyes we were so proud. It se emed like this was the first time that we felt like, “We made it!” Now we could really get into the business of helping teachers and students. Our Technology Specialist developed a We b site that was unique to the county and to the parents. The monthly newsletter designed by our Speciali st was the beginning

PAGE 335

325of our communication system to parents. Our families loved to brag that we were selected by Sprint as one of eleven sc hools in the nation that became a Technology Showcase School. The teachers would demonstrate ways they could access technology even though in our first year, everythi ng was not up and running. However, the experiences we were all having with technol ogy were still several years ahead of other elementary schools. We still had a long way to go. On the instructional level we had our work cut out for us. First, we needed to begin impressing upon the teachers our need to understand the difference between the child of the emerging new millennium, who is of a different time, and their own background of experiences. Both bring to th e learning environment their beliefs, values, cultures, past experiences, understanding, mo tivation, parental influence, and family experiences. Children add on their experi ences with the inte rnet, and technology, including the influence of televi sion. We are preparing students for jobs that do not exist. We are no longer in an agricu ltural or industrial age when schools prepared students for a very different future. This is the information age. We must prepar e our students to work with, understand, and process information. In tellectually, we all accepted this premise. As I look back to this time, I realize that this was the beginning of creating a constructivist environment. Translating that into the real world of a new school and new teachers became another issue. Not only did we have to do some major interventions regard ing instruction and assessment with the staff, but we had some se rious public relations issues to hit head on with a small group of vocal parents. Th e “honeymoon period” with our parents was quickly coming to an end. Teachers were havi ng a hard time responding to the questions

PAGE 336

326parents asked. “Why isn’t there homework every night? Why don’t I see a math book coming home? Where are their science or soci al studies books? Where are the worksheets that are assessed, so that I know what my child is learning at school? I need spelling lists.” To help teachers respond to parents we he ld several meetings to discuss effective communication methods, including bimonthly newsletters sent by each teacher to each family in their classroom. The Communication would include what the children learned and what they would learn next. For those anxious parent s who were not seeing “enough homework” we encouraged parents to engage their children in activities that fit into the existing family activities that could fo cus on building background experiences for upcoming content. Teachers also suggested id eas to help parents assist their child with skill building. Newsletters are kept on file for me to review. I used this as a way to keep up with all the activitie s in the classroom. The most challenging of the curricular ar eas to explain to parents, and for teachers to teach, was in the area of math. Traditiona l math is very clear. Memorize math facts, do lots of algorithms on a worksheet, receive a mark on the paper for every error (made with a hemorrhaging red pen), and receive a larg e letter grade at the top (also in red). Do more algorithms on worksheets for homework, and the cycle continues. Parents are comfortable with that because they learned that way. We know there is no understanding connected with memorizing and doing. We n eeded to provide parents a way to learn more about what we were doing in math inst ruction, why we were doing it, and what it looks like in the classroom. Our curriculum in math was newly publis hed by the Association for the Teachers

PAGE 337

327of Mathematics. A highly innovative program at the time, Investigations (TERC), is an interactive, hands-on program. Students do not have individual books, and do not have workbooks. Teachers have several volumes on individual topics from which to draw their lessons. It is a spira ling curriculum that allows students to build each year on previously understood mathematical concepts. Dewey and Piaget would love it. The first year of the program is so different for th e teachers to teach, and they often became frustrated. Generally, the teachers who had th e most difficulty were the ones who didn’t understand mathematical concepts either. It was very hard for them to even understand what the teacher’s manual was trying to conve y. This was not a surprise. The manual was written by teachers who understood math. They assumed that every other teacher would too. Teachers did not automatically “g et it.” Suddenly, teachers had to understand what they were doing. Our veteran teachers believed however, that something was missing in the math curriculum. They worried that standardized testing and students going on into Middle School would be expected to know how to do al gorithms in the trad itional sense. Our students needed to memorize math facts. They needed worksheets to learn traditional methods of calculation. We agreed that stud ents needed exposure to some types of traditional math instruction. Worksheets were used sparingly and when appropriate to the concept being taught. Howe ver, abstract methods of writi ng math algorithms must be matched with the understanding piece. Students move from the concrete to the abstract, just as Piaget recommended. Overall, the math process is highly constructivist and sets the example for what constr uctivist learning looks like; highly exploratory, rich in problem solving, and built on students’ verb al and written descriptions of their

PAGE 338

328understanding. Students learn to think mathematically. It was a difficult decision to decide on which content area to focus with our parents. Unfortunately, we had to wait to expl ain in detail to all of our parents about our philosophy of math. The teachers did the best they could, but they had a hard time explaining something they didn’t really unders tand either. Honestly, we limped along in math the first year. Teachers were great w ith each other. As one teacher would finally understand and have success with a lesson she would help another teacher with the same lesson. The first year, a lot of traditional ma th was taught as teachers simply didn’t know what else to do. It is extrem ely difficult for teachers to lear n a new curriculum, especially when it is so foreign to the way they lear ned. Reading a teacher’s manual is one thing, understanding how to teach lessons to student s, and get the idea acr oss, is very labor intensive work. They all tried very hard to make it work. A teacher’s first year with a non-traditi onal way of teaching math is an excellent example of how learning something and doi ng something, such as learning math, does not develop an understanding of math. On th e entire staff we had three people who had worked with hands-on math before. They w illingly shared what they knew with their colleagues. Slowly, the process of ma th understanding began to take hold. We had to make the decision to focus on the most important thing children must learn and understand. We began intensive wo rk on the teaching of reading. We had to begin at the beginning. Build ing a strong philosophical base became critical. Gathering teachers together we determined what a sound research-based reading program would look like. It was critical that we agreed on exactly what we should expect of our students at the end of the school year. In this way we didn’t have teachers complaining that the

PAGE 339

329previous teacher “did not teach these kids a nything about how to rea d.” A practical and sound reference was needed for teachers to determine specific reading strategies, organization, and assessment. The next st ep would include time to discuss what good reading instruction involved. After working with the t eachers regarding the use of Guided Reading we realized that we were going to need to expand, a nd in some cases create, more extensive classroom libraries. Children and teachers needed more books available within the classroom since we were expecting sm all group instruction, based upon individual student needs. (A single basal an thology would never do the job). Now, we had to get creative in the use of money. We did not have enough money in the budget to provide the number of books we felt could adequately stock each classroom. I am grateful for my Scottish bac kground and the ability to stretch the dollar. Our school secretary is master ful at thinking of ways to make my brainstorms work. I took over the tasks normally assigned to the Media Specialist for the purpose of ordering more literature. Our current Media Specialist was so overwhelmed with the enormity of her task, and her inability to solve problems in a non-traditional situation, she became more reclusive. Mr. Dewey Decimal Sy stem could not dominate her life at this time. In a Gregorc Style she was an extrem e concrete sequential personality. She quit after less than one semester. After that time, our Media Clerk would run the Media Center. We still needed more literature and we found a funding source. Individuals and schools can purchase paperback and har dback books from a publishing company warehouse depository in the city. They ha ve a summer sale. Armed with a purchase

PAGE 340

330order, generated from very creative bargaini ng with the company, and bits and pieces of money that we could paste toge ther from our budget, I embarked on another adventure. I entered the domain of the book warehouse. I must explain that going into a book warehouse, in the dead of summer, in Centra l Florida, with the temperature of around 95 degrees, with no air conditioning, made me feel as if I was in the book jungle of the rain forest. Bottled water became my best friend. I enjoyed the opportunity to look and examine books: narrative; picture; and expository. I was taken into another world where authors expand their imaginations and bring to life the world around us, while exposi ng us to worlds we will never know. Hour after hour I became enthralled with the titles, covers, and content of books, books, and more books. It was hard to choose. My cal culator worked overtime as I stretched each dollar and thought through every grade level and content area to make sure that each piece of literature had a purpose and each te acher would have more classroom library experiences for the students. Te n hours later I hauled the final pallet of books to the desk of the warehouse bookkeeper who had that, “you ’ve got to be kidding” look. She quickly shouted for help and eventually processed ea ch title. I stayed w ithin budget, purchased hundreds of books, while looking like a dr owned rat. I was so proud of my accomplishment. But, it was short lived. We added to the classroom libraries for leisure and independent reading. But, what about gui ded reading that would support each child’s reading level? True, we were able to find a basi c assortment books that could accommodate various reading levels, but what was the teacher to use for guidance when they met with small guided reading groups? We did not have teachers’ guides for the teachers for each

PAGE 341

331book they were using. After all, the basal that teachers were trained to use, contained the scripted text that provided every word they we re to say to the student s, generally in large groups. We did not believe that one size fits all. We certa inly did not believe that traditional basal text manuals provided enough high level thinking experiences. In the primary grades, quantities of rich literature provide teachers with the vehicle by which to instruct students in the complex tasks of beginning to understand how reading works. Once a student reaches a third grade reading level and moves into chapter books the challenge for the teacher is equally complex. They must know the content of each of the books th at they use to instruct the st udents, or so they thought. We made an assumption that teachers knew how to develop appropriate questions, assess the child’s needs, and provide skill building lesso ns. We found that wa s not necessarily the case. This was a problem that we must fix. Then, out of the blue, the budget departme nt announced that we did not have the 790 students required to justify an Assistan t Principal, we only had 730. My wonderful assistant was reassigned. Within six w eeks after school began I was left with a Management Team of one other person, the Curriculum Resource Teacher. Between the two of us and my secretary we would have to fill in the gap. We had to prioritize our tasks quickly. We still needed to move as e fficiently as possible to get teachers on the same chapter of the book. The same page would come later. I couldn’t slow down. It was a hiccup I ha d to get over. We had to move on. The CRT was a real task master. She knew we had to proceed with the task of teacher training, and we could not wait, just because there were few of us to get the job done. Teachers generally do not have the opportunity to meet as a full team for an entire

PAGE 342

332day to discuss concerns and issues. It is importa nt that we provide that time for teachers. We cannot expect teachers who are tired from the end of a hard day with the children to be at their top thinking form at the end of a school day. We listened to teachers’ concerns to determine specific areas in which to concentrate, in the area of reading. The Curriculum Resource Teacher and I pl anned a full day for a grade level that would start the dialogue, disc ussion, interaction, and opportuniti es to work as a team. We gathered resources that we knew would be a launching place for problem solving. Teachers received their books and reading assi gnments ahead of time. The agenda would include reviewing the various approaches used in the teaching of reading that were topic specific. In the first two years, the majority of our teachers did not teach reading in small groups to the extent that I hoped. Most of th em were trained to teach with whole group instruction. (Most of the young teachers came fr om internships with teachers who were trained in the Whole Language approach, wh ere large group instru ction and a holistic approach to the teaching of r eading dominated their instructio n). Changing that behavior was going to be a challenge. School Improvement money, allocated by the state, provided the funds so that we could provide substitute teachers for a full day, and release teachers a grade level at a time, to meet. We arranged for each team to m eet for one day at a time with the CRT and me. Guided Reading by Pinell and Fontas provided the foundational information for the teachers in grades K-3. Nancy Atwell’s book, In the Middle provided the foundational information for the teachers in grades 4-5. The first pull out day would address the information found in Guided Reading The Curriculum Resource Teacher

PAGE 343

333spent hours of time meticulously reviewing the book, reviewing her own experiences in several countries, teaching reading. The teach ers were assigned specific portions of the text so that the discussi on would be productive in the time we had together. Imagine our disappointment when only a fe w of the teachers actually read the text before they came to the pull out day. This furt her entrenched our belief that teachers will not internalize new strategies for teachi ng unless they are guided by a knowledgeable coach. Our Curriculum Resource Teacher en gaged the team members in significant discussions, using practical guides as a point of reference. The teachers began to understand the rationale for teaching reading according to small groups who read at a similar level. We discussed ways they w ould provide meaningful learning experiences for those students who would work independe ntly or in cooperative groups, while they worked with small groups in a guided reading area. I was always present at each of the pull out days. Although I add comments, I generally co-facilitate with th e Curriculum Resource Teacher. I am continuously grateful for my 16 years experience as a classroom, and exceptional education teacher, in pre kindergarten levels through grade eight. That combined with a lifetime of studying about how children learn, and additiona l years working with teachers in curriculum design, has served me well. Given the lack of experience on the part of the teachers, as indicated earlier, we decided that we could not instruct teachers in the teaching of reading using a Democratic Process. We needed to begin the training w ith the fundamentals. It was clear during the interview process that each teacher knew the technical aspects of the teaching of reading. But, when placed in the environment they now found themselves, it became obvious they

PAGE 344

334had not internalized what they thought they learned. Or, in the case of more experienced teachers, a non-basal approach was unfamilia r ground. Teachers, just like their students, did not have the metacognitive piece in place. They didn’t know what they didn’t know, and therefore, did not automa tically know how to fix it. We began in the area that appeared to give beginning teachers the most trouble, time management. This area continues to cr eate a serious concern for teachers. It is especially difficult for beginning teachers w ho also struggle with classroom management. The inability to effectively manage time affects the consistent need to individually assess student progress. The question was aske d, “When and how can I assess individual students? What are the othe rs doing while I’m working with one child? I don’t have the time. I only know how to give pencil and pa per tests to the whole group, grade them, and hand them back. Continuous one to one asse ssment is way out of my comfort level.” Further discussion included management strategies. We recognized that in kindergarten and first grade, when the child ren are less independent, we would have to provide additional help in the form of pa raprofessionals and parents while a teacher assessed each child for basic skill developmen t. In the other grade levels the teachers could assess one child, at the conclusion of a guided reading session. That is, when a guided reading session is over, the teacher holds one child from the group and completes a running record on that child. By comple ting one student assessment from each group, the guided reading assessment for all students, could be finished in about seven days. This strategy makes perfect sense and works well for the highly organized and methodical teacher, who has excellent classr oom management tools. Unfortunately, not all teacher’s style lends itself to strong organization and management skills. So in truth,

PAGE 345

335the majority of teachers did not assess one student at the end of each reading group, regardless of how efficient the process sounde d. The reality was that teachers usually scrambled to complete quarterly assessments. The opportunity for teachers to discuss their problems and concerns becomes a vital part of spending time together. The problem solving portion of the day provides teachers with the nuts and bolts ways to im plement the constructivist philosophy. They created ideas on effective use of other student’s time during the brief one to one session a teacher has with a child. Each time we bring a grade level of teachers together to discuss and problem solve a better way to teach children, the teacher s leave with substantive tools to use. They left the day with a specific plan on how to manage their time, the assessments to use, and under what conditions. The key howev er, is in the time that the Principal, Curriculum Resource Teacher, or any other supp ort person to the teacher, revisits the strategy, and provides further feedback to the teacher, until that strategy becomes a familiar part of the teacher’s repe rtoire of instructional tools. Quality time with a team would focus on a specific grade level issue. However, the principal, curriculum resource teacher, or other teachers often identify needs that generalize to the entire staff. Twice a m onth, entire staff meetings focus on whole school issues for in-service training. In this way we can bring teachers together and discuss best practices and their implementation. The consis tency of strategies and reinforcement of beliefs remain a crucial part for the students and teachers to ensure that a school stays on track. When there is a spiraling curriculum, consistency of beliefs and instructional strategies becomes critical for students in or der to make continuous connections between

PAGE 346

336what they learned and what they are learning. An additional key to the success of th e school--we took advantage of the skills the staff brings. Our Curriculum Resource Teacher drew from her vast experiences teaching in the United States and in several foreign countries and provided the staff with the best practices from several countries. Sh e presented literacy st rategies from England and New Zealand. Student books were cr eated and bound with handmade book covers that teachers learned to create in an afte r school workshop. She demonstrated writing across the curriculum as teachers learned how to help students explain their thinking through personal journaling, explanations about math understanding, and writing both expository and narrative stories. Handwriting was addressed at yet another in-service meeting. This too had its emphasis from the beginning. Unlike the traditio nal ball and stick method of printing and a typical manuscript writing style, we used the D’Nealian method We wanted to go to the often utilized method in the schools of the Northwest. A highly effective method of printing called Italic handwriting. Well researched, Italic was found to be the easier method to transition into writing, however, we felt that moving into such a different method was pushing the envelope a littl e too much, and the compromise was D’Nealian. Over the last few years, the em phasis on handwriting had faded. I doubt that there is even a reference to the teaching of handwriting in an y university teacher training. Therefore, teachers rarely instruct students in correct letter formations. The result, students’ handwriting was often barely legibl e. However, by shifting the emphasis to a new handwriting style, teacher s became more conscientious about teaching it. They learned to write in D’Nealian, and expected correct letter formations from the children.

PAGE 347

337 Effective spelling instruction, another area that consistently baffles teachers, was based upon the work of Marlene and Robert McCracken. This method was used effectively in England, Canada, and New Zeal and. We wanted teachers to break out of the traditional word list method from the “old school.” We knew from research that the most effective method of instructing students in learning how to spell words correctly is taken from students’ authentic writing. Th is meant that each child would need an individualized set of words taken from those co nsistently missed in the child’s writing. Individualizing anything re quires an enormous amount of organization on the part of the teacher, even though there are severa l strategies that do not put the total responsibility on the teacher. Once agai n, well organized, methodical, risk-taking teachers tried this system, but the majority of teachers just couldn’t make it work. It was unmanageable. Most of the teachers developed a compromi sing system that combined both traditional and commonly missed words in combination with thematic words to form a spelling list. An additional issue regardi ng spelling surfaced with the insistence of a few vocal parents that their children bring home spelling word s so they could help them at home. I believe that we were doing so many th ings that were unusual for the parents that they needed the security th at their children were l earning something tangible and comfortable for them. If they could see word lists for spelling and al gorithms to learn in math their comfort level rose. The instruction of formal spelling remained a challenge for the next three years. During the fourth year, a different system was introduced that has merit and will be discussed later. Science and Social Studies were also challenges for the teachers, for several

PAGE 348

338reasons. I did not purchase a specific basal textbook in either of those subjects. As indicated earlier, I worked c ontinuously building literature sets that matched thematic units. I was determined that teachers would learn the value and strategies for thematic, integrated teaching. More important, teacher s would receive training in the use of a concept-based integrated curriculum. I was convinced that if I provided a single book from which to teach the content areas, I w ould undermine the integrity of the thematic integrated concept. Plastic containers, infa mously known as “The Tubs,” were designed to provide teachers what they needed for in struction and activities. The intent was that when the fourth grade studied the Revolutiona ry War for example, all the teachers had to do was go to the plastic tub labeled Concep t: Conflict--Revolutiona ry War--there would be reference books, topic area books, literatur e books on several levels on the topic, posters, and anything else I c ould find that would enrich the investigation into the content. However, the major flaw in that theory was that I assumed teachers would have the natural inclination about how to go about teaching thematically. After all, they had all shown me an example of a thematic un it that they had completed during their internships. The problem was, we were light years apart on what teaching thematically meant. I was shown topics, which lend themselves to very low level questioning and activities, not concepts, during teacher in terviews. The CRT and I knew we had more work to do. The process of creating units of study that took students beyond the facts and into higher levels of thinking must be accomplished through concept-based thematic instruction. The method of creating such units of study wa s extremely time consuming. Whole school

PAGE 349

339districts devote money and staff to create such units of study. Our di strict was not there yet. I knew we would have to do it by ourse lves. I used H. Lynn Erickson’s curriculum design that is written in her book, Stirring the Head, Heart, and Soul, Redefining Curriculum and Instruction, Second Edition, for the concept-based interdisciplinary structure. I continue to us e her design to this day. In the meantime the poor teachers were rea dy to tear their hair out. Many of the books that I thought were perfect did not acco mmodate the multiple reading levels that existed within each grade. Adequate thematic texts, written for low performing readers, were not available in the conten t areas at that time. All that the lower readers had were elaborate reference books that th ey could look at, rich in illu strations, but too advanced in text. More work was needed. Those student s who read on grade le vel and the advanced readers managed well. I would have to find ways and means for teams to receive more diverse literature to accommodate the vari ous reading levels. In addition, teachers needed more tools so they could lear n to teach and think at higher levels. In 1997, publishing companies had not adapted to the need for developing multiple reading levels for a single theme. We created this concept with individual distributors, one book at a time. Publishing companies responded to the ever increasing demand for this market and the literature is much easier to find six years later. Materials and supplies continued arriving throughout the year. More holes were filled in the curriculum. Teach ers would recognize that they were getting everything they needed to move the children forward. We ev entually were able to set up our computers and computer stations. TV sets were mounted in each teacher’s classroom. The technology piece began falling into place as teachers gradually learned how to access

PAGE 350

340internet information and some softwa re. This was a slow process. We recognized an additional commitment. We would serve gifted students within the classroom setting, even though all the rest of the schools in the county had pull out programs. That meant that students in each of the other elementary schools who were identified as gifted left their classroo m for one full day, while attending a class specifically for gifted students. Some were served within their home school building. Others were bussed to adjoining schools. In order to fulfill the obligation to deve lop a classroom based model for the gifted students, teachers serving the identified “gifte d” students needed to become certified as gifted teachers, or at the least were in th e process of receiving their certification. We were fortunate that the County Level Coordi nator for gifted programs agreed with our requested model, since this model is most pr eferred in other states. She was willing to come to the school where we could receive th e classes needed. As Principal I felt it important for me to join the teachers over th e next six semesters. Even though it was a big commitment, and added one more thing to my plate, it was worth the effort. The after-school and Saturdays that we spent in cl ass provided 13 of us the opportunity to get to know each other better. Ther e was a great deal of comrad ery that existed during that time. The classes also provided us with th e opportunity to talk, discuss, and evaluate higher levels of instruction for all our students. I also wanted to promote the fine ar ts. An Electronic Keyboard Lab for a piano experience for the students was created and developed by a magnificent music teacher, who provided a wonderful image for the school. Her concerts were amazing, considering that she had the students only one year. On e of her earlier tasks, write a school song.

PAGE 351

341Long before we recognized that we were moving toward constructivism, the theme: Young Architects: Building for the Future, set the tone for the school. It remains today. The words of the song spoke to the vision and helped provide the message to the children and parents. It wasn’t until much later that I realized how apropos the words became in our quest for constructivis t learning and thinking. YOUNG ARCHITECTS FOR TOMORROW I can see the future and all I’d like to be. I can reach for the gold, there is purpose inside of me. I know that I can focus, make decisions and problem solve. I am in the right place: Southwood is the best school of all! Chorus: We are young architects for tomorrow, Building for the future piece by piece. We are young architects for tomorrow, Building for the future piece by piece. I can envision a perfect place, Where “real world” events I will be able to face. Teach me strategies and help me grow. Give me foundational skills: All of these things I must know. Chorus in Spanish: Somos los arquitectos del manana

PAGE 352

342 Armando elfuturo un paso a la vez Somos los arquitectos del manana Arrmano el futuro un paso a la vez Raise the bar for me! I’ll strive to reach it. Give me the tools and I’ll Fly! Chorus in English We also knew the importance of getti ng parents involved and understanding what we were accomplishing. We chose to showcase students and their writ ing. At this time, in 1997, there was not the dramatic emphasis on student writing that later developed with the advent of the “Florida Writes” as sessment in 1999. Our Curriculum Resource Teacher organized an event involving a year -long writing project that culminated in a Young Author’s Conference. At that time pa rents were invited to attend. We hired a guest story teller. Students published their work in a form that they shared with others in a series of three coordinated sessions: Insp irational, Sharing, and Special. This was the biggest curriculum related ev ent of the year. It emphasized the importance of writing and became the foundational skills for students who later put their talents to work when the Florida Writes exams emerged. It accomplished what it set out to achieve–creating a love of writing and providing an opportunity to sh are their enjoyment with each other as well as their parents. Our Technology Specialist created a data base that was teach er friendly, and

PAGE 353

343provided a vehicle for teachers to enter each child’s performance level in reading, writing, math, and spelling. In this way, the Curriculum Resource Teacher and I could look at student progress, w ithout always asking the teacher. Were it not for the requirement to enter the scores into the data base, I’m not sure that the assessments would have been done as expected. This poin ted out the need to continuously create a monitoring process of some kind. I needed to know how each of our students were progressing so I could ensure appr opriate support for the teacher. The first year ended with a mixed feeling of relief and joy. The good news: We could see how our vision would work and r each fruition. We knew we had a long way to go. We knew the journey was just beginning. But, we could see the trip would be an adventure we looked forward to. That is, most of us felt this way. Several teachers felt that the journey was too long, the road too rocky, and the trip too uncertain. Many liked the ol d road they traveled before, with the same map they used many times, with roads that are never under c onstruction, and a predictable destination. They got off the Southwood path and went wh ere the journey was more predictable. The rest of us stayed to take Scott Peck’s, “The Road Less Traveled.” The risk-taking adventure on unfamiliar terrain would not be for the weak of heart. Those that stayed with us were committed, risk-taking, and dedica ted teachers. It did mean that we would be starting over with one-half of our teachers fo r the next year. This made the creation of more comprehensive integrated units of study, and clearly understood curriculum, instruction, and assessment, even more critical. The first summer, each team of teachers spent one week creating integrated units of study. The process was much slower than I anticipated. Since I worked with the same

PAGE 354

344philosophy during the previous 10 years, and tw o other schools, I knew what needed to be done. So, the first day of the Writing T eam, I taught teachers what a concept-based integrated study looked like, and how to write the teacher guides for those units. I used the work of Dr. Lynn Erickson, and Dr. Arthur Shapiro for the design work. Each summer for the next four years, similar teams would bring their expertise and experience together to further refine th e integration of each unit. Each summer the work became better and better. The ownership was there, a nd we kept refining the higher level questions, the multileveled resources, and the integration to include teachers of art, music, and physical education. We ironed out many of our kinks and were ready to move into year two with determination to continue reaching for our goal: teaching students and teachers how to think. I knew how often teachers reverted to traditional teaching: more whole group instruction and teacher talk than I wished; more worksheets than I hoped; activities and projects that did not appear to have a solid purpose. I accepted the need for teachers to work at their comfort level on a continuum. What I Learned: Creating a Constructivist School The philosophy that we would “treat each chil d as if they were gifted” set the tone for curriculum and instruction. It was clea r that we would not become a traditional school with basic texts for each student, use pencil and paper tests as a primary assessment tool, and assume that “one size fits all” for instru ction. Individualized instruction will occur. Curricu lum would be integrated as much as possible. Math would

PAGE 355

345be focused on understanding. Higher order thinking, problem solving, and working in cooperative groups will dominate instructional strategies. That was the theory. It was foundational for teaching children to learn and think from a constructivist position, that at this time was assumed, not stated. I did not realize that in year one I was creating a C onstructivist School. I knew I wanted all the components that identify a constructivist school by reinforcing the concept every chance I could. I laid foundational statements such as, “Building on prior knowledge, asking the difficult questions of the teachers,” and they in turn the students, “How do you know that? What is the poi nt, and why should I care? Explain your reasoning? What is your proof? Wh at else should you find out? Why?” Change Change comes slowly. Conceptually, teach ers stated that they knew and appeared to agree with the intent and focus of the philosophy. In practice, implementation became a different issue. When the tasks of instruction became too foreign to teachers’ backgrounds of previous experiences, they revert ed back to their old, or former methods. Metaphorically, they were trying to pound th eir old round peg into the square hole of Southwood; a one size fits all in to an individualized process of student learning. The first year it became obvious which teachers began to make the transfer of learning to this new culture, and those who could not. We still found those who could ad apt and change and those who could not. Leadership My leadership skills were put to the te st because I heard teachers complain about

PAGE 356

346how difficult it was to have to create instruction based upon th e needs of the students. I knew that teachers were conscien tious and wanted to do their best work, but they wanted me to support their need to re vert to old ways because it would be easier for instruction and assessment. If I hadn’t been so convinced that what we were doing were the best and the most effective way to teach, it would have been easy to back down. I ju st couldn’t do that. The Curriculum Resource Teacher and I he ld our ground. I needed to surround myself with a Management Team that shared my vi sion, because they would support the vision. I needed to ensure that we were on the same page with each other. We knew that an autocratic approach is necessary for the short term, just to get the bus out of the ditch. The crunch of tim e in opening a new school, especially under such difficult circumstances, did not give us the luxury of establishing a highly Democratic environment. There would be time for that later. Teachers also told me that at that time they didn’t want to make any management decisions. They were too busy thinking about their lessons, and they did not want to be bothered with anything else. The research on leadership identifies the need to bring aboard all of the stakeholders to make decisions. It wasn’t possi ble at that moment in time. As we neared the end of the year it was time to start letting teachers become part of the decision making process as individual i ssues surfaced that required their ideas. The timing and players are criti cal to the success of the proc ess. When to bring people into the decision making process and how soon they desire to become involved is not a recipe. It must happen as soon as possible, without pushing people beyond their level of endurance and understanding. It is a very fine line to walk. I must stay continuously

PAGE 357

347involved with the teachers and remain sensitiv e to each one’s position on the tight rope I knew the importance of training and wo rking with the summer writing team. I had to become part of the process with th em. As I talked, questioned, discussed, and prodded the teachers, they began to think a bout what we wanted the students to know, and be able to do. However, they had to unde rstand the broader contex t. I asked the hard questions such as,” Why should a student ca re? Why should the ch ild know this? How do we know they should know this? What purpose will this activity serv e? Is the project just an ‘I did it,’ or was the project a wa y for a student to draw conclusions, ask themselves the hard questions, develop a d eeper understanding? Was the project done under your watchful guidance or was it a take ho me project that provides the parent an opportunity to demonstrate what they know?” These questions developed into in-dep th discussions about the purpose of the content and the value the teacher placed on the child’s understanding. During the first summer that I trai ned writing teams in curriculum design, we worked through each of the specific steps in the Concept-based Integrated Curriculum Model design. We refined the concept based thematic units. We developed higher order questions to help the teacher, refined th e culminating activity to ensure that it demonstrated significant learning, created asse ssments for the skills and concepts and developed rubrics for the assessments for the projects and writing component. The more I worked with the teachers duri ng the summer the more I realized that I needed to stay with them continuously thr oughout the writing process, primarily to keep them on a task. If I left the teachers writi ng and thinking on their own for more than an hour, when I came back they would be off topic and visiting. The task of writing

PAGE 358

348curriculum is tedious. Teachers as Leaders Teachers as Leaders did not occur during that first year. There were too few experienced teachers that could assume leadersh ip roles. I was grateful to the teachers who did step forward with ideas, suggesti ons, and personal motivation. The importance of a solid plan on how to proceed did involve the teachers who had come forth and demonstrated their leadership potential. They volunteered to help esta blish a plan for the coming year. Teachers became leaders who worked on the summer writing teams. Each week another grade level of teacher s embarked on the tedious and important task of examining materials, content, assessment, activities, a nd culminating projects. As they discussed each of the steps in the process, they began making connections. I didn’t call it constructivist thinking at the time, but that is what it was. Since I was part of the writing proces s I could establish and model questioning strategies for the teachers, they soon bega n to understand how we move children from fact based to high level thinki ng within the context of curriculum content. Constructivist learning began to occur with the teachers in an indirect way. Year 2 Among those teachers who found the curriculum too difficult, the typical marriages and babies, and the addition of more staff to accommodate our population growth, I needed to hire 29 new teachers, more than one half of the staff. We would

PAGE 359

349grow from 44 classroom teachers to 50. Most of them would be new to teaching. Five of them were hired later on in the year. That explanation follows. We knew that the large number of firs t time teachers would require a more specific approach for teacher support so we es tablished formal assignments that paired more experienced teachers with new teachers to the school. The CRT and I also planned ways for additional mentoring from both of us, such as frequent 1:1 conferencing, and classroom visits to provide helpful feedback. This helped new teachers as they began, and returning teachers in the transition into year two. Teachers who were taking classes to t each the gifted began recognizing that the integrated curriculum was necessary in orde r to handle both the ever expanding content and the necessity of reaching students at higher levels. I also watched higher levels of thinking that was occurring among the teacher s when they asked the students, “Why, how come, prove your answer, think of this is a different way, explain your answer,” began to spread.” They began to inte rnalize what I meant when I said that all students should experience the same strategies and activities as the gifted. Although I was able to instruct teach ers in the design for a concept-based integrated curriculum during the summer writing teams, all members of the teams were not part of the writing. We also had so many new teachers that we needed members of the writing teams to reinforce the concept w ith their grade level members. They were charged with the assignment to bring the new teachers on board. The author of one design being used, a national consultant, Dr. Lynn Erickson of Seattle, Washington, is a personal friend, I was able to get her to come to our school for a day. She worked with each of the teams, reinforcing the rationale, design format,

PAGE 360

350strategies, and implementation. The teacher s began putting their experiences with the content and their knowledge of wh at they wanted to do with instruction together with a solid planning device. It was obvious by th e discussions and interaction with Dr. Erickson, that they saw the benefit of con tinuing her ideas for a model for instruction, curriculum, and assessment. She helped teachers more clearly identify enduring understandings for the concepts. Dr. Ericks on evaluated the work already completed, offered suggestions, edited the work, and enc ouraged the teachers. Subsequently, some of our teams wrote thematic units that she included in her latest book, Stirring the Head, Heart, and Soul Second Edition. All of us were excited over the opport unity to continue wr iting curriculum that was meaningful, integrated, and would provide teachers with specific approaches to use during content and process instruction. I c ould see the connection between this method of curriculum and design and what I late r learned was a cons tructivist approach. Adding to the professional growth, our Technology Specialist created a computer lab in the media center. Brand-new computers housed in beautiful st udent work stations made the Media Center look like the state-of -the-art school it was designed to be. Teachers would become more familiar with th e advantages that our technology system provided. This would continue to be a work in progress. Each step in the process moved us closer to our goals of learning the most e ffective use of technology. Another challenging part of my job as principal was l earning how to adapt to the unexpected, and shifting gears quickly. In the case of year two, I was unprepared for the effect of 150 new students for a total of 878. When the schoo l was built, large portions of the subdivision where the school is located we re not yet complete. During the second

PAGE 361

351year, as more homes were completed, more students came. By January, it was obvious that our classrooms were too overcrowded. There was a difficult decision to make. Maintaining overcrowded classrooms increases the problems with discipline and th e quality of attention each child would receive. The other choice: divide classroom s; move children; handle upset parents and students who may not want to move; hire quality teachers this late in the year. As one would expect, teachers availa ble midyear are generally thos e who are recent graduates. In spite of the problems associated with adding classrooms midyear, I was concerned about the current teachers they were overloaded. In January we hired five new teachers and divided five classrooms of students. Worse yet, we had to bring in portable cla ssrooms to house them. This, in a school only a year and a half old. This was not a good time. In retrospect, I’m still not sure it was not a good decision. Disruption in that many classrooms make teachers, students, and parents off balance. The CRT and I had to readjust quickly again, to make the new teachers feel at home, and the newly displaced students feel successful. It was very hard on the new teachers. When teachers arrive after the schoo l year begins, and especially when they are away from the main building, new issues deve lop. We had to help teams accept the “new people” and assist the new staff members. The problem is obvious. Those who are new to the staff do not get the same in-depth cove rage of protocol, exp ectations, nuts and bolts procedures, or the same sense of belongi ng that others get fro m the first day of preplanning. An additional component came in our need to order more books, materials,

PAGE 362

352supplies, and resources, including classroom libraries. Of course, those items never come in fast enough for the new teacher to have ev erything needed right away. They have to “make do” for longer periods of time. Those new teachers who are now located away from everyone else have to put forth additional ef fort to become part of the team. This is not as easy as teachers would like to believe. We spent a great deal of time helping bridge that gap among team members who o ccupied space in the main building, and those on the same team located in portable classrooms. In October, I was asked to mentor anothe r Assistant Principal. The Assistant was charming, personable, and personally, I thought he was delightful. It became obvious that his training at every le vel of his learning experiences was based on textbook-driven, fill-in-the-blank programs. He was never provided an opportunity to extend beyond the restricted boundaries of hi s past experiences. He would do what he was told. Conceptually, he could not understand what we were trying to accomplish. I couldn’t mentor him, the way I thought I could. I was very disappointed to learn that some mind sets are irreversible. He was la ter reassigned to another school. Our Young Author’s Conference brought together the community, teachers, and students. The daylong conference continued to emphasize and recognize the importance of writing. The Renaissance program for our identified talented students involved the physical education department as they orches trated dance, and the music department as they showcased our talented students. Choi r performances, and PTA functions occurred again the second year and provided many opport unities for parents to come to school. There was a school community to build. Teachers began to show their leadership skills, as well as thei r dedication and commitment to the school, when they were willing

PAGE 363

353to step forward and lead parent workshops. This year we added a family Math Night. Parents and teachers became more comfortabl e when they realized that math is a combination of understanding and doing. A co mmittee of teachers determined the most interesting concepts that families would en joy with their children. Teachers developed hands-on activities to demonstrate mathemati cal concepts. In th is way parents became more aware of the purpose of our method of in struction. Once they realized how handson experiences could translate into an abstra ct algorithm, they were excited. It was amazing how many parents sat playing the ga me or working the mathematical puzzle who said, “Oh, now I understand how that works, I never knew before, but I always got A’s in math.” It was a good year, but an unsettled one. Our student numbers continued to grow, the teachers who began the year, especially those who were in their second year in the school, continued to bond with the Management Team and with each other. The Curriculum Resource Teacher and I spent hour s planning, reflecting, discussing ways to make the following year more stable and focused. This may not appear to be very democratic; however, the two of us needed a very clear picture of the direction we wanted to go before we could involve othe rs. When teachers discussed the direction, they wanted for the school, it was easier to understand, and suppor t their decisions. We continued the pattern that was esta blished the year before. (1) Involve teachers in decision making regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment. (2) Provide time for teams to continue working on concept-based integrated teachers’ guides. (3) Facilitate meetings where grade level teams spent full days together critically examining the current curriculum practices. (4 ) We continued to work on literacy skills.

PAGE 364

354(5) Emphasize team building. What I Learned Creating a Constructivist School: Although constructivism was not a term being used at this time, in retrospect I can see that we began introducing the philosophy in year two. It was duri ng this year that I was able to begin conceptualizing the term a nd what it meant. The literature identified constructivism more frequently and I was making the connection. Teachers were making more decisions. They figured out how best to generate higher le vel thinking from the students. Teachers were stepping out of th eir traditional experiences and moving more and more into constructivist thinking. Change Changing from a traditional approach to a constructivist appro ach in instruction, curriculum, and assessment, began to separate those who would stay with us and those who would not. There are several changes from traditional instruc tion of single texts, fact-based learning, and large group instruction. Instructional strategies occurred in a variety of ways, such as: concept-based integrated instruction; indi vidual and small group instruct ion and assessment; utilizing math manipulatives to develop in-depth understanding before movi ng to abstractions; providing engaging and meaningf ul activities; project base d learning; and adapting to individual learning styles. When we began discussing an integrat ed curriculum, it was clear who made the

PAGE 365

355connection automatically and those who struggl ed trying to figure out how content areas fit together. They still con tinued to fall back on covering th e content rather than learning and understanding the bigger ideas and concepts. The notion of going a mile deep and an inch wide was difficult for many to conceptualize. It was interesting to see the personalities of those who could adapt to the changing practices. When we had to move some of the child ren into new classes in the middle of the year, that change was very ha rd on teachers as well, even t hough the students seemed to adjust more quickly. Change continued, and adju sting to that change remained a constant for all of us. Leadership There is no question that when there is a major disruption to the school climate, it is very difficult to stay the course. Remaining committed to the mission, vision, and commitment to the philosophy became the key to the stability that we needed. It was important to encourage those who struggled with the direction we were going to find a more traditional school. I suggest ed they do that. I was anxious for stability of staff, but I had to be willing to keep looking until there was a good fit with where we were trying to go. Watching and interacting with teachers and students within the class must be followed by face to face feedback and discussion s. It is important to think and problem solve with the teachers. As a principal I kne w I had to model the teaching I expected of teachers. The teachers were my students. We also could not ignore the needs of parents. Some of our new parents were

PAGE 366

356comfortable with traditional instructional st rategies and continued to question why there were not word lists for spelling. Letter grad es for traditional repor t cards, and pages of math algorithms from a math book coming ho me for homework. It was necessary for both the CRT and me to take the needed time to talk to parents, discuss with them the rationale for such a model, and help them understand why we were doing what we were doing. Continuous communication, a clear sense of our goals objectives, and vision, was necessary when conveying those beliefs to parents. Teachers as Leaders A few more teachers began coming forth with suggestions on how to help students in a more effective way. We were anxious to implement any ideas that seemed consistent with our philosophy. The 13 teach ers who continued with the classes for gifted endorsement were also becoming lead ers. They experienced better ways to instruct students and they spread the wo rd to others. A professional network was beginning among the staff. Teachers who were more comfortable with hands-on math were willing to conduct in-service training fo r the teachers. They were instrumental in providing workshops for teachers and parents. When t eachers came forward to help train others, we made sure they were recognized for their ex pertise and leadership. We would use their skills to help others du ring the upcoming year. Year 3 We were relieved to have two years ad justing to our new school behind us, and

PAGE 367

357we could move forward even more quickly. We hoped for greater stability, but it was not to happen. Once again we needed to add more staff. Our enrollment increased again by 80 students and reached 940 students. Thirty -seven staff members would remain from the second year, five were added later because of increased enrollment, 18 new staff members would join us for year three. How could we maintain the momentum in spite of increased numbers of new teachers? The Curriculum Resource Teacher and I wo rked with a team of volunteer teachers to develop a solid plan for curriculum, inst ruction, and assessment. The first two years we concentrated on reading, spelling, and wr iting for in-service training, the teachers wanted to focus on math this year. We accommodated their needs by bringing in an outside consultant from the county level, and used our own staff members who provided additional workshops. Of all of the content that demonstrates how constructivist l earning occurs with teachers and students, it occurs in the instru ction of math. By th e third year teachers became more comfortable with ways the chil dren learn math understanding, and they too, would become more proficient at providing the experiences through Investigations. The proof of their own learning tr ansferred to the students, ma ny of whom were provided the spiraling concepts from their tw o previous years. Students we re getting it. Their success was amazing and mathematical thinking began to prevail. The pacing of lessons became easier for the teachers. The spiral nature of student understanding beca me more evident. Students who were now in third grade, a nd were at the school for three years, had only a math understanding background. They di d not see math as algorithm-based but as thinking-based. Each student who had experienced Investigations for the past two years

PAGE 368

358could tell you infinite ways to get to 100, for example Their written explanations, diagrams, and ability to express their understanding of math ematical concepts demonstrate once again, the constructivist experience. Because our staff had still not stabilized, we needed our existing teachers to take a stronger role in assi sting others, not only in providing in-service training. We assigned peer mentors with the expectation that they w ould also help our new t eachers feel that our school was a welcome place. The teachers who had been together for the two previous years were beginning to devel op strong bonds. They were the experts in residence with more experience than our newly hired teachers, and were instrumental in developing the culture of the school. They we re empowered to make curricula r suggestions and assist in developing assessment strategies. Our Curriculum Resource Teacher also developed a strong bond with each of the staff members. She was very committed to building relationships and did so with a commitment to help build a strong learni ng community. She was a very strong and capable educator who effectively held th e hands of our young teachers as they began perfecting their craft. This was important at this time when the majority of the staff was young and relatively inexperienced. We faced continuous challenges in providing them with the support they needed. We continued to assist te achers in several ways. We made sure that we were meeting each of their needs through conti nuous in-service. Every Wednesday we provided teachers in-depth study of an ar ea they agreed they needed. Everyone participated to ensure that we were alwa ys talking the same language. For example, every time we discussed Guided Reading strate gies we made sure we qualified what we

PAGE 369

359meant. This simple strategy saved us later on when new teachers to the school used the same term but applied it differently. Another example of identifying terms in a specific way is evident in the term looping This is a concept used in other distri cts and states. This term means that a teacher stays with her class for more than one year. The more the CRT talked about the concept the more appealing it became to t hose teachers who developed a special bond with their students. The culture of the school began to formulate. Not only did we know how we “did business around here,” but we knew why we did it. We still needed to maintain a strong plan for the development of all instructional st aff. Teachers in the first three years of the school used similar strategies for the teach ing of reading, writing and spelling. They wrote concept-based integrated units of st udy during intensive writ ing for the last two summers. They were on the track toward further understanding higher levels of instruction. The new teachers were adjusti ng. We had history together. But something happened that caused us to get out of balance again. Our Curriculum Resource Teacher announced that she would be moving after the first of the year. However, things changed in her time schedule and she didn’t leave until late spring. Teachers began grieving at th e point of her announcement, and continued through the rest of the year. From the mi nute the Curriculum Resource Teacher (CRT) announced she was leaving, it seemed that sta ff members began reacting to issues that they would have ignored the pr evious two years. Her departure date kept moving further along in the year. The cloud of her leaving loomed over the heads of everyone. On one hand I was so glad she did not leave when she thought she would, she was such a strong

PAGE 370

360support. But, we had to begin anticipating th e adjustments that would be necessary. It was unsettling. When the CRT moved during spring break, I hired a teacher from another county. Whenever a popular faculty member is repla ced by a new person, it becomes difficult for the replacement. It takes time to build trust. Our new CRT had less than two months to analyze and adapt to the new culture, and be gin building relationships with the staff members. The new Curriculum Resource Teacher came to the school at the busiest time of the year, when end-of-the-year events are c onstant. Her responsibil ities were enormous and the learning curve was steep, because it was a new position for her and a new environment. She didn’t have time to understand the culture in such a short period of time. In addition, she came from a unique school culture. The e ducational environment from which she came had acquired a reputation as a world class school, a very elite one. In an effort to let the teachers know how lucky we were to get such a highly qualified person, from a well-known school, I told the staff about our CRT’s background: (1) her training was of the highe st possible quality; (2) curriculum a nd instruction were based on the best World Class experiences; (3) a teacher hired at that school was considered the best of the best. I wa s so grateful to have her join us. Our new CRT was an excellent choice. She was competent, sensitive, professional, and had an excellent backgr ound as a classroom teacher. I knew she supported our vision, and that was the reason she joined the staff. Because she had excellent connections with other teachers, w ho were now willing and anxious to leave the same well-known school I asked our new CRT to watch for teachers who would also

PAGE 371

361want to come to our school. We needed addi tional high quality staff for the coming year. I knew about the teaching experiences that existed in the well-known school and I was confident they were exactly what we needed for several reasons: (1) the teachers were trained by the best consultants; (2) the teachers were dedicated to the belief that children learn best in a challenging environment that concentrates on a balance of skill and higher order thinking experiences. (3) the teacher s continuously thought outside the box. (4) they were highly creative. In addition, the well-known school was faci ng challenges of its own. A variety of world-renowned consultants came to that f aculty, expounded their theories, and left the teachers on their own to figure out the implem entation part. No follow up, and their only support came from each other. In addition, the intense political pressure caused administrators to leave, five in five years. There were so many changes in administration and philosophy that the original intent of the school was vanishing. Intended as a world class school, it was diminishing to a traditiona l model, the antithesis of the original philosophy. It was driving outstanding teacher s out of the school. I was happy that our new CRT had connections to help recruit. I announced the excite ment I felt with our teachers coming for the following year. I was unprepared for the staff’s reaction based on their assumptions and perceptions. Even though the newly hired t eachers were not yet at the school, the naysayer members of the faculty spread the word. First, they said, “New people would ch ange everything because as principal I wouldn’t have hired someone fr om the well-known school if I didn’t have such a plan. Then, they would take over, and everything we knew how to do was not valued.” Very

PAGE 372

362few of the current teachers knew, or realize d, the true reason that we could provide the teachers from the well-known school with a compatible philosophy. Nor did some of our teachers ask why we could recruit them. Ma ny, who were more resilient, didn’t ask, didn’t care, and were willing to accept anyone (I am always so grateful for this personality). We were so busy getting the new CRT up to speed, and all the activities completed so that we could finish the year that whatever under current was going on, I was unaware of it at the time. I knew there we re issues that remained unresolved and I there was no time to get to the core of the problem. At an end of the year reflections se veral female teachers wrote about their experiences during the year. It was at that tim e that I realized the gossip and rumors that existed, and how that could undermine what we were trying to accomplish. In situations like this it is often difficu lt to know how many are involv ed and to what degree. I tried to figure out the most logical reason for their perceptions. I remembered how young most of them were. Was this behavi or their immaturity showing? Teachers had all the resources, materials, and supplie s they could possibly want, we were in a multimillion dollar environment, we have wonde rful children. Why did teachers appear to be off balance? Was it the challenging curriculum? Were there too many changes in the three years, and they knew that changes would continue? Were they threatened by equally capable teachers joining the existing group? These questions loomed on my mind constantly. This was a problem fo r which I must get to the heart. It took a long time before I began to r ealize that two additio nal things were in juxtaposition. A support person the teachers lean ed on to hold their hands left. I also

PAGE 373

363learned that there were two teachers on the staff who had the ability to stir the pot. I later found out that they were highly critical of everything that went on in the school. They were both excellent teachers and appeared cred ible with the rest of the staff. Their negative comments were not enough to turn teachers away from the vision, but it was enough to keep some people off balance. Th ere did not seem to be any big looming issue, but a lot of little petty things-none of which came to my attention until much later. The summer writing team continued to work on thematic units, refining, and adding materials. Each team seemed to add an additional level of understanding. I continued to work with each team, asking th e hard questions, invol ving teachers in high level thinking, about what we wanted child ren to know and be able to do, developing engaging and meaningful activities. What did I learn? Creating a Constructivist School: Maintaining the vision and holding on to the philosophical foundations of a school becomes critical, regardless of sometimes negative influences. Although the word constructivist was sti ll not stated directly, I embe dded the philosophy into most everything I talked about relating to student and teacher learning. As new people come to the organization, there must be extra time spent w ith them to help them understand the language of instruction and the culture being developed. The important focus must remain on how best to create an environment where constructivist learning is encouraged, nurtured, modeled, and supported.

PAGE 374

364 Change: Sustaining a positive and growing organiza tion, during times of change, occurs at the school level for a variety of reasons. This past year change came in several ways. (1) More experienced teachers were added to the group, some saw that as a threat to their territory (2) More students and their families became part of the school. (3) Teachers were making connections and bonding with th eir colleagues. (4) The loss of a key support person caused a few vocal teachers to react negatively. Each person responds to change in diffe rent and often unpredictable ways. It is impossible to predict how member s of the organization will to adapt to change. This is an issue that cannot be overlooked. Leadership: As the school leader I must be prepared to respond to every issue. The human element is as important as the management issue. Remaining sensitive and responsive to members of the organization, when there are co ncerns, became critical to the successful progress of the school. I learned from this experience that once a seated faculty begins bonding and developing their roots within a school, any per ception of intrusion can cause unrest. This unrest should be anticipated and a strategy planned. Issues regard ing change must be openly recognized with the staff. When th at occurs then solutions can be found. The existing faculty must be validated frequently. The recognition should be in the way in which everyone on the team will focus on approa ching potential issues in a proactive,

PAGE 375

365rather than reactive, position. The size of the school, numbers of people involved, and my inherent responsibilities are likened to being a pa rent who keeps adopting more children. I recognize how teachers vie for positions, seek mo re attention, or retreat. Everyone needs attention and a continuous refocusing on the goals. Many could see that I valued risk -taking and willingl y supported innovative ideas, as long as there was a plan. Teachers knew this because I ra rely turned down an idea that was well thought th rough. When risk-taking was s upported, more teachers were willing to try strategies and suggestions. The question I always ask, “Will the students learn more or better because of what you will do? How will you know?” Teachers as Leaders Teachers often become leaders by self-p roclamation. Sometimes it was the ability to convince others that they had expertise no one else had. In many cases, that was true. High verbal skills make a leader only when there were compatible beliefs with the direction of the school. Some teachers kept positioning themselv es to be perceived as the leader. I could anticipate the difference in those teachers who were innovative and those who by nature were very competitive. When nay sayers appeared to have leadersh ip potential, they needed to be part of the decision making process. Often they b ecame negative leaders because they didn’t have enough information, and were unwilling to find out the issues. It is difficult for teachers who work primarily within a sm all group of their peers to understand why decisions are made the way they are when th ey do not have the big picture. Once they

PAGE 376

366knew the rationale and reasons for big pict ure decision making, their attitudes changed. They needed to learn to go to the source of th e problem or concern to get to the heart of the issue. Teachers must be careful to understand why a leader is perceived as a leader. Is a leader the one with the best gossip, first? Effective teacher leaders did emerge during the third year. They volunteered more ideas, explained how new strategies worked and the su ccesses they were feeling. More teachers were willing to step forward and demonstrate their instructional findings. They were positive about all that the sc hool was accomplishing. They were verbally supportive of the philosophy and spread the wo rd among their peers. This attitude creates teachers as leaders. When teachers he ar positive comments about the school, their team, or the principal, from a colleague they respect, the positive influence of that teacher is felt throughout the school. Teacher leaders enjoy the challenge of trying new and different things. Some of them were the ones who looped with their students. They enjoyed the bonding and learning gains that were associated with st aying with their students for more than one year. This experience generate d enthusiasm among other teachers to do the same thing. Looping is now a practice among many of our teachers. Year 4 Although I remembered the unrest of last year, and the issues that a few nay sayers were complaining about, I assumed that typically the summer is the best time for people to regroup and problems of the y ear before are usually forgotten. We approached the year with great op timism. Our planning days prior to the

PAGE 377

367students’ arrival focused heavily on the concep t of creating a community of learners. Our Media Center was decorated with a large rainbow. The theme: It Takes a Rainbow of People to Build a Community of Learners. The items that each teacher received during the week carried the theme of community bui lding in a learning environment. Rainbows were everywhere. We pulled from the work of others who suggested ideas on team building and engaged everyone in cooperative activities. I openly rejoiced at our ability to entice such quality, trained teachers to join our staff. I gave the following introduction into the year: “Earlier the brave, loyal teachers wh o were here from the beginning were given the golden hammer award in recogni tion of that first year when they put together their own desks to prepare for school to begin 12 hours later. I hired 29 out of 44 beginning teachers, all new, fr esh, frightened, and overwhelmed became part of the staff. Most of them had so many changes at one time. They had just graduated from college, many were newly ma rried, they had just moved into their homes, and began a new job in a prototype progressive school that wasn’t even completed. To those of you who experienced multiple changes in your life any other change is a walk in the park by comparison. You learned, you grew, with repeating cycles. The more experienced teachers took you under their wings. They shared, and we all worked together to create the schoo l that had a very strong vision. It has not changed. Students will learn in an environm ent rich with every opportunity to gain foundational skills and understa ndings and build as quickly as possible to develop deeper understandings. Teachers will model the continuous learning that we want

PAGE 378

368for our students. Teachers will take their students a mile deep and an inch wide, not the other way around. There is too much content required in grades 3-4-5 to cover each topic well. We cannot develop children’s abil ity to think about their own thinking, developing the metacognition that creates a truly successful thinker, if all we do is tiptoe over topics. Although we have spent three years working to develop concept-based integrated units of study, we still have more content to cover than we have time to do it. The District has created a document, created by teams of people for whom I have the highest regard. They have id entified grade level benchmarks that clarify each concept we want all chil dren to understand. Practitioners have developed additional tools for us to use. We will evalua te the curriculum alignment for the grade levels and reexam ine our units of study. The process of looking one more time at what we do, and how we do it, is a demonstration of how a big idea crosses over many discipline s and applies to a variety of learning experiences. It is about thi nking and drawing conclusions. We want our students to utilize th eir prior experiences, combine that with new understandings, and apply that learning to other situations as they develop their own reality. Once students demonstr ate what they think they know, you will guide them to continue thinking, clar ifying their ideas and formulating new thoughts in a continuous cycle. Students will write about what they do, assess what they know, and develop a love of learning. They will develop a constructivist approa ch to learning. My commitment to you as teachers, support people and paraprofessionals

PAGE 379

369is clear. We will work and play in a warm, enriching environment where we become as a family in our dedication to the children in our care. We will continuously learn together always finding a better way to help the students stretch mentally and grow emotionally. We will model for our children as we teach them to get along with others, rema in empathetic, and thrive within our wonderful diverse cultures. I will see to it that you are provide d whatever tools, materials, and resources that you need in order to make your difficult job a little easier. I will always be here for you, for any reason, pe rsonally and professionally. I will study, question, reflect, and seek answers w ith you. I will change, as you change, adapting to your needs, supporting you a ny way I can. I will always value your contribution to our school community a nd your commitment to the students. I want to earn and maintain your trust, as I hope you will earn and maintain the trust of each other. Teaching students to think, solve problems, transfer their learning, produce a quality product or demonstrati on that shows high level thinking, can only be accomplished by the most talented of teachers. Our school is a progressive school. It is not a traditional one. You are here because you are the brightest of the brightest, the most de dicated, and the conti nuous learners any principal would envy. Our area superint endent and our county superintendent know that Southwood cannot be touched fo r the innovative and state-of-the-art curriculum and instruction you provide the students. Your reputation did not come without an enormous commitment on your part.

PAGE 380

370 We have struggled, as all changing organizations do under similar circumstances. It is a part of the change process and it is expected. But let me attempt to put things in perspective. As new staff members were hired or teachers who are new to a grade level joined our teams, a new set of dynamics occurred. A once clearly defined culture was cha nging. We grew. The good news about growth--we can bring into the school new people who a dd to our existing wealth of incredible teachers. We have evol ved into the Southwood Team; capable of joining our collective minds to develop in to constructivist teachers, who problem solve, collaborate, and draw conclusions. One example of a problem to solve that needs your collective wisdom and your past experiences. The big questi on-Where do we find enough time to do all we have to do? Time is such a precious commodity. Every one of us complains that we do not have enough of it. I talked to you and spent more time with some than others, because some of you will stop by my office to say, “Hi,” before school starts in the morning. I love the time I can spend with you, solving problems together, or discussing a child. We must value our limited time with the students and carefully analyze how students are engaged in learning. We cannot afford the luxury of providing activities that are cute, but serve only the purpose of keeping students busy. Just because a student is working on a piece of paper and is quiet, does not mean that learning is happening. We are in a school th at expects that we as teachers utilize a constructivist approach to develop our st udents into the natural thinkers that will

PAGE 381

371make them successful learners. This re quires dialogue, discussions, cooperative grouping, and teachers questioning students w ith higher order probing. This takes efficient use of time. As a Management Team we have to become much more conscious of time, procedures, policies, and communicat ion to work more efficiently. As you will see during various parts of preplanni ng, we have thrown most of our past procedures and policies away. We star ted over to accommodate a variety of concerns that developed over the last four years. Hopefully, in our tightening of policies, we will all be able to spend mo re time talking about ways to help our children and less time with procedural thi ngs that interrupt th e smooth flow of the school. No one will need to think up the best way to do something. Nor will you need to ask someone how to do something, and follow what they say, because it is the way we do things Instead, we will have every policy accessible by computer. You’ll have time during your session on t echnology to get into the site where policies are written. If you have any ques tion about procedures, and it is not in writing on the website, then do not ask your neighbor, because policies are not the same as they were last year. We are seeing the results of your outstanding instruction, curriculum and assessment as our students are now enteri ng fourth grade. They are the first group to go through all four years in our school. Moving from a C grade to a B grade, in spite of how much we dislike standardized tests, are reflective of the fine quality instruction our students receive from you. The South Learning Community’s Curriculum specialist, and our Senior Director, literally screeched with joy when

PAGE 382

372they saw the incredible job our fifth grad ers did on the performance section of the FCAT math. Outstanding--with several students receiving the highest scores possible. This will be a great y ear, filled with exciting oppo rtunities to continue to grow and change.” In this way, we assumed that we could get the year off to a positive start and everyone would begin the year through fresh eyes On the surface the year appeared to get off with excitement and motivation. We gr ew again from 55 to 61 teachers, and 21 of the 61 were new to the school. It seemed logical that by the fourth year of our school we no longer needed to hire primarily new teachers. As much as I enjoy “raising” our young teachers, we needed a balance. I would continue to hire teachers who could fit into the more experienced group. We were growing up. Our new teachers were happy to be part of the school. They couldn’t wait to share their new ideas and approaches. But there was a problem. The newly hired, but experienced teache rs came with their own background of experiences. However, their philosophies were the same. But, they entered a culture where a specific set of strategies and in structional beliefs were now secured. The recently hired teachers had their own ideas about how to implement the school’s philosophy. Suddenly, those who grew up from the be ginning culture saw the different ideas brought into the school by newly-hired experien ced teachers, with diffe rent strategies and instruction, as that is not how we do things around here. This attitude of the teachers, who were at the school for three years, was cons istent with the literature that reveals that

PAGE 383

373when outsiders enter an existing culture conflict occurs. I try to assess every staff member on their ability to work with their peers. When people don’t get along, I try to fi gure out why. The c onflict that I finally heard about had a much more damaging piece–unkind gossip. The wr itten reflections of the previous year remained. Whenever I hear that time spent gossiping and speculation replaces time spent talking about better ways to serve our stude nts, I try to find the pot-stirrers and their partner’s. I found them, confronted each of them, but they didn’t get it. Great teachers; they just loved to keep things stirred up. It only takes one teacher perceived as having credible information, to say or imply some thing negative, or downright mean spirited, about someone else, and in a blink of an eye, that statement spreads and becomes a fact to the eager listeners. Many teachers would simply not let go of the “us vs. them” frustration. I could not belie ve that grown up people who ha ve a concern about someone would rather tell 10 of their colleagues than confront the one person with whom they have a problem. On the whole, teachers, espe cially female teachers, dislike and avoid, confrontation. They simply won’t confront the person and accompanying issues to bring resolution. In past schools, unless the situation a ppeared to be completely out of hand, I would overlook this gossip thing as a fact of life. But, I had too much passion about the success of this school to let th is go on. After almost four y ears, I now believed I could not see the forest for the trees. I was so frustra ted that staff members were squabbling. I had about 10 out of 52 teachers involved in some form of mean-spirited gossip. This had all the possibilities of destroying our culture ex cept for a major intervention that occurred. What’s a principal to do? I needed objective help.

PAGE 384

374 It was no coincidence that at that time I met Dr. Arthur Shapiro of the University of South Florida, a consultant, author, and professor. As I sa t in his office, I noticed his latest book at that time, Leadership for Constructivist Schools. As we sat talking, I told him how much we were trying to develop a Construc tivist School. I was quick to point out that we ha d undergone many changes in the three years we were in operation and all of a sudden I fe lt I was in a stuck pl ace. I described the accomplishments and progress we achieved. But, I felt I could not see the forest for the trees. He had extensive experience in working with schools as they build a school culture that focuses on student learning and teacher success. The more we talked the more I realized we needed his expe rtise to sort out the problem s from the solutions. Dr. Shapiro’s, Analysis of Change strategies was needed. He came to the school and sat with me, the CRT, Technology specialist, and Guidance Counselor. We discussed the issu es as we saw them and reconfirmed the direction we wanted to go. He quickly assessed the problem. 1) An elementary school of 960 students and one principal is too large. Groups of eight teachers on a team, with the expect ation that everyone will get along and stay happy with each other, all the time, is unrealistic. 2) Teachers don’t really know or unders tand each other’s personalities so that they can work effectively with their colleagues. 3) There needs to be a plan on how to proceed. 4) We needed to establish a planning committee so that we can determine the real issues and how to resolve them. He helped us develop a plan that could assess the situation and help us get beyond

PAGE 385

375this stumbling blocks. He re turned a few weeks later. During that time we revisited some of the issues with staff members. Teachers selected representatives from each grade level, and I specifically asked our nay sayers to become part of the solution. Each team sent a representative to a pl anning meeting with Dr. Shapiro. We were able to find school funds to provide substitute s for the teachers as we met for a full day. We created a professional envi ronment in which to work. Dr. Shapiro identified our task and we began brainstorming issues that we felt were important. During the meeting all the issues that the teachers could determine were listed in chart form. From the initial concer ns and issues our cons ultant began narrowing the issues from broad statements to more conc ise topics. Each funneling of items lead to manageable plans of action. There were ch arts all over the conference room as Dr. Shapiro wrote our thoughts. He remain ed poised on a ladder to capture all the information that the team brain stormed. Th e ideas covered floor to ceiling chart paper. After the final wall chart was completed, our Technology Specialist cr eated a final hard copy. The chart was displayed for everyone to see. Dr. Shapiro separated the issues into six areas: 1) Issues and Concerns 2) A summary of those issues and concerns 3) Themes 4) Potential Lines of Action 5) Underlying rationale 6) Outcomes A detailed chart is found in Appendix 2 p. 430.

PAGE 386

376 Each issue that I explaine d earlier became part of the statements. For me it was an Ah-ha-so that is what the issues were all about! Each concern I felt was now verbalized and in writing. I was getting the picture. We learned many things from this experien ce. First, we had many issues that we could not ignore. The tasks before us were cl early defined. It was now up to us to carry out the mission of accomplishing what we said we would. During each of the subsequent planning team meetings, detailed minutes were recorded. Following each meeting minutes were provided to every member of the staff. This strategy, emphasized by Dr. Shapiro, set the stage for all team and group meetings. It avoided the problem that exists when a committee member is pounced upon by others who were not in attendance to explain, “What happened? Who said what?” The communication among every member of the staff was critical. Providing everyone in the organization with the same information, at the same time, with details of meetings allows for clarification of the i ssues by those who did not attend. Without a common framework of reference, reinterpretation, or attempts at recalling the specifics of a meeting are often misquoted or misunderstood. After reviewing the issues, we determin ed the need to discuss each item. We started with the most emotional one. We n eeded to develop more effective ways to recognize each staff member. We met with one team at a time and re viewed the Issue and Concern statements from the Analysis chart. People’s feelings had been hurt, some fe lt more valued than others, there was bickering and lack of communication among and between teams. We then asked the teachers to te ll their stories. Staff members’ emotions were let

PAGE 387

377loose. One box of tissue for each grade level became the standard, as teachers revealed their experiences during the school year. We laughed, we cried, we reflected. Some of the issues that teachers experienced and th eir interpretation of why and how things happened the way they did, that caused them such anguish, was hard for me to hear. Whether or not there was anothe r side of the story, their frus trations were real and from their perspective, very difficult. Some of th eir experiences were painful, but they were open and honest. Each grade level had different issues. So me teams had fewer issues than others. However, after we covered the agenda and openly discussed the concerns, we all felt better. Closure was brought to many issues that just needed to get ou t on the table. For example, one team had a very autocratic t eam leader. The concrete sequential leader wanted order, organization, business comple ted, and “to do” lists given to each team member. Each of the other team members were other personality type s. They wanted to talk, discuss children, and interact. They felt th ey were being talked at, not talked with. Yet, none of the team confronted the issues with each other until our meeting. The teams found a solution. Establish a different system for team meetings. 1) Rotate the meetings from one classroom to the other. 2) No one people would have to assume to tal responsibility for the entire team, as perceived by the team leader. 3) During each meeting everyone would have a role to perform that would rotate from meeting to meeting. 4) Food responsibility would be rotated as well.

PAGE 388

378 5) Minutes would be dist ributed to all team member s and the Management Team. As other teams met, the opportunity to tell how they were feeling about issues allowed the team to confront concern, solve problems, and figure out solutions. This step required constructivist thinking. After each team met we concluded the day. Every one of the teachers felt that getting together was something that should be done on a continuous basis. The teachers decided that they would include similar discussions as part of their team meetings. At the conclusion of each session, the CRT and I felt drained. It was an outpouring of emotions that we accepted as the individual’s view of their reality. Keep in mind. This is a predominately female staff. Identified as another Issues or Concer n was the distrust between those who had been with the school since the beginning, and those who were recently hired. Dr. Shapiro recognized that with the many changes in sta ff since the school opened, we didn’t really know each other. We worked together, yes, but we needed to understand and accept each other. Dr. Shapiro returned to the school several w eeks later, to help us with this step in the process--find out who we are and what makes us tick. He suggested we first complete an individual assessment of our strengt hs as well as areas of less strength using the Gregorc Personality Inventory Once the form was comple ted, Dr. Shapiro led us in an exercise to examine what the results meant. We learned that people exhibiting specific pe rsonalities in any one of four areas in this self-analysis instrument will demonstrate some of the following basic characteristics: Dominate Style Characteristic 1) Concrete Sequential Linear methodical, ordered, practical

PAGE 389

3792) Abstract Sequential Intellectual, analytical, conceptual, theoretical 3) Abstract Random Emotiona l, random, perceptive, colorful 4) Concrete Random Intuitive, independent, practical, futuristic Each of us demonstrates combinations of these characteristics. It provided a vehicle from which we could better understa nd the behaviors of our selves and others. We could truly look beyond the surface of some of the frustrations to understand the various ways that people operate. In this way some of the issues with individuals immediately dissolved. Remarks such as, “Oh, that’s why you did it that way.” “No wonder you were irritated with me when I said that to you, that isn’ t what I meant, it’s just the way I think!” The results of the inventory, and the oppor tunity to dig deeper into how we each think, act, relate to situati ons, and respond to others would provide valuable information as we moved to the next steps. This also was a chance to laugh at ourselves. We could find humor in our idiosyncrasies. We liste d each team member and their Style and distributed the list to everyone. From this point on, everyone hire d receives the Style Inventory. During every prepla nning session, before school be gins, each person has an icon identifying their personality type. As the year continued we continuously re ferred back to our experiences with both the plan that required action on several leve ls, and the understanding of our personalities. Teachers seemed more relaxed, more open. Most staff members were now comfortable discussing concerns and issues with each other, trying to arrive at mutual conclusions. It appeared that teachers became more studentcentered at this point. When up until now,

PAGE 390

380the issues were very personal. Throughout the year our CRT created a st rong support system for those who were encouraged by her to advance through the laborious process of completing the National Board Certification process. The motiv ation and continuous encouragement she provided, placed an important focus on the mo st sophisticated methods of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The more teach ers became involved in the process the more they stated that they could not complete the process if they were in any other school. Our expectations of how children are taught, parallels the requ irements for the lengthy and comprehensive National Board application. Na tional Board candidates become some of our best cheerleaders As teachers began thinking about the upcoming year, they began having serious discussions about diffe rent configurations for servi ng students. Discussions began centering around ways to reconfigure grade levels into vertical rath er than horizontal teams. Teachers began brainstorming other wa ys to arrange classroom locations that would involve more than one grade level. Si nce the school is designe d with clusters of four classrooms, around a central planning ar ea, there were sugges tions that perhaps teachers could create a cluster of three or f our grade levels in one area. Constructivist thinking occurred. However, teachers were not ready to make a firm decision on vertical teaming just yet. We realized that there were still issues that needed cl osure. Even though the year was coming to a close, and teachers’ anxiet y level was high again, we didn’t feel we could wait. It appeared as if, for the first time since school opened, we would have fewer new members of the staff for the coming year. What would that mean? Once again, we

PAGE 391

381used money set aside for planni ng to bring one grade level at a time together for another full day. I wanted to try to bring closure to the issues we discussed earlier, reflect on what happened, and determine where we wanted to go as a next step. The agenda: 1) I read a selection from School as a Journey an eight-year odyssey about Torin Finser’s experiences with his cla sses at the Waldorf School as he looped with his students every year from kindergarten th rough grade eight. I read a part of his essay that was appropriate for each grade level. This set th e tone for the reflective writing that would come next on the agenda. After reading the story we asked teachers to write their reflections on the year. 2) The teachers wrote for 45 minutes and reflected on the year, using guided questions. 3) Each teacher shared: a. What are the highlights of your year? b. What makes you “tick?” c. What makes you “ticked off?” 4) What makes an effective team? a. How do you determine if you can trust someone? b. How do you communicate effectivel y, so that everyone on your team understands you? 5) How do we determine our culture? a. What do you believe is a way to identify the “culture” of a school? b. What do you believe is a way to iden tify what you want the “culture” of

PAGE 392

382your team to look like? I served only in the position of facilitator. I also kept the minutes so that I could be as neutral as possible. The exampl es below show how some teachers felt. : Teacher: A. To my principal: Thanks! Thanks for all you’ve shared Thanks for all you cared. You’ve made me smile You’ve made me grow You’ve been there through it all You’ve been inspirational You’ve pushed me to try new things You’ve given me the strength I needed To be my best To strive for excellence now and ever more To my teammates: Working with such talented and creative people, has given me new insights into the teaching profe ssion. The hope of knowing that we could work as a team, bounce off ideas, shares our stuff, help with our problems by suggesting solutions. S..., from you I learned about the variety of problems children face outside of school, that in tu rn affects their acad emic performance. A. from you I learned to be very flex ible. C. From you I learned how to

PAGE 393

383incorporate the arts into my kids education. Who would have thought? Shakespeare, at my grade level? You all challenged me to do new things. My children and I have bot h benefited from you. From my kids I learned that anythi ng is possible and challenged they and they were empowered, and met the challenge. I laughed and I cried with you. Thanks. Teacher B My team members and I enjoyed a bond this year which I didn’t have last year in the other grade. I learned so mu ch from each other and it was nice to have the emotional and professiona l support network right ther e. The best thing about my relationship with my team this year is that they were always open to innovative ideas. Teacher S. has been teaching a long time, she was always willing to try something new, even if the wheel had to be reinvented a little. Neither of us ever felt we “knew” the way it had to be done and that was that. It led to a year-long discovery of new things and laying the f oundations for new things to be tried in the future. I think it was for the betterment of the kids. Teacher C: Well, there is a lot to be said for this year. Some positive things happened as well as some negative. As far as for me and my children, I feel I did a much better job teaching

PAGE 394

384them than I did last year when I was new to Southwood. This year I was more familiar with the curriculum which ma de it much easier and made me more confident when I was teaching. I feel I really “connected” with my students this year. Overall, my experience with my students was a positive one. I am feeling good about my job this year. I do feel however, that our team c ould have gotten along a little better this year. We sure hit some rocky roads on this year’s journey. I think if everybody would just treat people w ith respect and how they w ould like to be treated, everyone would have gotten along much better. I guess though when you put so many different personalities together you are bound to have some friction. Maybe I need to quit being so sensitive to everything and quit taking everything so personal. I am looking forward to my class ne xt year. I have really learned a lot from my journey through Southwood. I had a chance to work with some wonderful and truly gifted people. I lear ned a lot of different methods of teaching and that it is O.K. for things not to work out exactly as you had hoped the first time. The important thing is not to give up and to always tr y and think of some better ways of doing it next time. I will never forget my experience here at Southwood as I learned a lot. Teacher D: The fourth year of the school was like every other year. It has had its victories as well as its defeats. On a pr ofessional level I feel very positive. I had

PAGE 395

385the opportunity to coll aborate with a wonde rful teacher. Someone I trust as an educator and a friend. Together we have taken our students to places we thought that at this point in time were unattainabl e. I am grateful for this experience because it has made me a bett er teacher and me am confident of this based on the performance of my students. Because of the program’s successes I thought about exploring the possibilities of collaborating on a different grade level and possibly with another teacher. But I don’t let my imagination get away from me. I love teaching and I am driven by the needs of my students cultural differences that are not easily transcended. Teacher E.: Every day I thanked God for my cla ss. They are truly what kept me going. The different academic abilities a nd personalities have been quite a challenge for me. I have enjoyed them grea tly. My class has made a great deal of progress this year. We have been through so cial issues together. They have been developing a respect for each other which is what we all need regardless of our age. The comments were sincere, expressing al l of the ups and downs of the year. They seem to be reflective of most peopl e’s experiences. A few wounds still needed heeling, but I felt we had made an enorm ous breakthrough and could now move on in a much more positive way. Once again, we would experience anothe r change, for the upcoming year. We lost several thousand dollars from our budge t because our student numbers dropped by 14

PAGE 396

386students. That particular nu mber reduced our budget consid erably. We would loose three teachers. That would mean that three teach ers would not have to remain in portable classrooms, but could come into the main build ings. I took advantage of the situation and gave teachers the opportunity to once again ex perience constructivist thinking. If I was going to continue modeling the decision making and problem solving process, I needed to provide the vehicle by which teacher s could own their own decisions. The teachers were given a blank map of the school in poster form. They were to choose their own room for the upcoming year, and the teachers with whom they wanted to work. As the teachers sat looking at the map, they realized that every decision created a new problem for which they must find a so lution. This demonstrated the process of constructivism. Problem so lving, utilizing past experi ences, and generating a new understanding, were the purposes. Staff members became frustra ted. They wanted me to ma ke the decision. Finally, the teams said that if I would make the decisi ons, then the staff could just be mad at me. This way they realized that if they didn’t get what they wanted, they might get mad at each other. I left the room, and let each person and team make the decisions. Each person saw the ripple effect of every deci sion made. Although each staff member found a classroom, many were not happy w ith their decision, even when they were a part of it. This was an example of when teachers do not want to make decisions. They would rather someone else made it for th em. Democracy, in a case such as this, demonstrates the challenge of an environm ent where decisions are made by groups and constructivist thinking was an expectation.

PAGE 397

387What I Learned: Creating a Constructivist School: Learning how to think, problem solve, wo rk together, and make decisions that affect each other, is a difficult and cha llenging experience. Only experience and opportunities to engage in constr uctivist thinking seem to pr ovide staff members with an understanding of what construc tivism is, what it looks like, how it works, and how it feels. Then internalization will occur. When the process is repeated, then the philosophy would become automatic. It is a slow, laborious process. It is neit her simple nor easy. Change : The addition of new teachers can cause unr est. The staff did not stabilize yet and those that did not handle change continued to remain off balance. Personal needs often outweighed professional growth. Identifying change is a natural part of a growing school. Teachers understood the rationale, but a few were not comfortable with the outcome, even if they were a part of the decision making process. Change would b ecome identified as part of the culture of the school. If, and when, instructional strategies change, at that point there must be clearly articulated statements of expectations, restati ng philosophical positions, and redefining, if necessary, the culture. Ever yone must own the change. A reevaluation of our culture and how it changed became necessa ry. We realized that cultures change naturally as they evolve. Leadership : Providing the staff with an outside consulta nt had a positive effect. An expert can

PAGE 398

388often see issues more objectively. In this case, Dr. Shapiro also had the personality to help us see a way to problem solve in a non-threatening way. The focus became how to solve the problem using a carefully orchestrat ed plan. As part of the plan, we also focused on sensitive issues, as teachers expressed their feelings about issues and problems. New teachers need clear structure at the begi nning of their career s, but should be encouraged to branch out, looki ng at other ways to do their jo b even better than before. They need time to get their feet on the ground and demonstrate thei r ability to understand what students need in order to become succe ssful learners. We need to talk about new ways of doing things. The, we do it this way, wall that ensures a solid foundation of instruction should recede when we encourag e and articulate to teachers the support to try their wings when they feel they are ready. A ll teachers must feel comfortable in a nurturing risk-free environment. We need methods of communicating new ideas while validating existing ones, so our philos ophy and culture will continually grow. I recognized that teacher’s issues and problems were important to them. Without acknowledging their feelings and frustrations the wounds that were experienced would not heel. Teachers as Leaders We needed a forum and environment for all teachers who continued to master their teaching craft, to talk to each other, continuously analyze student work; discuss student behavior; and assist with parent in teractions. Not only should new teachers have a mentor or peer coach, all teachers must be th ere for them, and for each other. We need a

PAGE 399

389vehicle for discussion between both small group and large group team meetings. Discussions among teams must include everyone Validation of the worth of each team member also becomes critical for the levels of trust to develop. When new teachers come into a school, the current teachers must receive extra validation. Once the current teachers feel th ey are valued, then anyone coming into the school for the first time is entering a school that has a well-developed philosophy and culture in an environment that welcomes new id eas. If any change would occur, it is a result of a joint decision among all staff members. Teachers who were self-assured, competent, and objective, became the cheerleaders for the school. They were the group that most effectiv ely mentored others, because they modeled appropriate professiona l and behavioral atti tudes. Teachers who created innovative ideas needed support to think through the process and develop a plan for implementation. Year 5 During the summer, I was able to hire another Assistant Principal. I was desperately in need of help. Our student population exceeded 950 for the last three years, but money was tight and it was more important that I use the money for the Assistant. position to reduce class sizes. So, I manage d only with the help of the CRT and Secretary. The three of us constituted the management team. The more we tried to accomplish, the busier our schedules became. 12 -16 hour days began to take their toll. The CRT and Secretary took on many administra tive roles to help me keep my head above water. We were all stretched as far as possible. We now had a Management Team of three, the CRT, Assistan t Principal, and me.

PAGE 400

390 The AP was a teacher in our school from the first year we opened. Well regarded, she is highly competent, energetic, and mo tivated. Her management style is very compatible to both the CRT and me. We have a balance of personalities. She is a very welcome addition to our team. This is the year she began her county-sponsored Preparing New Principal program. I view my job as one to mentor and help prepare her for the time that she will be able to r un a school and carry ou t our constructivist philosophy. We had three fewer teachers, only eight ne w teachers, although our student population was still at 958. The staff finally stabilized. I wanted to jump for joy. One frustration arrived when I was requi red by the county to hire a teacher who was displaced from his position in another schoo l, at the last minute. Two days before pre planning, I experienced another set back in my belief system that everyone can learn. Some people just choose not to. Such was this teacher, who would not budge from his position of teaching from black-line copies of activities. Alt hough I spent all year documenting the need for his dismissal, he too, was hired by another principal for the following year. (The principal did not call me to check on his instructional skills). However, at the beginning of year fi ve we were all very excited over being together. During our preplanning days I rec ognized those teachers who were beginning their fifth year with us. I painted hammers with gold paint, and tied a ribbon around each one. Along with a certificate of acco mplishment I presented each of the veteran teachers with the Golden Hammer Award. (Recognizing the time when we were hammering away on the day before school started). In this way I hoped to recognize their hard work and their value to the rest of the staff. I want ed to maintain the consistency of the plan

PAGE 401

391developed through the Analysis of Change --recognizing accomplishments and validating the staff. We had additional reasons to celebrate. We had four teachers pass the National Board Certification exam. We now had six Cert ified teachers on the staff. This is far more than anyone in our county, including the high schools. In addi tion, our Teacher of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESO L) was the only NBC teacher in her field in the county. We had a huge celebration, plaques and accolades. The School Board Chairman, and our Area Superintendent helped us recognize the teacher’s accomplishments. This was a major turning point. We focused on the important reasons why our staff demonstrated their motivation: ability and commitment. NBC t eachers also supported each other through the National Board process and could see the be nefit of all their hard work. Our CRT was instrumental in encouraging and supporting the candidates. The staff recognized her dedication and commitment to helping the te achers. Not only did the staff recognize their impressive accomplishment, but the teach ers were obviously very proud of their achievement. This was the opportune mome nt to openly state that we were a Constructivist School. The rigors of the National Board proc ess and the expectations for demonstrating student and teacher learning require a cons tructivist belief. Now, teachers understood what teaching in a constructivist school mean t. Once again they professed that without our school’s philosophy and support, in the way teachers can teach, they could not become so successful. Of course, the adde d critical component was the support system they received from our Curriculum Teacher an d the other NBC teachers. National Board

PAGE 402

392Certification became a goal for many additi onal teachers each year and became another part of our culture. Then, when no one was prepared, the trag ic events of September 11, dramatically impacted our school. It was a day none of us will forget. The day of the attack, my Assistant was in immediate contact with he r uncle, the lead fireman in the Emergency Rescue Unit, near Ground Zero, specializing in extreme rescue efforts. She maintained continuous contact with him th roughout the ordeal. This prov ided us with a connection we made later on that had a long-lasting effect. Our parents were frantic. Of the 700 fa milies, 500 of them immediately raced to the school to get their children. Many of our families were from New York. Some of our parents of teachers and student s were thought to be in the Twin Towers on business. Many were in New York. Others had families li ving in New York. Several of our parents came from countries where they lived through eith er the constant threat or the reality of terrorism. They were all so frightened. Everyone in the main office building imme diately went into crisis action mode. With little direction, and no forethought, I assign ed jobs for every office staff member. Teachers who saw the emergency and were able to help did. I worked the phones, answered questions, and trie d to calm hysterical parent s. The Assistant Principal orchestrated crowd control. Eventually, all families who came to school left to take their children home. The rest of the children remained in the classrooms with teachers who tried to carry out the remainde r of the day as calmly as possible. Very few children attended school the next day. Our Assistant Principal learned that the men at the Emergency Fire Station near

PAGE 403

393Ground Zero needed supplies and clothing. They were unable to get to their homes. They were not leaving their station until they had found all of their fallen brothers. We saw this as an opportunity for our school to beco me involved in helping others. Everyone in the school rose to the occasion. Over the ne xt several weeks we collected items from students, parents, and staff. The Assistant Principal mailed boxes of items to the fire station. Classrooms of students adopted fireme n. Our young children now had first hand experience in understanding the concept of a hero that did not come from the sporting or movie image. One specific classroom of children began corresponding with individual firemen, sending them gifts and letters of encouragement. During their down time firemen became pen pals with some of our students, sending them pictures of their families, and writing about how much they ap preciated their thoughtfulness. They later said that these sincere messages from child ren helped keep their determination high. In the months following the tragedy, t hose students who later visited New York stopped by the fire station and saw our school ’s collection of letters on the walls and lockers, and gifts the children sent on the desks and tables of the men. When firemen and their families came to Orlando, they were invited to the school and were greeted as the heroes they were. This experience provided all of us with the vehicle to unite and prove that constructivist thinking was a part of our cultur e. Each child and a dult in the school could think, problem solve, draw conclusions and deve lop projects to provide others with help and support. Within a constr uctivist environment, character building emerges naturally. For the first time since th e school opened, I could see that we were building a

PAGE 404

394community of constructivist thinkers It began to come together. Dr. Shapiro returned to the school to see how we were doing. We reconvened our committee. It was a time to regroup and dete rmine that we were on the right path. We reevaluated the Analysis of D ynamics of Change, working through each of the steps. We agreed that we were on the right path. We revisited the Analysis of Dynamics of Change Plan: Trust Issues: (1) The primary nay sayers moved to other schools, and other positions. (2) The trust level between the Ma nagement Team and the teachers was evidenced by the number of interruptions we have in the day. We conscientiously respond as soon as possible to teacher requests and needs. (3) Generally, teachers bonded more this year especially when they were able to choose their teaching groups. This became apparent when I saw more clusters of teachers getting together to socializ e, talk about students, and brainstorm ideas. The focus was more centered on the students. The lines of communication were greatly enhanced: (1) We used technology consistently with e-mail messages back and forth to confirm and respond to questions; every me mber of the staff receives the same information at the same time. (2) Teams were aware of the need to comm unicate and resolve issu es, although we continued to work on this issue. Team sizes reduced: (1) The actual team sizes won’t decrease because of the increased school size.

PAGE 405

395However, different groupings of teachers put compatible smaller teams, within the larger team. (2) The idea of vertical teaming throughout the school was modified. Instead, one team comprising more than one grade level in a four-classroom area would become a pilot project. We would evaluate the concept at the end of next year. Parent Involvement Program: (1) Programs that we began earlier continued, such as C oncerts, and Family Math Nights. (2) The PTA remained an active organiza tion and promoted two family dances and one all day Family Fun Day. Our PT A has always been very easy to work with and extremely supportive of our school. Multi-Cultural Planning Committee: (1) This committee did not form at this time. (2) The Assistant Principal and ESOL (E nglish for Speakers of Other Languages) teacher, organized the Parent Leadership Council, a group of parents who come from non-English speaking backgrounds. They provided insight and suggestions on ways to improve the communication be tween families from other cultures and the school. Need for staff Recognition: We had many reasons to celebrate. (1) With each event, we set aside time to recognize and celebrate accomplishments. We created an elabor ate celebration, complete with guest presenters, plaques, and accolades. We celebrated engagements. We had showers

PAGE 406

396for weddings, and babies. (2) We continued with our Wonderful We dnesday celebrations. Each team was responsible for entertaining the staff with food, activities, and fun. Teams developed ways to have teachers mix with each other. All staff participation in curriculum planning: (1) Throughout the year our teachers presented and demonstrated innovative ideas to focus groups. (a) The focus group’s topics were dete rmined through a staff survey that asked the areas in which teachers would like more information. Teachers chose the area of study in which they wanted to participate. (b) Teachers were responsive to each of the in-services we provided, we could see by the experiences and lear ning that occurred in the classroom. We had 100% participation in each in-service session. During the course of the year, our CR T made an important connection. We knew that connecting with a university could develop into a successf ul partnership. In this case we were invited to become part of the Fl aRE project. A Family and School Literacy connection provided resources for the suppor t to establish a Literacy Council. The Council was selected and met with th e representatives of the University of Central Florida. We made a school commitment to become part of the program. It gave us the opportunity to recognize leadership am ong our teachers who could in turn help others by conducting literacy workshops back at the school. We woul d participate in a week long summer workshop. It was our best year ever. At the end of the year, we had a Zen experience. I

PAGE 407

397brought all of the staff to the Media Center. Af ter serving herbal tea, to the restrains of earth sounds, surrounded by burning incense, an d dimmed lights, I asked teachers to reflect on the year. They were asked to give us their na me. Then write their responses to the following questions: (a) How do you feel about this year and why? (b) What did you learn that made you a better teacher? (c) What did you learn that made you a better team member? (d) What are you looking forward to next year? Their reflections showed how far we ha d come. Gone were the references to squabbling, hurt feelings, and general frustr ation. This was replaced with positive statements about their own learning, their prid e in achievement, the rise in test scores since we received a letter grade of A, thei r overall enjoyment with staff members with whom they made connections, and their feelings of becomi ng better teachers. The rationale for asking teachers to pl ace their names on their reflections made sense at the time. My intent was to continue this opportunity for re flection at the end of each year. I hoped that I could track the teach ers who stayed remained at the school from one year to the next to see their growth. During the previ ous year reflection, during our pull out day, I did not have teachers identify themselves. So when I tried to determine how best to analyze their re sponses, I didn’t know which ones left the school, compared to those who stayed. This way I can track teachers’ growth. I ended the year with a si gh of relief that we were finally on our way to becoming a constructivist school. It t ook five years to get here.

PAGE 408

398 What I Learned: Creating a Constructivist School: Once staff stability became a reality, there were more players that could come to the table with a foundation of the philos ophy of a constructivist school. We would articulate the premise for constructivism ever y chance we got so that teachers would start making the connections between what was ha ppening and the constructivist beliefs. They were already doing so much of what is foundational that it was just a matter of restating and using authentic examples from work being accomplished by the staff. For example, if we were in a discussion with the teachers and trying to find a solution for something, I might respond with, “that’s a gr eat way to problem solve, that was very constructivist, you stated wh at you already knew, applied it to what you are doing, and drew your own meaning from that connection.” We laid the foundation, the cement was fi rm, and now it was a matter of building on that knowledge and understanding. Change: Change is a matter of perspective. Th e staff became more settled and focused when there were fewer new additions to the staff. When individual changes are made in such things as changing a room, the decisi on becomes more tolerable if it happens to everyone. Change for individuals became more frustrating than changes for most everyone. When adding an additional classroo m for example, there is a ripple effect on all other rooms in that section of the sc hool. That was more acceptable since everyone

PAGE 409

399was involved. If the individual or group own the change then any inconveniences that accompany that change were accepted. In spite of the time involved, whenever a change becomes inevitable, and not negotiable, then it is important to bring ev ery stakeholder to the same meeting, with everyone involved in the upcoming change. A full explanation surrounding the decision is presented. Those who ar e affected by the change woul d know well in advance of the meeting, and anyone who was part of the upcoming adjustment had an opportunity to understand the rationale behind the decision. I made phone ca lls to those who were not present and spent time explaining what happe ned and why. This provides everyone with the same information, avoids speculation, and al lows everyone to move onto the task at hand. There was a noticeable impact on all of us as a result of the tr agic events at the Twin Towers in New York. I believe this ga ve us a chance to step back and evaluate what was important. It was time for that serious reflection. Leadership: I too had to step back from my intense focus on the academic tasks before me and recognize the serious emotiona l needs of everyone during, and following the days of 911. I remained sensitive to people’s needs, chil dren, parents, and staff. This was no time to engage in academic discussions. Time spent in classrooms watching students learn and teachers teach provides the only way to know whether or not teachers are making the tran sfer from what they think they know, to their ability to transfer that information to the instructional level.

PAGE 410

400 Lesson plans, long reviled by teachers as an exercise in futilit y because teachers will say, “I never follow them anyway,” still provided valuable insight into what the teacher plans to do. Even if they don’t follow them to the letter, they are very revealing. I started reviewing the plans more in earnest this year, I wanted to look for those who were organized and were making the connectio ns. As long as the plans are reviewed within the classroom, while the teacher is engaging the students, then immediate discussion can occur. I also spent more time looking at student assessments. They, too, tell the story of how much time teachers ar e spending analyzing student learning. Just because I reviewed the lesson plans and the assessment piece, it was foolish to assume that when teachers understand what they need to do that they actually do it. Examining both sets of information with in the context of watching a teacher teach, can provide valuable feedback to the teachers. This also is a time that I can discuss constructivist learning with the teacher and once again rein force the expectation that learning occurs, using a constructivist philosophy. Teachers as Leaders: Our increased number of Board Certified Teachers became very motivating for others. Our CRT continued to provide support for the teachers as they spent the year on their quest for NBC status, by demonstrating exceptional instructional skills. Once again, the process and discussion th at occurred became infectious Those who worked on the projects continued to share their discove ries about student learning. We all won throughout each individu al’s year-long study. The formation of the Literacy Council was an opportunity to continue to raise our

PAGE 411

401skills to a higher level, and associate with ot her professionals and e xperts. This was a time that a group could begin taking the lead. It was in its beginning stages and we were optimistic about the possibilities. During the summer the Assistant Princi pal, Curriculum Resource Teacher and I joined the teachers as part of the Literacy Council. I found the money to purchase personalized golf shirts with the school emblem. As a group we stood out among the other schools. We felt very proud. The weeklong experience, provided lit eracy sessions we co uld attend, and time to meet as a group, to plan the direction we wanted the school to take in its focus on literacy. We also planned ways that we coul d provide support and se rvice for the school. We agreed that we would continue our work in literacy by using teacher identified focus groups. The Literacy Council would become key presenters at school, although there may be other teachers who have special strate gies that they would also present in group sessions, one time a month. This was a power ful group and had enormous potential to take the lead in the pursuit of better instruction in literacy. Other interest groups began to form th at provided opportunities for teachers to become leaders. One teacher willingly became the Science Chair. He had a high interest in science, would chair a committee, and make recommendations about the needs for teachers so that the instruction in science w ould be more comfortable for the teachers. He took his job seriously. He became a leader. Another teacher assumed a leadership ro le in a significant project to promote student writing. She orchestrated a program that provided the opport unity for students to write a published book, as a classroom book, and again as an individu al book. There was

PAGE 412

402an enormous amount of coordination required to provide teachers with the necessary information, responding to questions, meeting pu blishing deadlines. It was a challenging project for all 950 students. She organized and coordinated the progr am without any requirement from me. The results astonished students, parents, a nd teachers. Every classroom had a hardback book, completely student authored, with copies purchased by families. Our Media Center provides a showcase for each student’s book a nd provides a check out system for all students to read each other’s books. She became a leader. Year 6 Year six began with renewed energy and motivation. Following the work of last year we, as the Manageme nt Team, decided to use United We Lead as our theme for preplanning. Red, white, and blue decorati ons surrounded the media center. Once again, we arranged a professional looking environmen t for the teachers for the time we have together during preplanning. We reflected ove r the past year with our connections with the Rescue Team in New York. We were off to a great start. The Management Team is a dream team to me. Each of our personality styles is so well matched that whenever we must plan activities and events, each person’s role and responsibility became almost automatic. We each know how the other thinks. We all agree on the philosophical position and compli ment each other in our various approaches. Our preplanning activities were thematic, de signed with the teacher in mind, and we carefully planned our time with the te achers with sensitivity to their time. It was time to celebrate again. Si x more teachers passed their National Board

PAGE 413

403Certification. We now have 12 teachers out of 52 who received this prestigious honor. Once again our numbers are far greater than a ny other school in the c ounty. We also took additional pride in our Art teacher. She is the only Elementary Board Certified teacher in Art, in the county. Our teacher leaders were growing in numbers and it became a big point of discussion. Being a member of the National Board Certified Teachers is becoming part of the culture. We are so proud. When school began, we were able to r ecognize the Literacy C ouncil’s role in the school literacy plan. They we re recognized and provided an o pportunity to describe their role in teacher and parent support for the upc oming year. It was the Literacy Council who would decide on the assessments that th e teachers agreed woul d be the foundational assessments at each grade level. From the beginning of this year, our teachers began to take leadership roles. It was evident from the discussions held duri ng our planning days. Throughout the year we continued to pull grade level teams for one da y to plan, discuss, and reflect on ways to better serve our children. During each session I continued to transc ribe the discussions on the computer so that when teachers left at the end of the day they had the complete dialogue about what everyone said, and most of what th ey did. The minutes were available for each of the teachers. I enjoyed th is role. It placed me in the room, engaged in what is going on, and I often helped to f acilitate the discussions with our CRT. Yet I was physically away from the group in order to project the feeling that I was not a dominant part of the group. Each grade level kindergarten through grad e five engaged in discussions that lead to problem solving. Regardless of the t opic the emphasis always came back to our

PAGE 414

404philosophy. Are we teaching children to construct their own understanding? We asked teachers to identify the areas on which they would like to concentrate for their professional growth during the year Based upon the survey to teachers, it was obvious that the diversity of our staff would require a variety of opportunities to learn, based upon the individual needs of each teacher As a result, teachers requested a Focus Group model, where small groups would concen trate on specific topics. This year we identified common areas of interest in grades K-5. Small groups se lected areas to study, read, examine, and discuss, on the following topics: (1) Technical skills associated with Guided Reading, working with students in small groups, according to each child’s ability level. (2) The associated strategies to he lp students think and understand content material as well as how to embed skills within contextual understanding. (3) The variety of experiences we could provide students as they develop skills and understanding when reading independen tly, for leisure, during a small group guided reading, or a larger group shared reading. (4) Working with struggling readers. (5) Teacher measurement of student progress and student self-assessment strategies. We asked hard questions, such as: (1) How can we embed skills and strategies for learning to achieve deeper contextual understanding? (a) Teachers drew from their experiences and determined they could accomplish this task through integration of the curriculum, well-designed

PAGE 415

405lessons, carefully developed assessm ents, and implementation of childcentered content. Students do not learn skills and strategies for understanding in isolation fr om their areas of study. (2) How can we undertake individualized assessment within a classroom of children? (a) Teachers viewed video tapes fr om New Zealand that demonstrated effective classroom management dur ing instruction, while engaged in literacy activities. Discussion on impl ementation of the system provided insight into possible adapta tions that would work. (3) What resources are available to accomplish the standards? (a) Any resource we can afford is provided for you. I’ll find the money somehow. I must insert at this time, that publishing companies became much more responsive to school’s need to provide multiple le vels of literature that was rich in a child -friendly, expository and na rrative text. What a difference six years makes. Each time we met with a grade level, more in-depth understanding occurred for each teacher. As new staff members joined our school, we were able to help them bond with a group. Spending the entire day together is quality time for everyone. It provides an environment that is relaxed and nurturing. This was the time to think about their own thinking. Teachers leave the pull out day with a strong sense of their own metacognition, and transfer that understanding into how children learn to read and think. In keeping with the Analysis of Change Plan, our Curriculum Teacher developed a program for parent involvement called Partners in Print. This is a program that recruits

PAGE 416

406volunteers from our parents and the business community who come to the school and spend time reading with individual children. Our CRT provides a training program for them that gives basic skills in the teaching of reading. This opportunity to bring the community into the school is extremely su ccessful for everyone involved, including parents, students, and teachers. Our Guidance Counselor initiated an opport unity for parents to receive assistance in areas of child rearing. Her Loving Pare nt workshops were conducted both during the day and some evenings during the year. The topics were those generated by the parents in such areas as discipline, handling atten tion deficit children, and working with children in divorced families. Our CRT and volunteer teachers provided a night where parents of students in grades three, four, and five, meet to learn about the Florida Competency Tests (FCAT). Parents find out about the testi ng format and expectations for the test. They experience responding to a few test items. Some parents refuse to take th e test for fear of getting the answer wrong. In this way parents become sensitive to the issues surrounding the highstakes testing that their children experience. Math and Science nights are extremely popul ar with parents. Once again teachers take the leadership role in determining the c oncepts that will become part of parent and child scientific and mathematical understandi ng. We also identifie d key parents in our community who have a science background. They provided enrich ing opportunities for everyone. They established stations in the cafeteria where adults and children could experience engaging, hands-on science. This year was also filled with a variety of learning experiences for the students

PAGE 417

407that brought to their world the need to unders tand our global cultures. We provided a way to bring many countries into the experiences of students as they continued to construct their own learning and develop their own conscious beliefs about the world around them. The war in Iraq and children’s opportunities to form their own conclusions based upon the information they read, heard, and discusse d, created another example of constructivist learning. More important, we wanted students to understand the global world and celebrate of the richness of our cultural diversity. The end of the year became the culmination of a several year programs. Our school could now boast 54 languages and cultures in our school. Two teachers of our English as S econd Other Language Learners demonstrated the extent that leadership roles developed as we continued following our Analysis of Change plan. The Celebration of Our Nations began wh en our teachers decided that we should recognize each of our cultures with their national flag. They wanted the flags to hang in the cafeteria where the teacher s would create an environment in recognition of our cultural diversity. My support was critical to the success of this venture. This meant providing the funding needed. I found the money. The next part of their project seemed si mple on the surface. Provide each family in the school with an 8" X 11" felt square with the directions for each family to create a representation of the country of their heritage. They e xpected that out of the 650 families, 100 squares would return. Instea d, 450 squares came back to the school. Many were carried carefully by the parent, as they proudly presented their he ritage square to the teachers.

PAGE 418

408 There were incredible works of art: handmade replicas of bride and groom ceremonial dress, from India; a montage of items from Cuba, tiny hats, fruit, people; miniature flags from Italy, Spain, and Brazil. Our teachers then planned on how they would be displayed and mounted. Family memb ers were recruited by one of the teachers to accomplish these tasks. Celebrations were held. I described the ceremony: The Orlando, Florida sun shone down on th e children, parents, and staff that morning. With the war in Iraq a real ity, 930 elementary students at Southwood Elementary School in grades K-5 celebrated th e unity of many nations coming together in peace. A strikingly beautiful fo urth grade young lady, dressed in red, white, and blue stood before the crowd. “Hello, my name is Jomarys Leon Rivera. I am a first generation American. That means my parents were not born in the United States. Both my parents were born in Puerto Rico. To me being an American means ma ny things. It means being proud of what you are and where you come from. It means working hard for all the opportunities that we have. It mean s standing together and supporting one another. The United States is a special country because we stand for justice, liberty, freedom, and equality. Our country is made up of ma ny different cultures living together in peace. Here we value a pe rson’s character instead of their ethnic background. When thinking about what being an American means to me, I think about

PAGE 419

409our heroes. I’d like to te ll you about a very special hero. His name is Sergeant Jorge Leon Tobal. He is my dad. (She now places her father’s army cap on her head) smiles, and continues. Right now he is in the Middle East protecting our freedom and helping others achieve theirs. I feel very grateful to live in this great country and I am lucky that I can enjoy the rights and privileges that come with being an American.” To the sound of each country’s national anthem, 49 children, representing most of the nations in the school, marched proudly dow n an aisle of classmates and parents. Children sat amazed that their friends carried flags of another nation. They waved at their classmates as each excha nged smiles of pride. Whispers of, “That’s the country I came from,” and, “ I know him, he’s in my cla ss, what a ‘cool’ flag.” In the sea of students, red, white, and blue clothing, or the traditional dress from native countries, created a kaleidoscope of color. A guest vocalist sang, Proud to be an American. At that moment two majestic eagles flew overhead as if to acknowledge th e freedom that existed below them in the hearts and minds of the children. Just as the refrains from the song began to end, and adding to the breathtaking symbolism, a beautif ul white bird circled above the treetops. The picture of freedom and peace was instan tly framed and became etched in the minds of all who gazed in wonder at this magnificen t sight. Tears from parents, that flowed spontaneously, were tears of amaze ment, gratitude, pride, and joy. For in those moments we once again real ize the sacrifice that Gamers dad and others are making to ensure our safety and peace. Our children are our world and our

PAGE 420

410future. A few weeks later an enormous quilt made its debut onto an entire backdrop of our stage. Each piece was proudly displaye d and admired by the parents who came to view the works of art. Everyone was amazed at the variety of cultures and the artistic way that individual heritage was illustrated. It was a dramatic way to demonstrate our pride in our diversity. In the true spirit of integration, Field Day around the World, followed. Each teacher rallied to help with the events. The physical education teachers carefully orchestrated the all day event for 950 students who participated in a series of stations, each providing a game from another country. To assist with the logi stics, students from a prestigious private liberal ar ts college, and required to serve community service hours, came to our school. Most of them are in their twenties. At the completion of this experience each students wrote a reflection. One of the pieces summarized them all: I think the experience th at will last with me the longest was seeing children from a wide variety of backgrounds interact in a positive manner with each other. In the school di strict that I grew up in, there was hardly any diversity, which is unfortunate because it does not open students’ eyes to the diverse world in which we live. I really wish that I had gone to a school where everyone was so open and accepting, because I think that the children at Southwood are going to learn so much more from each other and each other’s cultures and background. They have 54 different cultures at this school. It really made me happy to see children of such a young age overlooking their differences and having a great time together. After seeing this I am going to make more of an effort to meet and

PAGE 421

411get to know people who are different from me because I think that I could learn a lot and form really great friendships. Constructivist learning is not always about pure academic s, as our students discovered in a project the entire school embarked upon. It is also about caring and sharing. Our students do not have the luxury of having everything they want. Yet, they were more than willing to bring to school their gently used books from home to give to another less fortunate school. Our Curriculum Resource Teacher organized a book drive for an inner city school that had very few classroom library books. More than 4,000 books were collected and delivered to our adopted school by a busload of our students. Our students visited classrooms and celebrated the joy of readi ng, by reading from books they had published. The experience developed pride in the accomplis hment of sharing, both in the form of books, and in the joy of reading. Our standardized test scores were ou tstanding. The growth in each of our students was amazing. We earned a grade of A agai n. This year we went far into the A range. Ninety-two percent of our students wr ite at a level 4 or above. Our math scores are among the highest in the county again. During the year members of the Liter acy Council and several volunteer teachers presented parent workshops in li teracy called Partner’s in Print. This evening event pairs students with their parents in a variety of break-out sessions. This very popular experience for parents and students was presen ted to the Management Team as an idea from one of the teacher s. We provided financial support, and encouraged participation by the Council Members. There was overwhelm ing support, as the children brought their

PAGE 422

412parents to listen to a brief explanation, by the te acher, of a reading strategy. At that point, the parent and child “practi ced” the technique to gether. During the evening, parents and their children can select from two differen t sessions. At the completion of the last session, parents and children can go to the cafeteria, and select one book to take home. Once more we ended the year with our Zen reflection time. Placed in a quiet environment, with time to write, teachers we re engaged in their opportunity to describe their year with basically the same questions as last year. (a) What did you learn this year that made you a better teacher? (b) What did you learn that made you a better team member? (c) Overall what were the best parts about this year? (d) What do you look forward to for next year? A complete review of the last two years, as teachers responded to the same questions, are analyzed in Chapter 4. What I Learned: Creating a Constructivist School: Teachers were consistently placed in a constructivist environment to think, problem solve, and make decisions. Only by embedding a consistent philosophy, over a long period of time, will teachers internalize the culture of a c onstructivist philosophy. It is a long process that requires teachers to believe that through the process of constructivist learning, both they and thei r students become more effective libeling learners. Teachers see the results of high level questioning, probing for deeper understanding, making critical connections, a nd drawing conclusions for themselves and their students. Teachers learn to reflect, ponde r, and analyze better ways to instruct and

PAGE 423

413assess student learning. Change: As our staff stabilized, and fewer teachers were new to the staff, change was not an issue any longer. Although we remained sensitive to new staff members who undergo the same issues of change that our teachers during the first three years experienced, we have more mentors and peer coaches to provide support. The encouragement of risk-taking provide d teachers the comfor t level to explore new and interesting ideas. Horizontal teams became a concept that teachers continued to investigate and develop. Two horizontal teams were formed for year seven. The staff no longer sees this type of innovation as a thre at or challenge. Each teacher knows they have the same opportunity to investigate ne w and different ideas, and change becomes part of the culture, when equated with innovation. I don’t believe we will ever get past the inconvenience that exists when teachers must change their classrooms to a different place. Most teachers become entrenched in their classrooms and resist moving them. Pl acing teachers in portable classrooms, when they know the advantages of being in the same area as their team ma tes, will remain an ongoing problem as long as our population remain s higher than our bui lding capacity. Leadership: As the school leader I must remain true to the vision of developing a constructivist environment because of the overwhelming evidence in both our student performance and international research that supports this sound, viable, and productive philosophy.

PAGE 424

414 In spite of the multitude of opportunities there are to become diverted from the important task of maintaining the vision, the integrity of the mission cannot be lost, or even compromised, for the sake of outside influences. At this time of enormous pressure for students to perform on standardized tests, it became obvious that the constructivist philoso phy served our students well. Teaching children to think constructively is a life long learning skill th at transfers automatically to the testing situation that requi res analysis. This gives teachers solid evidence, if they need it, to persist. Teachers need va lidation and recognition for their hard work. Teaching constructively is a challenging pr ocess, and as a school leader it is necessary for teachers to receive the free dom they need to reach their goals. Constructivist environments require enorm ous latitude in support of how the teachers achieve high levels of accomplishment. The “what” part of stude nt learning is clear, standards are articulated frequently, the “ how” becomes very individualized for both students and teachers. Individualized l earning must be supported, encouraged, and nurtured for all the members of the learning community. Teachers as Leaders: When teachers see they have valuable contributions to make to the school, we encourage them to take a leadership role. Th is serves the school and teachers. The more complex the school becomes, with the multit ude of events and activities that we developed over the years, the more help we need to maintain the momentum. Teachers serve a valuable role. In this way we can continue to provide exciting and quality activities, events, and support fo r parents and other teachers. Teachers see themselves as the leaders they became. This year our 12 National

PAGE 425

415Board Certified Teachers mentor others while re inforcing the strategies and concepts that support the constructivis t philosophy. The prestige of completing the arduous task of completing the process and the feeling of acco mplishment continues to motivate teachers. In year six, one additional teacher completed the process, while there are four more teachers embarking on the journey for year seven. Teachers state continuously that they would not be able to successfully comple te the NBC experience if they were in a traditional, single textbook driven environment. Members of the Literacy Council took on ever increasing leadership roles in supporting teachers and providing some of the ne west ideas in instructional strategies. They continued providing focus group sessions for teacher in-service. During the course of the year the Council examined ways to develop another deliver y model for teacher’s professional growth. This will take the form of Study Groups. At the beginning of year seven, teachers will identify specific areas where they would like to become more proficient, examine current professional literatu re such as a book or ar ticle, or discuss an instructional or assessment idea. Once again, this is a constructivist approach to learning, and becomes generated by the stakeholders. As identified earlier, teachers becam e more involved each year. Groups and individual teachers found areas of interest and ex panded their participation. In conclusion: I will respond to Dr. Shapiro’s of ten asked question, “Today I Learned.” The implementation of the constructivist philosophy within th e framework of an entire school will always be a work in progre ss. As the school leader I will stay the

PAGE 426

416course because I am passionate about my belie f. I see it work for both students and teachers. I continuously ask teachers a nd students, “What are you learning?” Their answers speak to the understa nding that is generated by thinking, problem solving, and making decisions together that produce positiv e results in a large elementary school. We continue to hone our craft as facilitators of student learni ng and reflective practice. We prepare our students to produ ce their highest level to work, understand, and process information. Our students generalize thei r learning to a variety of situations. A community of life long learners, nur tured to reach their highest potential, develops in a school where a co nstructivist philosophy is the driv ing force. It takes time and patience. Once a construc tivist environment is create d, and all the stakeholders develop the tools to guide a nd teach children to construct their own meaning, there is no returning to a traditi onal, non-constructivist setting. Four teachers returned to Southwood this year, because they “couldn’t work in any other environment.” The journey does not end here. The road will contain its twists and turns. Roads will always be under construction, and some barricades will spring up when least expected. However, we know the importance of charting the course, preparing a plan, committing to that plan, and being accountable for the outcome. We learned the value of creating a constructivist environment where we all became lifelong students. We learned to think constructively and will never return to our old beliefs about learning. Don't turn from the delight that is so close at hand! Don't find some lame excuse to leave our gathering.

PAGE 427

417You were a lonely grape and now you are sweet wine. There is no use in trying to become a grape again. Jalaluddin Rumi, 13th century Sufi poet, In The Arms of the Beloved (1997).

PAGE 428


PAGE 429

419 Appendix 3 Informed Consent Description Reflections of the Year To the teachers of the Southwood staff: Another part of the study of Sout hwood Elementary involves analyzing groups within the school, how they work together, the issues, concerns, and challenges. In addition, it is important to understand, from your perspective, what are your expectations for the rest of th is year including bett er ways that the administration can help you. An opportuni ty to find out your perspective on the year could provide valuable informati on to improve our own school and perhaps help other schools who wish to de velop a constructivist model. Participation is voluntary, and individual names will not be included on your reflection pape rs. You may withdraw your participation at any time. Questions that will be used to focus your responses are found at the end of this letter. In this way you may have time to think about the questions ahead of time. There will be a quiet atmosphere with quiet music, herbal tea, and dimmed lights. In that way you can relax whil e you are writing your reflections. I will review the questions again before you begin, but then I wi ll leave and let you write. When you are through, please give the Curriculum Teacher your papers. When all of them are completed she will give them to me. The reflections will become part of the total documentation for the study. As soon as this information is analyz ed, along with the focus group discussion, and the study completed, you will receive a copy of the results. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask. The questions you will be asked to refl ect and write about are below.If you have additional ideas, that are not in cluded, I value any additional comments you make. 1. How do you feel about this year a nd why? Describe your successes and challenges? 2. What did you learn that made you a better teacher? 3. What did you learn that made you a better team member? 4. What are you looking forward to next year? 5. In what ways can the administrators provide additiona l support to you? Gratefully,

PAGE 430

420 Leanna Appendix 4 Teachers’ Written Reflections Questions 1. How do you feel about this year and why? 2. What did you learn that made you a better teacher? 3. What did you learn that ma de you a better team member? 4. What are you looking forward to next year? 5. In what ways can the administrato rs provide additiona l support to you?

PAGE 431

421 Appendix 5 Request for Participation for Focus Group Interviews To the members of the Southwood Staff: The Principal is working on a six and one-half year study of Southwood Elementary. The purpose of her research is to determine the various aspects of the school that led us to the point wher e we are today—a constructivist school. As the curriculum Resource Teacher, I will conduct Focus Group discussions. From this information it should be possible to more accurately evaluate the various aspects of what has occurred in the school, how we can continue to improve, and suggestions you may have about ways to continue providing a learning environment that creates a co mmunity of constructivist staff and students. An opportunity to hear from you lends authenticity to her study and could provide valuable info rmation concerning how to create the quality school that you, as teachers, developed over the years. Perhaps other school attempting to create a change, especially to create a constructivist school, can benefit from your expertise. Participation is voluntary, and individual names will not be included on the responses, nor iden tified within the study. You may withdraw your participation at any time. It is your insight that matters, not who makes the comments. Questions are provided for you to review on the next page and will guide the focus group discussions. Each group will be formed based upon the number of years employed at Southwood El ementary. For example, all teachers who have worked at the school for six year s will be part of one group. Teachers who have worked at the school for three years will become part of another group, etcetera. The premise is that teachers ma y see issues form different perspectives depending on the number of years at the school. Participation will in no way affect your assessments, ev aluations, or job status. Each group will meet in the confer ence room on the dates identified. Please review the questions ahead of time as this will help focus the discussions. Each group should take from 30-45 minutes and require only one meeting. The discussions will be recorded on tape, to ensure that I haven’t missed important discussion points. At the end of the fo cus group I will transcribe the tape and return the transcriptions to you for editing. In this way, I will make sure that I capture your comment accurately. Then, you will be asked to return any changes back to me. At that time I will keep all the documents until the focus groups are complete. I will then turn the tapes and documents over to the Principal, who will review the transcripts and listen to the tapes to verify my transcriptions. The Principal will combine the focus group information, along with your reflections, and her journals. The inte nt would be to find common patterns and themes that reoccur in each set of information. As soon as the data is analyzed,

PAGE 432

422you will receive a copy of the results. Appendix 6 Focus Group Interview Questions: 1. What professional experiences have pr ovided you with an understanding of constructivist thinking and learni ng for both you and your students? 2. What are your perceptions regarding the school moving towa rd constructivist approaches? 3. Based upon your perceptions how did this occur? 4. What roles do you perceive to ha ve developed in this process? 5. What roles if any did you and/or your team perceived they play in this process? 6. What roles did you perceive this administrator play? 7. What organizational and structural changes do you perceive took place? 8. What still needs to be done to keep on moving in the areas of role, process, and structures? 9. How would you improve this process? 10. How would improve the structures? 11. What do you perceive has been the impact on your practice? 12. What do you perceive has been the impact on team collaboration? 13. What do you perceive has been the impact on your students? 14. What experiences do you perceive ha ve provided you with the knowledge and experiences to take on leadership roles?

PAGE 433

423 Appendix 6 Continued 15. What is your perception regarding ho w much decision making power you have regarding the implementation of the constructivist reform model and a constructivist philosophy? 16. What is the most important role that you perceive that you plan in maintaining a constructivist philosophy? 17. What do you think is the most significant pr oblem in maintaining a constructivist philosophy? 18. Given the opportunity to stay at the sc hool, what reasons keep you at Southwood? 19. (Only used with the returning groups of teachers). What are the reasons you chose to return to the school to teach, after you chose to go to another school?

PAGE 434

424 Appendix 7 Transcriptions from tape recordings of focus group interviews with teachers Example of one page from the transcriptions Date: December 19, 2003 Place: Media Center Time: 3:00-3:45 Group: Those teachers who have been empl oyed at the research site since the 1997-1998 school year. Interviewer: Curriculum Resource Teacher, identified as: CRT Teachers identified as T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 Number of teachers in this group: five CRT: Hi, everyone. Thanks for coming this afternoon. As you know from the letter you received, I am going to ask you some questions. Leanna (the Principal) is trying to find out how we have been able to create a constructivist school. It took all of us to get through some pretty interesting times to get where we are today. She knows that you have the experi ences and might remember all the stuff that we have gone through, and all the things that he lped create the school we have today. So, just be honest. You we re given the questions ahead of time so hopefully, you have had time to think about so me of the things that I’ll be asking. You know that the only reason I am tape recording this is so I can remember everything you said, and not mi ss important stuff. I’ll give you back the transcript of this meeting so if I mi ss something or you want to change or edit anything that was said, I will make those ch anges before I give the final transcript to Leanna, although she will listen to the tape recordings herself. You have worked with her long enough to know th at she is only interested in the information, and not who says what. Are there any questions? T1: Boy, do I remember some crazy things. T2: Me, too. Boy, that day before school opened was a mess. CRT: You’re right. But, let’s get started so I don’t keep you too long. Here is the first question: What pr ofessional experiences have provided you with an understanding of construc tivist thinking and learning for both you and your students? T1: I remember when Leanna came into the pod with a laptop and asked us about our philosophy and our expectations that made me look at who I was and think about where I wanted to go. Then, she gave me a copy of what I said—I still have it. I knew then, that I’d better understa nd what I was all about with my teaching.

PAGE 435

425 Appendix 7 continued Transcriptions from tape recordings of focus group interviews with teachers T2: There is no micro-managing, but, I have to know why I’m doing what I do, which make me think about why and how I do things. I feel pretty empowered. CRT: Can anyone else th ink of something? CRT--T3? I remember when nine of us received our gifted endorsements during the first and second year of the school. Th at gave us the stra tegies for helping students think at higher levels. Leanna told us early on th at we were to teach each child as if they were gifted, but I didn’t really get it until we took those classes. And then we designed higher level activitie s. We thought of how better to raise students’ level of thinkin g. I thought it was giving us all a message when Leanna took the classes with us for those two year s—then we got our gifted endorsement. I’m glad we did, so we don’t have to have pull-out programs for the gifted kids. It also gave us all a chance to get to know each other better. CRT: That was important, I’d forgotten a bout that. Thanks for remembering that part—that’s interesting. T1: Boy, did I learn a lot that first year. T5: I can hardly believe everything we have done since that first year. T4: You know, I think the summer writing teams we had where we designed our thematic units that were concept-ba sed helped us create a curriculum and ownership of what we teach, and raise the level of thinking for me, then I could use it on my students. They were really a lot of work, but we have kept adding on to those concept-based units every year, and they really have been helpful. T3: We have added a lot of brand new teachers. I like that we can mold them. Some of them don’t know how to teach a ny other way, than with a literaturebased process. I didn’t even know what constructivist meant until last year. We put a word to describe what we do, now it makes sense. T2: It’s hard at first to not have just one book to tell you what to do all the time. But, I couldn’t teach any other way now. It still is ha rd, because you have to think on your feet all the time. But, do you notice how the kids are so used to figuring things out? I just love it when the kids say, “I have another way to figure it out.” Now that some of our students have been with us for several years, it is a natural way that they think.

PAGE 436

426 Appendix 8 Standardized Test Scores Florida (FCAT) Southwood Elementary 1999-2003 Scores are based upon the number of students wh o scored on an average of 3 or above on a scale of 1-5, according to the identified grade level. Math – Grade 5 40% 1999 57% 2000 43% 2001 51% 2002 61% 2003 In 2003, the state average for math was 56%. Reading – Grade 3 and 4 47% 1999 43% 2000 44% 2001 52% 2002 64% 2003 In 2003, the state average for reading was 60%. Writing – Grade 4 70% 1999 77% 2000 78% 2001 91% 2002 92% 2003 In 2003, the state average for writing was 90%.

PAGE 437

427 About the Author The Principal-researcher is a veteran e ducator. Her career, subsequent marriage, and family, allowed her to work in a variet y of schools and positions in her native Montana. She taught grade levels 1-6, includ ing exceptional education students. During her 11 years as a principal she also held county level positions. She moved to Orlando, Florida in 1987 wher e she was a reading resource teacher in middle school, a fifth grade teacher, an assi stant principal and a principal. In 1997 she was appointed to open a new prototype elementa ry school that became the research site she studied for her PhD dissertation. The author has two grown children, also in Orlando. Greg Isaacson, lawyer and co-chair of the English Department at Olympia High School, and Lara Isaacson McMahon, a travel corporation manager, whos e son, the author’s grandson, Destin McMahon, attends fifth grade in the author’s school.