POLICY IMPLMENTATION: GETTING PEOPLE TO CARRY OUT A POLICYChapter 10 Ariella Luberto

• Introduction

• Why is implementing new policies difficult?

• What does research tell us about successful and unsuccessful implementation?

• How can a school leader plan a policy implementation that increases the likelihood of success?

• What courses of action are open to school leaders who are expected to implement a policy that they or important stakeholders oppose?

• Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

Implementation is “organizational activities directed toward the carrying out of an adopted policy by administrative bureaucracies at the national, state, and local levels.”

Who implements?Formal Implementers Intermediaries

Government officials who have legal authority

School Boards

Administrators who work in the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) or in a state department of education (SDE)

District Administrators and/or Principals

Superintendent and other central office administrators

Classroom Teachers

Why is implementing new policies difficult?

The implementation process is one in which education leaders can least avoid involvement.

Why? Because they cannot work for even a year in a leadership position without being required to implement a policy.

School leaders must be prepared to guide districts, schools, and teachers through the often difficult task of changing to meet new expectations.

Examples; A new attendance policy, inter-district open enrollment, federal grant money etc.

Why is implementing new policies difficult?

Implementing complex policies that require significant changes in pedagogy or the expansion of a program from a few sites to many can be difficult.

More difficult implementation situations: Redistributive policy changes Capacity-building policy changes System-changing policy changes

Why is implementing new policies difficult?

Major Problems Other Problems

Teacher time and energy Lack of skills among staff

Money Slow progress

Arranging staff development Disagreement over goals

Ongoing communication Maintaining interest

Limitations of facilities Overambitious project

Teacher morale/resistance Unexpected crises

Competition with other new projects

THREE GENERATIONS

First- Generation Research

Second- Generation Research

Third- Generation Research

Early 1970s Late 1970s Approx. 1900

“As with the generations of a family, who are born at different times but continue to live side by side for decades, all three generations of implementation

research are very much alive today.”

The Research on Implementation

What does research tell us about successful and unsuccessful

implementation? First Generation Research

Focuses on the difficulty/impossibility of implementation and their various causes The USDOE understaffed Unsupportive agency workers

Focuses on cultural barriers rather than political ones Reformers don’t take school culture into account Reformers devise new policies as if they will be

implemented in a vacuum rather than in institutional settings with more than a century of cultural traditions

FIRST GENERATION RESEARCH Cambire School Study

In the late 1960s, a yearlong case study was conducted in an attempt to introduce a policy change in an elementary school located in the slums of a New England city.

Requirements: Teachers needed to modify their pedagogy and

classroom role Teachers had to stop running teacher-centered

classrooms and become “catalytic role models” Activities had to include lots of fun learning kits and

games

All teachers supported the innovation because it was consistent with the open education movement but …

FIRST GENERATION RESEARCH

5 Barriers to Effective Implementation The teachers never really understood the change The teachers did not know how to use the new pedagogy The materials needed to establish open classrooms were not

available The culture and institutional organization of the school were not

consistent with the requirements of the new policy The teachers became discouraged and lost their motivation

… Teachers lost their enthusiasm for the change, and all had reverted to their former teaching methods.

SECOND GENERATION RESEARCH

Focuses on both successful and unsuccessful implementations

Rand Change Agent Study A multiyear investigation of the implementation of

293 federal projects in eighteen states The Rand team drew a largely negative conclusion

“In most cases, the innovations funded by federal seed money had not taken root.”

There were some success stories within the 293 projects

SECOND GENERATION RESEARCH

DECIDED: Successful implementation

was not a mechanical process of following recipes from a “policy cookbook”, rather a process of “mutual adaptation” had occurred in the successful projects. Mutual adaptation involved

changes in both the implementers’ behavior and in the details of the policy design, which was modified to fit local circumstances

CONCLUDED: Short-term implementation

studies magnify the proportion of failures, and argued that researchers should study a policy implementation over the course of a decade. Redistributive policies are

complex, they are eventually implemented only if those who direct the programs are highly skilled.

ADDITIONAL SECOND GENERATION FINDINGS

A USDOE-funded, three year study of the implementation of various “school improvements” in 146 schools (12 specifically)

Conclusion: Two of the implementations were extremely successful, two were miserable failures, and the rest fell somewhere in between

Highly Successful Relatively Successful

Relatively Unsuccessful

Failures

Implementations had been initiated by central office administrators who were deeply committed to the new program. Both projects were ambitious ones requiring substantial change in teacher’s classroom practice.

They were strongly committed to making the programs work in order to solve the problems they had identified. Administrator’s preparation were adequate, but the real key to the success of these projects was the willingness of many teachers who worked long hours to further develop their skills.

Included modest policy changes that demanded little of them. Their district leaders, who had been supportive at first, quickly lost interest. They offered little assistance, and when principals and teachers approached them with requests for permission to downsize their projects, they readily agreed.

Their programs were poorly designed, and these leaders were never really interested in implementation. They neither prepared carefully nor offered assistance to principals and teachers. Considerable resistance to both policies developed; the building principals spearheaded it.

THIRD GENERATION RESEARCH

1990s- Implementation researchers began to focus on why so many teachers and administrators could not understand the increasingly complex reforms they were expected to implement.

Research on human cognition suggests that “new information is always interpreted in light of what is already understood.”

Humans use their previous experiences and learning to develop schemas- conceptual structures that they use to interpret new information as well as to predict what is likely to happen in a new situation. People naturally draw on their already formed schemas to interpret it They will seize on aspects of the new situation that resemble their past

experiences They will overlook aspects of it which do not readily fit into their preexisting

schemas They are especially likely to focus on superficial or concrete aspects of the new

experiences, while overlooking its deeper and less obvious components.

THIRD GENERATION RESEARCH

Spillane Investigated the implementation of a new mathematics program

in nine Michigan districts Focus: How well “district leaders” (central office administrators,

curriculum specialists, and lead mathematics teachers) understood the reform based on recommendations of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and required a major shift in mathematics pedagogy

Task: Teach the mathematical ideas and concepts that undergird mathematical procedures. Correct answers and procedures are not as important as discussing and communicating mathematical reasoning

As cognitive theory predicts, they found in their interviews that most of the implementers focused on the two aspects of the reform that were most similar to their previous practice: 1) hands-on mathematics 2) problem-solving

How can a school leader plan a policy implementation that increases the likelihood

of success?

First, consider whether the policy is appropriate for a specific context

Is the proposed policy consistent with the school’s or district’s vision statement or philosophy?

Is it consistent with the school’s or district’s assessed needs?

Is it consistent with the school’s or district’s priorities?

Is it consistent with the level of available and potentially available resources?

Is it consistent with the values of the community?

Does evidence exist that it has been effective with student populations such as the school’s or district’s in terms of: age, racial/ethnic background, gender composition, socioeconomic class, English language proficiency, and life experience?

How can a school leader plan a policy implementation that increases the likelihood

of success?Mobilization Period: Policy Adoption, Planning, and Gathering Resources Adequate Support- Find out if your stakeholders accept and want to adopt the new

policy since they are the advocates of change Planning Stage- Don’t make a rigid plan. Be prepared to revise your plan for the first few

weeks. Adapt in response to changes that occur (ex: altered levels of resources or shifting political configurations)

Forward Mapping- Develop a written scenario that describes what the new policy will look like when fully implemented. A scenario could be produced by the planning group as a whole, or one member can write it for the larger group to critique

Gather Resources- Carefully analyze how much money, time, personnel, space, and equipment and materials are accessible to you

Implementation itself should begin only after a solid foundation has been laid during the mobilization period

Institutionalization- The period during which an innovation is incorporated into the organization. The policy is integrated into the routine practices of the school/district

What else can you do?

Most students identify three components that run through successful implementations from beginning to end: (1) monitoring and feedback, (2) ongoing assistance, and (3) coping with problems

Pre-start up training Follow-up sessions External consultants

External trainers Internal trainers Internal consultants

Visits to other sites Off-site conferences Regular meetings with other implementers

Teaching aides Easing of schedules Printed materials

Demonstrations Chances to exchange materials and tips

Workshops

Formative evaluations A sympathetic ear

What courses of action are open to school leaders who are expected to implement a policy that they or

important stakeholders oppose?

Dealing with opposition and resistance is one of the greatest challenges school leaders face

Three responses are possible when asked to implement a policy with which one disagrees Exit (leaving the organization) Voice (speaking up about problems) Disloyalty (quietly or openly failing to conform to the

policy)

You may combine these approaches.

Issues Surrounding Resistance

If the previous approaches fail, other courses of action are open, but not necessarily ETHICAL.

Compliance- Change of heart, maybe the policy isn’t so bad after all and you decide to implement the change

Retire/Other district job

Returning to a Classroom Teacher job/Central Office job- A job in which no policy implementation involvement is necessary

Sabotage- Make the policy change less of a priority, fill out only some forms, ignore shortcuts, “lose” the reports, give your paperwork to other employees

COPING WITH STRONG OPPOSITION

Persuasion- Attempts should be preceded by some nonjudgmental listening to opponents as they voice their objections. If their objections are not portrayed as valid, leaders can analyze their objections to determine the root of the problem. Most objectors feel that their self-interest is threatened or the policy change is inconsistent to their values

Modify the policy to meet some objections

Move strong opponents out of the implementation or excluding them from the outset

GROUP DISCUSSION

Reflect on the implementations in which you have been involved. Which went smoothly? Why?

What errors were apparent in those that encountered serious difficulty?