Week 11:Implementing Social Change in Schools

April 24, 2007

A-117: Implementing Inclusive Education

Harvard Graduate School of Education

Dr. Thomas Hehir

Groups 1 & 5: You are the principal of the school in question. How would you handle this situation?

Groups 2 & 6: You are a teacher at the school in question. How would you handle this situation with your students?

Groups 3 & 7: You are the special education director for the district. What could you have done to prevent this or similar incidents from happening?

Groups 4 & 8: You are an advocate for students with disabilities. You receive a call from a reporter; she wants your reaction to the incident and asks you if this is a failure of inclusion. How do you respond?

Case Study Prompts

Previous Learning Relevant to Today’s Discussion Inclusive education is part of broader movement of

societal change for people with disabilities Population of students with disabilities is highly

diverse Students outcomes are often unacceptable Innovative educators and researchers have

demonstrated that outcomes can be improved In order to improve the status of education for many

students with disabilities, significant change must occur

Implementation of public policy is complex and difficult

Overview This weeks readings are designed to show both

complexity of social policy implementation as well as provide guidance to those interested in promoting change O’Day– Study of implementation of standards based on

reform in Chicago Elmore– Problems with current NCLB model (incentives,

lack of consonance with whtat we know about school change)

Skrtic– Special Education as an organizational practice (need for adhocratic problem solving organizations.

Weatherly & Lipsky– The importance of street level bureaucrats

O’Day (2002) / Elmore (2004)

SBR, Specifically Chicago 

Bureaucratic model School is unit of intervention (Elmore – incentive

problems with lowest performing schools) Data-based determinations (Elmore – assumption of

continuous improvement) Oriented toward sanctions (Elmore – moving the

problem around)

 

Problems

Problem 1: The school is the unit of intervention, yet the individual is the unit of action.

Problem 2: External control seeks to influence internal operations.

Problem 3: Information is both problematic in schools and essential to school improvement.

Complexity Theory

Complexity theory- Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

Interaction and independence Stability and change Information and learning Learning and improvement (learning

organizations)- competency traps (Elmore)

Barriers to Improvement

Information Egg crates Attribution Incentives and resource allocations Lack of reciprocity

Study Results

Elements of policy design Attention Motivation Knowledge Development Resource allocation

 

Higher and Improving Schools

Higher SES Less egg crate More collaborative Higher teacher to teacher trust Collective responsibility for student learning

Lower or Non-Improving Schools Weak information systems External collaborators more apt to mandate than help in

problem solving Compliance oriented Get tough approach Maladaptive incentives

-teach to test-get those closest to bar over-drill and kill-unbalanced collective incentives

Weak resource allocation and knowledge development strategies

Possible Solutions

Professional Accountability

 

Professional and bureaucratic mix

 

What are implications of O’Day’s work for Inclusive Education?

Skrtic“From an organizational perspective,

the basic problem with the EHA is that it attempts to force an adhocratic value orientation

on a professional bureaucracy by treating it as if it were a machine bureaucracy. The EHA’s ends are adhocratic because it seeks a

problem-solving organization in which interdisciplinary teams of professionals and parents collaborate

to invent personalized programs, or, in the language of the EHA, individualized education plans (IEPs).

But this orientation contradicts the value orientation of the professional bureaucracy in every way,

given that it is a performance organization in which individual professionals work alone

to perfect standard programs.” (p. 231)

EHA (IDEA) Policy Revolution required Implementation Revolution. Did it occur?

“Deconstructs” Special Education through critical pragmatism (as opposed to naïve pragmatism).

Situates his analysis in three discourses: REI debate School organization and adaptability Failure of public education

Skrtic (1991)

Skrtic Universal compulsory education lead to the establishment of

special education as an organizational practice that helped explain and address school failure.

Within the context of scientific management and modern psychology special education emerged as a practice that was based on four mutually reinforcing suppositions:

a) Disabilities are pathological conditions that students have,b) Differential diagnosis is objective and useful,c) Special education is a rationally conceived and coordinated system of

services that benefits diagnosed students, andd) Progress results from rational technological improvements in

diagnostic and instructional practices.” (from Skrtic, p. 208)

Machine Bureaucracies and Professional Bureaucracies Schools as machine bureaucracies. Schools as professional bureaucracies. (Lipsky &

Weatherley) School systems are professional bureaucracies. Specialization and professionalization create a loosely

coupled form of interdependency. Both machine bureaucracies and professional bureaucracies

are inherently non-adaptable. “…teachers, whether in regular or special class environments,

cannot escape the necessary choice between higher means [that is, maximizing mean performance by concentrating resources on the most able learners] and narrower variances –that is, minimizing group variance by concentrating resources on the least able learners] as long as resources are scarce and students differ.” (Skrtic, p. 207)

Uncertain Work Specialization and professionalization unite

theory and practice in individual professional. In practice a professional has a finite

repertoire of standard programs. In practice schools are performance

organizations though they need to become problem solving organizations. (Think about Peter or Melvin)

Schools as Cultures Underorganized systems shaped and reshaped by

values. “Schools change when apparently irresolvable

ambiguities are resolved by confident, forceful, persistent people who manage to convince themselves and others to adopt a new set of presuppositions, which introduces innovation because the values embedded in these presuppositions create a new set of contingencies, expectations, and commitments.” (p. 227)

Apollo mission

The Need for More Adhocratic Approaches “Given the inevitability of human diversity, a professional bureaucracy can

do nothing but create students who do not fit the system. In a professional bureaucracy, all forms of tracking – curriculum tracking and in-class ability grouping in general education, as well as self-contained and resource classrooms in special, compensatory, remedial, and gifted education – are organizational pathologies created by specialization and professionalization and compounded by rationalization and formalization.” (pp. 237-238)

“Regardless of its cases and its extent, student diversity is not a liability in a problem-solving organization; it is an asset, an enduring uncertainty, and thus the driving force behind innovation, growth of knowledge, and progress.” (p. 238)

“From an organizational perspective, professional innovation is not a solitary act; when it does occur, it is a social phenomenon that takes place within a reflective discourse.” (p. 239)

The organizational pathology of the classroom as a vehicle for assuring equity and excellence.

Relevance of this to O’Day? Is Skrtic’s piece practical?

Structural Frame Take-aways from implementation theory and research The importance and limits of the machine, or structural frame Dominant mode of policy development Can focus attention and resources to problems Assure level of equity Can interact with culture to establish organizational ambiguities Any examples of structural frame having positive influence on

education of children with disabilities?

However… Is not determinative. Can reduce necessary discretion Can create inefficiencies Can create false impression problem has been solved.

Human Resource Frame The importance of paying attention to

implementers. (Weatherly & Lipsky) An element of professional bureaucracy is

necessary and important. (Hehir) Opportunities for adhocratic approaches to

problem solving and service delivery is essential for implementing inclusive education and promoting more equitable results.

Political Frame Opinion leaders are essential elements of

promoting change. (Skrtic) Political support can help secure necessary

resources. Political support needs to be both vertical and

horizontal. Implementers and clients matter.

Symbolic Frame

Value and culture matter Inclusive education carries symbolic

messages Inclusive education explicitly seeks to change

culture and values

IDEA and NCLB an opportunity for change Significant shift in paradigms In order for schools to become more equitable and

more effective significant change must occur. Improving education for students with disabilities is

consistent with improving education for all that are not profiting fully from current approaches.

A sophisticated understanding of the complexity of organizational change and the opportunities it presents.

THIS IS ROCKET SCIENCE!

Conclusions