This document outlines several theories and models of educational change. It discusses theories such as top-down versus bottom-up approaches to change and integrated theories. It also summarizes several models of educational change including Schooling by Design, the IDEAS model, and the Strategy in Education model. Each model emphasizes developing a shared vision, using data to guide changes, taking a long-term perspective on change, and the role of school leaders in guiding innovation. The models also incorporate teacher leadership and focus on improving teaching and learning.

1. +
Theories and
MODELS of
Educational Change 1

2. +
OutlineOutline
 Theory and practice
 Western theories in non-Western cultures
 Why these theories?
 Theory X and Theory Y
 Two approaches to change
 Top-down and bottom-up theories
 Integrated theories
2

3. + Theory and PracticeTheory and Practice
(Fullan, 2010; Lovat & Smith, 2003; Richardson & Placier, 2001)(Fullan, 2010; Lovat & Smith, 2003; Richardson & Placier, 2001)
3
Educational Disciplines
Educational Change Theory
Practice/Experience
Psychology
Social
Psychology
Sociology Anthropology
Political
Science
Organization
Theory

4. +
Western Theories in Non-Western CulturesWestern Theories in Non-Western Cultures
 KeitaTakayama
 Need for a postcolonial theoretical framework
 Theories developed in Western nations cannot be assumed to apply:
 in non-Western nations
 universally
 Role of international students in globalizing educational research
4

5. +
Why these theories?Why these theories?
 Field of educational change is vast and complex – have to be
selective
 Helpful
 Seem to work
 Include the role of teachers
5

6. +
Theory X and TheoryYTheory X and TheoryY
 About human nature
 Fullan (2010) p. 65 cites McGregor (1960)
– Theory X: people are inherently lazy, dislike work, and have to
be supervised closely
– TheoryY: people will put in extra effort if the work is meaningful
and they are supported by leaders and peers
 Make TheoryY your first point of entry (Fullan)
6

7. +
Two Approaches to ChangeTwo Approaches to Change
Richardson & Placier, (2001)Richardson & Placier, (2001)
Empirical-rational
 Change is determined
by administrators or
policy-makers
 Teachers are told about
change and expected to
implement it
 Change is difficult and
painful – teachers
blamed
Normative-
reeducative
 Change originates with
individuals involved in
the process i.e. teachers
 Change enhanced by
deep reflection on
beliefs and practices
 Dialogue is critical –
other teachers or
critical friend
7

8. +
Top Down and Bottom Up TheoriesTop Down and Bottom Up Theories
(Fullan, 1994)(Fullan, 1994)
 Top down – implicit theory
 Change can come about by proclaiming new policies, or by legislation, or
by new performance standards, or by creating shape-up-ship-out
ambience, or all of the preceding. (Sarason, 1990, p. 123).
8

9. 9
Government policy
School
Teachers
Classroom
Teacher
implements
(or not)
Adopted by
school
Top-Down Theory: Mandated Change

10. +
Mandated Change (Clement, 2013)
Sense of compulsion
 We’re only doing it because they said we had to. (p. 7)
Lack of time for meaning-making
 People are frightened that they’re going to get found out
because they don’t understand this stuff.And they don't
understand it because they haven't had a chance to. (p. 7)
Transitory nature of the reform
 But you get to the age where you just get things thrown at
you, the latest thrown at you and then it disappears.You do
all this work and it disappears and then you get the next
thing. (p. 8)
10

11. 11
Government policy
School
Teachers
Classroom
Changes made
at the school
level influence
Teachers
make changes
to learning
Changes are
made to school
structures
Bottom-Up Theory: Teacher-Initiated Change

12. +
Top Down and Bottom Up Theories
(Fullan, 1994) (Continued)
Strategies that combine top down and bottom up
are more likely to succeed:
– the center's strengths (“to provide perspective
direction, incentives, networking, and retrospective
monitoring”)
– local capacity (“to learn, create, respond to, and feed
into overall directions”) (p. 5)
 “Systems don't change by themselves. Individuals change systems, acting
individually and together regardless of how ineffective they perceive
others around them.” (p. 5)
12

13. +
ReflectionReflection
 Can top down change be effective? Why or why not?
 What are the problems with bottom up change?
 What are the strengths of a combined approach? Do you think it is
more likely to be effective?
13

14. +
Integrated TheoryIntegrated Theory
(Goodson, 2001)(Goodson, 2001)
14
1960s and 1970s
Teachers initiated
and promoted
educational change
1980s and 1990s
Teachers
responded to
change instead of
initiating change
New Millenium
Balance between the
internal, the external
and the personal
perspectives of
change
Integrating these 3
segments will provide
new momentum for
educational change.

15. 15
School reform agenda
Mandated
reforms
Teachers’ goals
and purposes
Changes in
classroom practice
Integrated Theory

16. +
Three PerspectivesThree Perspectives
(House & McQuillan, 2005)(House & McQuillan, 2005)
 Technological perspective: production, economics, efficiency
 Political perspective: negotiation, political science, authority
 Cultural perspective: community, anthropology, cultural integrity
 Adequate understanding of school reform necessarily involves all 3
perspectives, (p. 186)
16

17. 17
Goodson (2001) House & McQuillan
(2005)
External Technological
Political
Internal
Cultural
Personal
Comparing Goodson and House &
McQuillan

18. +
Focus QuestionFocus Question
 Why do you think it is important to relate theory to practice?
18

19. +
ReferencesReferences
 Albright, J., Clement, J., & Holmes, K. (2012). School change and the challenge of presentism. Leading &
Managing, 18(1), 78-90.
 Clement, J. Managing mandated educational change. School Leadership & Management.
 Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In R. J. Anson (Ed.),
Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education: U.S. Government Printing Office.
 Fullan, M. (2010). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin.
 Goodson, I. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(1), 45-63.
 House, E. R., & McQuillan, P. J. (2005). Three perspectives on school reform. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The roots of
educational change: International handbook of educational change. (pp. 186-201). Dordrecht; New York:
Springer.
 Lovat, T., & Smith, D. L. (2003). Curriculum: Action on reflection (4th ed.). Tuggerah, N.S.W.: Social Science
Press.
 Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(Fourth ed., pp. 905-947). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
19

20. +
Features of Sustainable Change
 Focus on improving teaching and learning
 Reform agenda appropriate to the school
 Teachers direct the change process in a community of trust and
collaboration
 Data are used to guide changes in pedagogy
 A long term perspective is taken (5-7 years)
 School leaders guide the innovation
(Fullan, 2011; Goodson, 2001; Hargreaves, 2010; Louis, 2007; Meiers
& Ingvarson, 2005; Smith, 2008)
20

21. +
Schooling by Design
(Wiggins and McTighe, 2007)
 Backward design:
 Strategy – how to organize staff and resources
 Tactics – a game plan
 Actions (p. 201)
 Strategic principles for accomplishing mission:
 Plan backward from “mission accomplished”
 Work to close the gap between vision and reality
 Plan to get and use feedback to make “timely and effective
adjustments, early and often” (pp. 202-3)
21

22. +
Schooling by Design
(Wiggins and McTighe, 2007, pp. 205-206)
 Stage 1 – Identify desired results
 a long term goal
 a shared vision
 Stage 2 – Determine acceptable evidence
 present (where we are now)
 future (evidence of results)
 Stage 3 – Plan actions to achieve goals
 short term goals
 cycles of action research
22

23. 23
Reframe
goals
Schooling by Design
(Wiggins and McTighe, 2007)
Modified from Figure 11.1 Sequence for Organizing the Work of Reform (p. 251)
3 stages of SbD

24. +
Schooling by Design
(Wiggins and McTighe, 2007)
The template on page 206 is also a useful
summary of the Schooling by Design model.
 Leadership
 The leader’s reason for being is to guide the educational institution to
achieve specific goals related to its mission (p. 172).
 Academic leaders must assume a critical role of helping craft a clear,
inspiring, and actionable mission to guide the educational institution.
They must also engage board members, staff, and community in
helping shape, and come to “own,” the mission (p. 173).
24

25. +
IDEAS Model
(Andrews, 2008)
 Innovative Designs for Enhancing Achievements in Schools
(IDEAS)
 Purpose: To inspire IDEAS schools to engage in a journey of self-
discovery which will ensure that they achieve sustainable
excellence in teaching and learning (Andrews & Crowther, 2011, p.
4)
 5 phases: initiating, discovering, envisioning, actioning and
sustaining
25

26. +
IDEAS Model (cont’d)
(Andrews, 2008)
 Initiating – planning the process
 Discovering – surveying school stakeholders
 Envisioning – creating a vision for the school
 Actioning – developing an action plan
 Sustaining – monitoring progress
Includes the development of a Schoolwide Pedagogy that is unique
to the particular school
26

27. +
IDEAS Model (cont’d)
(Andrews, 2008)
 Concept of Parallel Leadership:
 Teacher leaders and administrator leaders work together.
 Individual capabilities, aspirations and responsibilities are fulfilled.
 Facilitates development of:
 a professional learning community
 school culture
 school wide approaches to teaching and learning (Andrews, 2008,
p. 49)
27

28. +
IDEAS Model (cont’d)
(Andrews, 2008)
 Parallel Leadership is based on:
 Mutual trust and respect
 Shared sense of purpose
 Allowance for individual expression (Andrews, 2008, p. 49).
 Example: I had to step back and let others take the lead.
(Principal – Middle School)
28

29. 29
Strategy in Education Model (Eacott, 2008)

30. +
Strategy in Education Model (cont’d)
(Eacott, 2008, p. 360-362)
 Envisioning – thinking about the future
 Critical reflection and reflective dialogue
 Engaging parents and staff in strategic conversations
 Establishes purpose for actions
 Provides data
 Articulating
 Oral – conversations to bring the vision to life
 Written objectives to enable structural alignment
30

31. +Strategy in Education Model (cont’d)
(Eacott, 2008, p. 360-362)
Implementing
 Translating strategy into action
 Staff understanding and commitment
 Improvement in current operations
 Timely
Monitoring
 Where are we now?
 Where to next?
 How will we get there?
 How will we know when we get there?
 Requires a transparent system of data collection
31

32. +
Strategy in Education Model (cont’d)
 Leadership role:
 why not see the role of the school principal as one of educational
strategist, where leadership behaviours and management processes are
targeted towards the enhancements of the school’s educational
programs and most importantly student development (Eacott, 2008, p.
363).
32

33. +
Comparing the Models
Feature Schooling by Design IDEAS Strategy in Education
Focus on improving teaching
and learning
Reform agenda appropriate to
the school
Teachers direct the change
process in a community of trust
Data are used to guide changes
in pedagogy
A long term perspective is taken
School leaders guide the
innovation
33

34. +
Reflection
 What are the strengths and weaknesses of each
model?
 What are the similarities between these 3
models?
 What are the differences?
 Do they all have the features of sustainable
change listed earlier?
 Do they have features that are not on the list?
34

35. +References
 Andrews, D. (2008).Working together to enhance school outcomes: An Australian case study of parallel leadership. Leading and Managing, 14(2), 45-60.
 Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2011). Innovative designs for enhancing achievement in schools (IDEAS) Retrieved 6 August, 2012, from
http://ideas.usq.edu.au/Home/IDEASbackground/tabid/138/Default.aspx
 Clement, J. (2013). Managing mandated educational change. School Leadership & Management.
 Eacott, S. (2008). Strategy in educational leadership: In search of unity. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 353-375.
 Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. East Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education.
 Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management,
24(3), 287-309.
 Hargreaves, A. (2010). Presentism, individualism, and conservatism:The legacy of Dan Lortie's Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(1), 143-154.
 Goodson, I. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(1), 45-63.
 Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers' motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly,
38(1), 94-119.
 Louis, K. S. (2007).Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change,8(1), 1-24.
 Meiers, M., & Ingvarson, L. (2005). Investigating the links between teacher professional development and student learning outcomes. Barton, ACT: Australian
Government, Quality Teacher Program.
 Smith, L. (2008). Schools that change: Evidence-based improvement and effective change leadership: Corwin Press.
 Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action, and achievement. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
35