the f. m. duffy reports - purdue universityweb.ics.purdue.edu/~brwatson/publications/volume 11,...

7404 Bucks Haven Lane Highland, Maryland 20777 301-854-9800www.thefmduffygroup.com E-mail: [email protected]

In this edition of The F. M.Duffy Reports Reigeluth,Carr-Chellman, Beabout,and Watson offer an im-portant analysis of severalapproaches to the chal-lenge of creating and sus-taining whole-systemchange in school districts.There analysis comparesand contrasts the differentapproaches, thereby offer-ing readers insights to prosand cons of each para-digm.

I am honored and pleasedto tell you that the Octoberedition of these Reportswill feature an article byProfessor Russell Ackoff.Dr. Ackoff is a ProfessorEmeritus in the WhartonSchool of Business at theUniversity of Pennsylvaniaand internationally renownfor his work in the field ofsystems theory as it ap-plies to organizations.

Abstract

This article compares anumber of systemicchange approaches to K-12 school innovation. The

approaches reviewed inthis article range from ide-alized design to leveragedemergent design, school-wide to district-wide trans-formation, and key-leader-directed to broad-stakeholder-directed trans-formation. Definitions ofeach approach are re-viewed, along with keypractices of each andcomparisons among them.The article does not rec-ommend a particular ap-proach for all or even mostcases, but rather is in-tended to stimulate dis-cussion and understandingof their advantages anddisadvantages within theculture and context of anyparticular school commu-nity.

Key Reflection Points

As you read the article,please use the followingquestions to guide yourthinking about the ap-proaches to whole-systemchange that are presentedand compared. What are the major

advantages and dis-

advantages of eachapproach?

What sort of schoolculture is best suited toany particular ap-proach?

What other situationalvariables are importantfor selecting any par-ticular approach?

What research studieswould be most helpfulfor school districts’se-lection of an approachto systemic change?

Introduction

This article presents a va-riety of alternative ap-proaches to the process ofhelping K-12 school dis-tricts to transform them-selves from the industrial-age paradigm of educationto a learner-centered, in-formation-age paradigm.The purpose of the articleis to generate discussionabout the pros and cons ofeach alternative. While theapproaches are presentedin dyads, this oversimpli-fies the complexity of thealternatives available toschool change participants

Creating Shared Visions of the Future for K-12 Education:A Systemic Transformation Process for a Learner-Centered Paradigm

byCharles M. Reigeluth, Alison A. Carr-Chellman,

Brian Beabout, and William Watson

The F. M. Duffy ReportsQuarterly reports on the challenges of creating and sustaining

whole-system change in school districts

July 2006 Volume 11, Number 3

The F. M. Duffy Reports Volume 11, Number 3


2

as they try to determinewhich approach or combi-nation of approaches isbest for their situation. Wedo not think that choicesare typically dichotomousor that these represent theentire array of possiblechoices. Rather this struc-ture helps to bring into re-lief and clarity the differ-ences between some ofthe most important alterna-tives we have encoun-tered.

The article begins with alook at idealized design ascompared to leveragedemergent design, followedby an examination ofschool-wide versus dis-trict-wide transformation,followed by key-leaderdirected change versusbroad-stakeholder directedchange. Each pair of ap-proaches is defined, thekey practices are identi-fied, and a comparisonbetween the two options isdiscussed. We hope thatthis article will generatelively discussion aboutalternative approaches tosystemic change and willindicate productive ave-nues for future research.

Idealized Design vs.Leveraged Emergent

Design

The primary approach of-fered in the literature is theidealized design approachpioneered by Ackoff in thecorporate sector andadapted by Banathy to theK-12 education context.This is discussed next,followed by the leveragedemergent design approach

–a newly developed alter-native (Reigeluth, 2006).

Idealized Design

Definition

Those adhering to an ide-alized design approach tothe creation of educationalsystems focus on the crea-tion of a“guiding image”(Banathy, 1992, p. 178)that is created by the de-signers as they attempt tobreak free from the tradi-tions, assumptions, andinertia of current schoolingpractices in creating moreeffective systems of edu-cation. Ackoff (1979) refersto idealized design as“adesign of the system withwhich the designers wouldreplace the existing sys-tem now if they were freeto do so”(p. 191). There isa palpable“stopping oftime”as designers andstakeholders removethemselves from the day-to-day operations of thesystem and spend timefocused entirely on dream-ing up the ideal system.Thus, idealized design is adesign process initiated bycreating a “picture”of whatthe system would look likein a perfect world.

Nelson and Stoltermanuse the term desiderata toexplain“the original ex-pression of what is de-sired”(2003, p. 48). Thesedesires differ from whatmany refer to as a vision inthat desiderata are tempo-rary, fuzzy gut-feelings ofthe way things could bewhich are refined through-out the design process.

This stands in contrast to avision which, once created,remains a fixed point to-wards which the change isdirected. So we could re-define idealized design asa design process initiatedby articulating a “desider-ata”of what the systemwould look like in a perfectworld.

How it Works

Nelson and Stoltermandescribe design as“theability to imagine that-which-does-not-yet-exist”(Nelson & Stolterman,2003, p. 10). There is aconscious letting go of theparticular realities whichmay have led to the initia-tion of the design processand a focus on the ideal.Nelson and Stolterman’sterm parti, defined as an“explosive appearance ofan… encoded solution to a complex design challenge”(p. 212), is a result of en-gagement with the designprocess. The parti is thenew, creative break-through that propels thedesign process forward.The parti, informed by thedesiderata, serves as theseed for the entire designeffort and may come fromanywhere in the organiza-tional hierarchy. The crea-tion of this“seed”becomesthe most important part ofthe idealized design ex-perience.

Work in idealized designcomes primarily out of theoperations research workin the business sector pio-neered by Russell Ackoff.He sought a proactive de-



3

sign paradigm that wouldcreate organizations basedon participation, continuityand holism (Ackoff, 1979).The principle of participa-tion posits the idea that theplanning process is morevaluable than any plans foraction that might come outof it. Thus, a broad base ofstakeholders should beinvolved in planning forchange. The principle ofcontinuity states that plan-ning and implementationshould not be seen as se-rial processes, but shouldproceed continuously inparallel, each informing theother. Finally, the principleof holism concludes that:“all units at the same levelof an organization shouldbe planned for simultane-ously and interdepen-dently”(Ackoff, 1979,p.190). Those that planchange in a way that doesnot abide by this principlerun the risk of implement-ing change that is rejectedby certain parts of the sys-tem. This proactive designapproach has beenadopted by practitionersand researchers in a num-ber of organizational con-texts (Carroll, 2000;Omerod, 1995; Pour-dehnad & Hebb, 2002).Ackoff’s groundwork inorganizational planning,focusing on stakeholderinclusion, constant search-ing for improvements, andrecognizing important in-terdependencies set thestage for Banathy to applythese ideas to the designof education systems.

Banathy (1991) recognizedthat society has undergone

a dramatic paradigm shift,leaving our educationalsystem out of synch withthe needs and wishes ofsociety. He calls for a sys-tems design approach thatwill realign our laggingeducational system withthe constantly changingsociety of which it is a part.In true idealized designfashion, Banathy explains:We should‘jump out fromthe system,’explore edu-cational change and re-newal from the larger vis-tas of the transformed so-ciety and envision a newdesign. Starting designfrom the perspectives ofthe overall societal con-text, we extend our horizonand develop the LARG-EST POSSIBLE PICTUREof education within theLARGEST POSSIBLESOCIETAL CONTEXT(1991, p. 15).

Starting with society as awhole frees the designersfrom the inertia of the cur-rent system and allowsthem to create a function-ing system that is unlikelyto be rejected upon im-plementation. This designprocess begins with anidealized image andmoves through a series ofiterative stages for elabo-rating that image to pro-gressively greater levels ofdetail and clarity, and thento implementation and in-stitutionalization of the newdesign. Extensions of Ba-nathy’s work in the realmof education have beennumerous (Carr, 1996;Joseph, 2003; Reigeluth,1993; Squire, 1999).

Idealized design lends it-self to certain types of de-sign settings as opposedto others. It requires anunwavering commitment tothe change process, asparticipants must betrained and continuouslysupported in their newroles as change agents(Borko, Wolf, Simone &Uchiyama, 2003). Thisrequires a commitment ofboth financial resourcesand time. Volatile organi-zations undergoing highleadership turnover (Cor-coran & Lawrence, 2003),those undergoing extremechanges in the number ortype of clients (Arriaza,2004), and organizationsuncertain of the need forchange (Fullan, 2000) arenot likely to succeed withany type of change, letalone this rigorous model.This is not to say that theneed for change cannot bedeveloped and sharedamongst stakeholders, butall participants in the proc-ess must be willing to worktogether in good faith ifconsensus and commit-ment are to be developed(Reigeluth, 2006). Thoseorganizations able to suc-cessfully implement ideal-ized design are first able togenerate a strong com-mitment from all stake-holder groups to both theorganization and the proc-ess itself.

Ackoff (1979) outlines afive-step process for carry-ing out idealized design inan organizational context.His first step, formulatingthe mess, involves a holis-tic, systemic look at the



4

organization and its envi-ronment. Second, means-ends planning, involvescreating an idealized vi-sion of the future and de-termining what changesare necessary in the cur-rent system to move it to-wards that vision. Third,resource planning, deter-mines how facilities, peo-ple, money, informationand other resources canbe best utilized to meet thevision. Fourth, organiza-tional and managementplanning determines whatstructures need to be inplace for proper executivefunctioning of the systemand for effective organiza-tional learning. Fifth andlast, design of implementa-tion and control deter-mines who will carry outwhat tasks in the changeprocess and what thestandards of quality im-plementation will be. Thisprocess is similar to Ba-nathy’s (1996) four designspirals: formulating thecore definition, developingspecifications, selectingfunctions, and designingthe enabling systems.While Ackoff’s five-stepprocess of idealized de-sign begins with a closelook at the present organi-zation and its environmentbefore moving to the crea-tion of an idealized visionof the future, Banathy’smodel begins with an ide-alized vision and then pro-ceeds to develop specificfunctions to bring the idealsystem into being. Whilethey start in differentplaces, both Ackoff (1979)and Banathy (1996) em-phasize iteration, a sys-

tems perspective, estab-lishing a shared vision,and managing the processof meeting that vision.These practices differ con-siderably from the practiceof leveraged emergentdesign, to which we turnnext.

Leveraged EmergentDesign

Definition

An alternative to (or adap-tation of) the idealized de-sign approach is the lever-aged emergent design ap-proach developed byReigeluth (2006) in a sys-temic transformation effortin Indianapolis. It is basedon the following principles:

Leverage. In transformingan existing system to anew paradigm, it is hard tochange everything at once.When you change one partof the system, it becomesincompatible with the restof the system, which thenworks to change it back.Therefore, you must firstchange a part or parts ofthe system that can exertpowerful leverage on theremaining parts of the oldsystem–to overcome theforce that the old systemwill exert to push the newparts back to what theywere. Starting with a fewhigh-leverage changes canmake the whole systemicchange process consid-erably quicker and easier.(Note that this is notpiecemeal change eventhough you start by chang-ing a small number ofhigh-leverage pieces, be-

cause the changes will, ifdone right, result in a dif-ferent paradigm of educa-tion, just as if the idealizeddesign approach had beenused.)

Visible progress. It is im-portant for participants in asystemic change processto be able to see progressoften. This sustains moti-vation and wins over skep-tics.

Emergent design. It is diffi-cult to design such a com-plex new system fromscratch, for it is difficult topredict what will work best.In an emergent approach,a few guiding principles orbeliefs (“strange attractors”in Chaos Theory or“de-siderata”in Nelson &Stolterman’s work) areselected, then a few high-leverage changes that areconsistent with the guidingbeliefs are implemented,and finally the remainingchanges occur throughcreativity, trial, and error–they gradually emergeover time.

Transcending traditionalmindsets. A different para-digm requires a differentworldview. Helping stake-holders transcend theirtraditional mental modelsor mindsets about educa-tion is critical to a systemicchange process. Failure totranscend causes resis-tance, or at best an inabil-ity to implement the newsystem, due to a lack ofunderstanding.

Ideal seeking. As in Ack-off’s idealized design ap-



5

proach, thinking in theideal helps participants totranscend the mentalmodel of the current para-digm and imagine some-thing potentially far supe-rior. This makes it mostvaluable to use at the be-ginning of the changeprocess, while preparingwhat Ackoff calls a“roughsketch”of the new system.That rough sketch is theguiding beliefs (whichserve as“strange attrac-tors”). To allow the princi-ples of leverage andemergence to play out, theidealized design shouldend when the rough sketchis completed, after the par-ticipants have transcendedtheir traditional mentalmodels about education.

Broad Stakeholder Owner-ship. Given the importanceof transcending traditionalmindsets, it is essential tohave broad participation inthe change process, sothat a sufficient number ofstakeholder mindsets sup-port the systemic change.However, to develop truecommitment to the newshared vision (representedby the guiding beliefs) andthereby minimize resis-tance, participants must gobeyond participation to asense of ownership of thenew vision. Ownership isdeveloped by encouragingparticipants to revise thevision (ideal beliefs), whichties in with the principle ofemergence.

Consensus Building.Broad ownership can’thappen without a consen-sus-building process, be-

cause participants beginwith very different beliefsabout what an ideal educa-tional system would belike. The consensus-building process helps par-ticipants to understandothers’perspectives andthereby evolve their mentalmodels to a set of sharedbeliefs.

How it Works

Here is a tentative processfor using the leveragedemergent design ap-proach:

1.Develop district-wideideal beliefs. A districtLeadership Team isformed of about 25 opin-ion leaders in all stake-holder groups to developa set of ideal beliefs forthe entire school district,with broad stakeholderinvolvement.

2.Develop district strategyand support capacity.The district LeadershipTeam develops a broadstrategy for the systemictransformation process.Primarily, this entails de-ciding how much of thedistrict to transform atonce: all“feeder sys-tems”(a feeder systemis all schools that feedinto a single high school)or just one; all gradelevels in a feeder systemor begin with, say, K-3and move up one gradelevel per year; allschools in the feedersystem or just a few, andso forth. This decision isinfluenced by theamount of district and

external resources tosupport those who aretransforming, and itshould be made withbroad stakeholder own-ership in a consensus-building process. In ad-dition, a Central SupportTeam is formed in theCentral Office, to sup-port the formation andoperation of building-level design teams.

3.Create building-leveldesign teams and strat-egy. A School DesignTeam is formed in eachbuilding with broadstakeholder involve-ment. Each DesignTeam’s first task is todecide, again with broadstakeholder involve-ment, on a building-levelstrategy for the systemictransformation process.Primarily, this entails de-ciding how much of theschool to transform atonce. If it is a largeschool, they may decideto form several smallschools or learningcommunities within thebuilding, and they maydecide to start with justone or all of them. Thisdecision depends pri-marily on school size,teacher cohesion, andmindsets.

4.Elaborate the beliefs.One School DesignTeam is formed for each“new”school to be de-signed in each buildingwith broad stakeholderinvolvement. Each De-sign Team elaboratesthe district-wide ideal be-liefs in such a way as to



6

tailor them to theirschool and neighbor-hood and develop broadstakeholder ownershipof them. These will serveas“strange attractors.” Duffy, Rogerson & Blick(2000) also recommendsthat a district-level de-sign team be formed be-cause the“core workprocess”should beviewed as the P-12process, not a P-6 proc-ess, a 7-8 process, anda 9-12 process. Thishelps ensure systemiccoherence.

5.Decide on high-leverage, structuralchanges. The CentralSupport Team helpseach School DesignTeam to reach broadstakeholder consensus(mindset change) on afew high-leverage, struc-tural changes that willimplement the guidingbeliefs for systemictransformation to alearner-centered para-digm. Sample high-leverage, structuralchanges are offered tohelp participants under-stand what they are, anddifferent schools mightchoose different struc-tural changes that theybelieve will be more con-sistent with their beliefsor will provide more lev-erage in their school.Samples might include:

replacing the currentreport card with an in-ventory of attainmentswhereby each studentmust reach a standardof attainment before

progressing to thenext attainment,

requiring a personallearning plan (orIEP) for every studentwhereby each studentcan immediately pro-gress to the next at-tainment that is ap-propriate for him orher upon masteringthe current one,

requiring a change inthe teacher’s role to acoach or facilitator,and

requiring active parentparticipation in settingand attaining their stu-dent’s goals.

This phase is the heart ofthe leveraged emer-gent design approach,so the following issome additional guid-ance for conducting it.

5.1. Elaborate the idealbeliefs. Design teamsengage their stake-holders in discussionsof the district-wideideal beliefs to build adeeper understandingof them and to de-velop a more detailedset of ideal beliefs tai-lored to their educa-tional level, but com-patible with the dis-trict-wide beliefs. Dis-cussions of learner-centered instructionare also important tothis task.

5.2. Understand high-leverage, structuralchanges. DesignTeams engage theirstakeholders in dis-cussions of the high-

leverage, initialchanges listed aboveas ways to understandwhat they are.

5.3. Decide on initialchanges. DesignTeams engage theirstakeholders in reach-ing broad stakeholderconsensus on what-ever initial changesthey believe will bestserve the high-leverage function fortheir elaborated idealbeliefs. Mindsetchange and consen-sus-building are para-mount here.

Different schools willrequire differentamounts of timeto reach broad con-sensus on their idealbeliefs and initialchanges.

The consensusmust be very broadamong all theschool’s stakeholdergroups, and it mustbe true consensus,not acquiescence.

A Design Teamcould, of course,plan and implementmore changes at thesame time, to sup-port those changes,such as studentshaving the sameteacher for three orfour years andchanging class-rooms into multiage,non-graded learningenvironments. How-ever, they mustavoid the temptationto plan out the newsystem in detail, be-



7

cause that is verytime consuming.

The high-leverage, struc-tural changes are the vehi-cles for change andsources of leverage. Theyprovide sufficient sustain-ability and leverage togradually change all otheraspects of the old systemto be compatible with thenew paradigm. There is nodetailed ideal design foreach building to developand implement. This is atruly emergent approach,with the guiding beliefsserving as“strange attrac-tors”to guide the emer-gence.

6.Plan the means. Themeans planning stage isvery similar to Ackoff’scounterpart in the ideal-ized design approach.Once broad consensushas been reached on itshigh-leverage initialchanges, each designteam identifies and pro-cures, with help from theCentral Support Team,appropriate instructionalmethods, practices, andtools for implementing allof its initial, high-leverage, structuralchanges. Task forcesmay be created to ac-complish particulartasks, such as develop-ing their inventory of at-tainments. Some taskforces may be jointlyformed by more thanone Design Team. Taskforces receive consider-able support from theCentral Service Center.The Design Teams pro-vide professional devel-

opment experiences fortheir staff to developtheir competence in us-ing those methods, prac-tices, and tools. Theyprocure and installequipment and remodelfacilities as needed. Ex-ternal funding is impor-tant for being able to“re-tool”their school.

7.Implement the initialchanges. The methods,practices, and tools areimplemented for all theinitial, high-leverage,structural changes. Pro-fessional learning com-munities are formed tohelp members imple-ment and improve theinitial changes and anyother changes that maybe found helpful to sup-port those initialchanges. Formativeevaluation and revisionare continuous.

Comparison

In this section we discussadvantages for each of thetwo approaches and ex-plore some comparisonsbetween these two alterna-tives. As we’ve pointed outearlier in this article, it iscertainly not the case thatwe wish to engage in di-chotomous thinking, ratherwe see these two as viableoptions on a continuumfrom a process in whichthe new system is com-pletely designed in greatdetail before any changesare made, to a process inwhich the new system isonly partially designed be-fore any changes are ac-tually made.

Pros for the leveragedemergent design approach

Some of the advantages ofthis approach over theidealized design approachinclude:

There is a muchlighter up-front in-vestment of time andresources in designingchanges that can beimplemented in eachbuilding, reducing ex-penses and allowingmore schools to pro-ceed at the same time.

Stakeholders don’tneed to reach consen-sus on every aspect ofthe design before im-plementation–just thefew high-leverage ini-tial changes–so it iseasier to reach broadconsensus.

Early implementationof the initial changesmay help skeptics tosee the value andworkability of thechanges.

Significant changesare implementedsooner than with theidealized design ap-proach, serving stu-dents sooner, as wellas helping to maintainparticipant motivation.

Pros for the idealizeddesign approach

Some of the advantages ofthis approach over the lev-eraged emergent designapproach include:

With the leveragedemergent design, poorchoice of initial



8

changes could resultin a failed effort if onlypiecemeal changesare made. 1

With the leveragedemergent design, poorchoice of initialchanges could resultin a failed effort if theydon’t have enoughleverage to keep theold system from forc-ing the changes to beundone.

With idealized design,the change process islikely to be less uncer-tain and chaotic.

With the idealized de-sign, while attainingconsensus is more dif-ficult, all participantsshare a clear, commonvision of the idealizedsystem.

Whichever approach isused, it is essential to con-tinue to work and thinksystemically. Without clearcommunication and per-meable boundaries be-tween systems, any set ofchanges will be likely tofail. Instead, leveragedemergent design or ideal-ized design must takeplace within a systemicview, keeping in mind theessential tenets of systemsthinking and systems the-ory.

School-Wide vs. District-Wide Transformation

Banathy (1996) notes thatsystems exist solely in themind as a way of assigningmeaning to an entity orphenomenon. Two popularways to define the system-

to-be-changed in educa-tional reform are as theschool and the school dis-trict (Squire & Reigeluth,2000), and each repre-sents a different approachto systemic change.School-wide transforma-tion is discussed next, fol-lowed by district-widetransformation.

School-WideTransformation

Definitions

Those adhering to aschool-wide transformationapproach to systemicchange define the systemof interest as the school.Several different terms areused to describe this ap-proach, including whole-school reform, site-basedor school-based reform,and most commonly, com-prehensive school reform(CSR).

School-wide transforma-tion is a broad approachthat covers a diverse num-ber of change processesand designs. While thesedesigns differ in their fo-cus, they share character-istics, the foremost being acomprehensive transfor-mation of the individualschool. The designs alsoshare a focus on helpingall students achieve highacademic standards, theapplication of research onbest practices, the in-volvement of parents andcommunity members inschools, professional de-velopment of teachers andadministrators, and thecreation of a shared vision

across faculty and com-munity (McChesney,1998).

Borman, Hewes,Overman, and Brown(2002) state that CSR isdefined by the U.S. De-partment of Education us-ing eleven componentsthat cover these previouscharacteristics but alsoinclude a focus on usingdesigns that have beenscientifically shown to sig-nificantly improve studentacademic achievement,identifying resources forsustaining the change ef-fort, incorporating assis-tance from an expert entityin school reform (for ex-ample, an institute ofhigher education), andimplementing yearly as-sessments of the changeeffort.

How it Works

Most systemic reform im-plementations in the pasttwenty years have utilizedthe school-wide approach.Many of these implemen-tations were funded by oneof two programs: NewAmerican Schools (NAS)and the ComprehensiveSchool Reform Program(CSRP), and CSR tends tofocus on established re-form model designs andthe processes for imple-menting them.

New American Schools 2

NAS was formed by thefirst Bush administration in1991, raising private fundsto support design teamswhich were to develop



9

“break the mold”whole-school designs. Eleveninitial design teams wereawarded funds, and NAS’sfirst phased implementa-tion? of the designs con-cluded in 1998, with de-sign teams having part-nered with more than 550schools by 1995, includingATLAS, Co-nect Schools,Expeditionary LearningOutward Bound (ELOB),Modern Red Schoolhouse(MRS), and America’sChoice Design Network(ACDN; originally NationalAlliance for RestructuringEducation), and Successfor All/Roots & Wings (SA)(Berends, Bodilly & Kirby,2002). The implementationof design models wasconducted by schoolspartnering with a specificdesign team, which as-sisted in the implementa-tion of the model.

The different design mod-els focus primarily on whatthe new schools should belike, so their change proc-ess approaches are pri-marily implementation ap-proaches, rather than de-sign approaches, althoughsome room for adaptationof their designs is oftenallowed. While the imple-mentation approaches ofthe five different designmodels listed above dovary considerably, three ofthem focus on faculty pro-fessional development andteamwork (ATLAS, ELOB,ACDN).

After initial feedback ofschools struggling to re-form within unsupportivedistricts, NAS outlined a

scale-up strategy to part-ner with school districtsrather than just schools(Berends et al., 2002).These districts pledged tohave 30% of their schoolsusing NAS designs withinthree years and providesupport for these schools,with the idea that thiswould create a stable coreof schools within the dis-trict that would help to en-courage all district schoolsto reform. This is a smallstep away from the school-wide approach toward thedistrict-wide approach.Hatch (2000) reports thatresults were mixed, withmany schools that trieddrastic systemic reforms insuch districts lagging be-hind and largely being un-successful. NAS hadRAND implement severalevaluation studies of theschools, which found thatreform initiatives were ac-tive and influenced policybut that the initial hypothe-sis that a school could im-prove its performance byadopting a whole-schooldesign was largely un-proved (Berends et al.,2002). Furthermore, thescale-up hypothesis, that adistrict that reformed 30%of its schools using NASwhole-school approacheswould become stable andhigh performing, was dis-proved, with districts re-verting back to their formerstatus when administra-tions changed (Berends etal., 2002).

Comprehensive SchoolReform Programs (CSRP)CSRP (originally the Com-prehensive School Reform

Demonstration program)was formed in 1997 whenCongress appropriated$150 million to supportschools implementingCSR models. It was in-cluded as a part of the NoChild Left Behind Act, withover 1,800 schools in all50 states, the District ofColumbia, Puerto Rico,and schools funded by theBureau of Indian Affairsreceiving grants as part ofthe original 1998 cohort.$368 million was appropri-ated in 2003 for CSRP,and an estimated 3,000new schools are annuallyexpected to receive fund-ing (“ComprehensiveSchool Reform Program:About Us”).

While some schools in-volved in CSR developtheir own reform models,many try to adhere to theCSR guidelines by turningto expert external groupsfor a pre-designed andresearched model andsupport, including some ofthe original NAS designteams. Some of the morewell-known groups, apartfrom any of the survivingNAS teams, such as Suc-cess for All, includeComer’s School Develop-ment Program (SDP), fo-cusing on creating schoolsthat support students’health, social, emotional,and academic challenges;Hirsch’s Core Knowledgereform (CK), focusing onthe establishment of acommon core of knowl-edge for all children; andSizer’s Coalition of Essen-tial Schools (CES), whichattempts to create suppor-



10

tive and rich learning envi-ronments by adhering tonine broad principles(Borman et al., 2002).

These groups share simi-lar visions, which largelyadhere to the CSR guide-lines, but they also aresimilar in their lack ofguidance for the changeprocess. They tend to offera model and expect it to beimplemented.

District-WideTransformation

Definition

Those adhering to a dis-trict-wide transformationapproach to systemicchange define the systemat the school district level.Schlechty (1990) identifiesthe school district as theunit for change, emphasiz-ing how school districtsoften lack a shared visionand necessary supportsfor change to occur, andtherefore, leadershipneeds to be emphasizedwithin the district. Duffy,Rogerson and Blick (2000)emphasize the districteven more strongly, statingthat limiting change toschool-wide reform is apiecemeal approach and isinsufficient by itself to pro-duce systemic change.Jenlink, Reigeluth, Carr, &Nelson (1996) advocatedistrict-wide systemicchange, saying“that sys-temic changes requirechanges beyond the scopeof a classroom or a schoolbuilding; that they requiredistrict-level changes aswell”(p. 22).

The argument for selectingthe district as the focus forchange is that school-based change efforts arelikely to fail if the schoolsdo not have the supportand shared vision of thedistrict. Duffy and col-leagues argue that focus-ing on a megasystem lar-ger than the school districtas the unit of changewould be too complex anduntenable (2000). There-fore, the school districtshould work with itsschools to create a sharedvision, while ceding auton-omy to them for designingand implementing modelsthat fit the vision (Duffy etal., 2000; Jenlink et al.,1996).

How it Works

There are several proc-esses for implementingsystemic change at thedistrict level. Duffy andcolleagues’(2000) Knowl-edge Work Supervision(KWS) process focuses onfour phases: 3

Building support forinnovation

Redesigning for highperformance

Achieving stability anddiffusion

Sustaining school im-provement

Their process identifiesfive key players:

A knowledge work co-ordinator, who servesas an“integrator”whoprovides tactical lead-ership

Cluster improvementteams, which arecomposed of K-12 in-ter-connected schoolssuch as a high schooland the elementaryand middle schoolsthat feed into it

Site improvementteams, which createnew designs for theirbuildings while con-sidering the relation-ship to other membersof their cluster

Communities of prac-tice, whether formal orinformal, that dissemi-nate their knowledgethroughout the system

A central service cen-ter, which is a redes-igned central officethat supports teachersand administrators asthey pursue theirchange goals.

Jenlink, Reigeluth, Carr,and Nelson (1998) identifya five-phased approachbroken down into 26 dis-crete events and manycontinuous events. Thephases are:

Assess readiness andnegotiate an agree-ment

Prepare core team forchange process

Prepare expandedteams for the process

Engage in design ofnew educational sys-tem

Implement and evolvenew system

Both of these processesshare key characteristicsfor transforming a school



11

district systemically. Theseinclude strong attention tocreating a shared vision inthe district, involvingstakeholders, illustratingthe need for change, creat-ing momentum to drive thechange process, and giv-ing schools control overtheir own designs.

While no complete evalua-tions of district-wide sys-temic change programswere available, it is worthnoting that some of theevaluations of school-wideprograms identify the needfor a larger, district-wideprocess. Datnow andStringfield (2000) reviewedfindings from 16 reformprojects and more than300 case studies andfound that reform effortsare more likely to be effec-tive when goals and workare shared across designteam, school, district andstate. Furthermore, theRAND study of NAS find-ings“dramatically proved”that the district needs toprovide a supportive envi-ronment for schools tosuccessfully implementchange (Berends et al.,2002, p 174). The NAS’scale-up methodologyshowed their own recogni-tion of the need to shiftfocus to the district level.

Comparison

Pros for the School-WideTransformation approach

Some of the advantages ofthis approach over the Dis-trict-Wide Transformationapproach include:

Less complexityFewer resources re-

quiredShorter time frameStronger research

base on past imple-mentations and mod-els.

Pros for the District-WideTransformation approach

Some of the advantages ofthis approach over theSchool-Wide Transforma-tion approach include:

Stronger supportmechanisms forschools to implementchange

A more systemic viewof process

A shared vision for allstakeholders

Ongoing commitmentto the district as alearning organization

Key-Leader Directed vs.Broad StakeholderDirected Transformation

Schlechty (1990) has de-veloped a“marketing ap-proach”to systemicchange that is driven prin-cipally by a visionary su-perintendent. This standsin contrast to a user-designer approach that isdriven by as broad a rangeof stakeholders as possi-ble.

Key-Leader DirectedTransformation

Definition

“If new structures are tobe invented, then educa-

tional leaders must be risktakers”(Schlechty, 1990,p.152). In the work of edu-cational reformer PhillipSchlechty, there is astaunch reliance on lead-ership to initiate change.Leadership can come fromany place in the organiza-tion, but“ideas begin withindividual women andmen; they do not begin ingroups”(p. 50). Accordingto Schlechty, without theefforts of a visionaryleader, most attempts atchange are destined to fail.Schlechty also sees thenearly continuous string offailed school reforms sincethe 1950s as a result of the“sales approach”to schoolchange:

Too often, those who try tobring about change ap-proach the task as a salesproblem. Just as salestries to break down marketresistance to a new prod-uct, leaders of changeconcentrate on overcom-ing resistance to change… Marketing change, by con-trast, begins from the viewthat change must satisfythe needs and values ofthose whose support isessential… It is one thing to get people to toleratechange; it is another to getthem to support changewith their own time, en-ergy, and creative capabili-ties (Schlechty, 1990, p.84)

Educational reformers util-izing Schlechty’s“market-ing approach”must initiallyfocus on the customers,which in this case are stu-dents. By providing stu-



12

dents with importantschool work at which theycan be successful, schoolscan change and remainviable democratic institu-tions in our information-based society. Proponentsof key-leader directedchange set their sights onstudents and how to maketheir experience success-ful. An important distinctionof key-leader directed de-sign is that the suggestedchange is purposefullyaltered based on thechange agent’s under-standing of stakeholdervalues. If the proposedchange is predicted to con-tradict deeply held stake-holder values, then altera-tions to the change aremade to make it more pal-atable. This approach isflexible in terms of specificchanges, but does not ex-plicitly invite stakeholdersinto the formation of over-arching goals.

How it Works

Schlechty (1990) notesthree powerful ways inwhich leaders can in-crease the chances ofsuccessful change: 1) fos-ter and communicate ashared vision, 2) empha-size a results orientation,and 3) utilize shared deci-sion making.

Schlechty’s version of cre-ating a shared vision in-cludes allowing informa-tion to spread easilythroughout the organiza-tion so that bottom-up re-forms, which might bemore easily implementeddue to higher initial sup-

port, can reach the leader-ship rapidly. Obtaining ashared vision might alsoinclude strategic marketingin which“the trick is tosegment the market sothat the values that comeinto play are taken intoaccount and to group thecustomers (for analyticalpurposes) in ways thatreflect significant cluster-ings and emphases onthese values”(1990, p.85). Thus, identifying pos-sible flash points for oppo-sition in advance and ad-dressing them early-onbecomes an important partof the marketing approach.

Emphasizing a results ori-entation involves evaluat-ing current and futurepractice in reference to theschool’s established pur-pose. Schlechty states thatthe purpose of a school,when viewed as a knowl-edge-work organization is“to invent schoolwork(knowledge work) at whichstudents are successful(students can do it and dodo it) and from which stu-dents learn something thatis of consequence to thoseon whose support theschool relies”(1990, p.53). If this purpose is as-sumed, then evaluatingresults is simply a matterof evaluating whether ornot activities move theschool towards this statedpurpose.

Utilizing shared decisionmaking is viewed bySchlechty as both an aes-thetically pleasing practicein a democratic society aswell as a style of leader-

ship that will result in“bet-ter decisions and betterresults”(1990, p. 52). Re-structuring managementand time so that workerswho are low in an organi-zation’s hierarchical struc-ture have the opportunityto participate in decisionmaking is believed to re-sult in an organization thatis better able to functioneffectively.

All three of these charac-teristics go together, andnone can be fully imple-mented without the othertwo.

Additional work in key-leader directed design hasbeen done by researchersinterested in the waysleaders can prepare or-ganizations for change.Latchem and Hanna(2002) apply Schlechty’swork to the integration ofcomputers into the class-room. They describe“dis-ruptive technology”(p.204) as that which re-sponds to customer needsand forces the organiza-tion to operate differently.This outgrowth of key-leader directed changemaintains a customer fo-cus but is not as reliant onmanagers as the original.Additionally, scholarlywork has focused onteacher leadership as edu-cational change and howleadership developmentfor teachers might serve toimprove a school’s opera-tion in a context of change(Cox, 1999).

An important distinction ofkey-leader directed design



13

is that the suggestedchange is purposefullyaltered based on thechange agents’under-standing of stakeholdervalues. If the proposedchange is predicted to con-tradict deeply held stake-holder values, then altera-tions to the change aremade to make it more pal-atable.

Broad StakeholderDirected Transformation

Definition

User-design is an ap-proach to design that ishighly aligned with ideal-ized design and focuseson a very significant, em-powered engagement ofmany stakeholders. It hasbeen defined (Carr-Chellman, in press) as“anauthentic empowerment ofa particular set of stake-holders, the users of anyinnovation, such that theyare creating their own sys-tems of human learning.” User design is founded onsystems theories and un-derstandings of the basicsof systems such as inter-connections and interde-pendencies. User designas applied to EducationalSystems Design (ESD)stems from work done byBanathy (1991), Reigeluth(1993), and Jenlink (1995).All of this earlier work fromthe 90’s focused on verypotent forms of stake-holder participation thatwent far beyond earlierconceptions of stakeholderparticipation, such asthose of Epstein (1997).

The foundations of user-design are deeply rootedin Human Computer Inter-face, and particularly theScandinavian theories sur-rounding Participatory De-sign (Schuler & Namioka,1993). The process of userdesign is less systematicand linear than traditionalinstructional design, andtherefore has more incommon with idealizeddesign processes.

How it Works

The underlying principlesof user-design are that thedesign and decision mak-ing need to be a sharedactivity across as manydifferent stakeholders aspossible. In this sort of ap-proach, the users becomedesigners, and the profes-sional designer has to offerassistance and educationwhere appropriate withjust-in-time learning. Thisis a dramatic shift in therole of the designer and inthe role of the partici-pants/former recipients ofinnovations. Because ofthis shift, power has to becarefully considered as aprimary variable in the im-plementation of user-design approaches. In cer-tain contexts, user-designwill not be possible be-cause the idea of sharedpower is simply not com-patible with the leadershipor the designers.

Despite this possibledrawback, in general, wecan say that the empiricalfindings on the engage-ment of stakeholders inpublic school change show

positive outcomes on bothsignificant and superficialstakeholder participation(e.g., Hafner, 1992; Henry,Dickey & Areson, 1991;Wang, Haertel & Walberg,1995). In addition, en-gagement of stakeholdersin more general social sys-tems design tended toyield positive outcomes(e.g., Brandon, 1999;Greene, 1988; Saegert,1996). These researchfindings are encouragingand should help thosereaders willing to considersuch a radical approach.

The basic stages of user-design include: readiness,team selection, proc-ess/design tool selection,capacity building, processengagement, trials of inno-vations, iterative assess-ment of process and prod-ucts innovations, andevaluation of user-designsystemic impacts (Carr-Chellman, in press). Thesestages are moved throughvery loosely and not in anysort of true linear fashion.But in general, somestages will come beforeothers, such that, for ex-ample, the readiness ofany organization should beat least initially assessedprior to selecting teammembers or tools. There isa variety of considerationsassociated with each ofthese phases, for example,tool selection should be ashared activity, one whichis facilitated by the design-ers but not owned by thedesigners. The basic proc-ess calls for fairly earlytrials of innovations insomewhat of a rapid proto-



14

typing fashion. Furtherdiscussion of each phasecan be found in Carr-Chellman (in press).

Comparison

The key-leader approachand the user-design ap-proach share some com-monalities, particularly asthe key-leader approachrequires building a sharedvision and respects thenotion that innovativeideas may come fromanywhere within the sys-tem. However, there is afairly large gap wherepower is concerned. It isclear that power remainswith leadership in the caseof the key-leader ap-proach, whereas in user-design the decision-making power resides withusers themselves. In manycases, the user-designapproach may not be ap-propriate, despite its moreaggressive user-engagement, because thecontext may not be at allfriendly to the necessarynotions of power redistri-bution or because the req-uisite resources in terms oftime and people may sim-ply not be available. User-design also requires a cer-tain amount of active en-gagement and responsibil-ity on the part of all systemusers, and if a context isnot prepared for this, thenthe user-design approachmay not meet the needs ofa particular school com-munity.

On the other hand, the keyleader approach needs tohave willing followers who

will engage in the processunder the direction of akey leader, and thus a sig-nificant key leader must bepresent in the context. Andpresumably, the key leadershould be an innovatorwith good communicationskills and a compellingpersonality. Thus, neitherof these approaches maybe appropriate for allschool cultures. In bothcases, readiness is essen-tial.

Conclusion

This article described anumber of systemicchange approaches to k-12 school innovation. Theapproaches included ideal-ized design versus lever-aged emergent design,school-wide versus dis-trict-wide transformation,and key-leader-directedversus broad-stakeholder-directed transformation.Definitions of each ap-proach were reviewed,along with key practices ofeach and comparisonsamong them. Hopefully,this material will stimulatediscussion and under-standing of their advan-tages and disadvantageswithin the culture and con-text of any particularschool community, and willhelp identify productiveavenues for future re-search.

References

Arriaza, G. (2004). Makingchanges that staymade: School reformand community in-volvement. The High

School Journal, 87(4),10-24.

Banathy, B. H. (1991).Educational systemsdesign: A journey tocreate the future.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technol-ogy Publications.

Banathy, B. H. (1992). Asystems view of edu-cation: Concepts andprinciples for effectivepractice. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: EducationalTechnology Publica-tions.

Banathy, B. H. (1996). De-signing social systemsin a changing world.New York: PlenumPress.

Berends, M., Bodilly, S. J.,& Kirby, S. N. (2002).Looking back over adecade of whole-school reform: the ex-perience of NewAmerican Schools. PhiDelta Kappan, 84(2),168-175.

Borko, H., Wolf, S. A.,Simone, G., & Uchi-yama, K. P. (2003).Schools in transition:Reform efforts andschool capacity inWashington State.Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis,25(2), 171-201.

Borman, G., Hewes, G.,Overman, L., & Brown,S. (2002). Compre-hensive school reformand student achieve-ment: a meta-analysis(No. 59). Baltimore,



15

MD: Center for Re-search on the Educa-tion of StudentsPlaced at Risk.

Brandon, P.R. (1999). In-volving programstakeholders in re-views of evaluators’recommendations forprogram revisions.Evaluation and pro-gram planning, 22,363-372.

Carr, A. A. (1996). Leader-ship and communityparticipation: Fourcase studies. Journalof Curriculum and Su-pervision, 12(2), 152-168.

Carr-Chellman, A.A. & Sa-voy, M. (2004). User-design research. InJonassen, D.H. (Ed.),Handbook of researchfor education, commu-nications and technol-ogy, 2nd ed., pp. 701-716. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Carr-Chellman, A.A.,Cuyar, C., & Breman,J. (1998). User-Design: A Case Appli-cation in Health CareTraining. EducationalTechnology Researchand Development, 46(4), 97-114

Carroll, J. M. (2000). Fivereasons for scenario-based design. Interact-ing with Computers,13, 43-60.

Comprehensive SchoolReform Program:

About Us. RetrievedApril 26, 2006, fromhttp://www.ed.gov/programs/compreform/2pager.html

Corcoran, T., & Lawrence,N. (2003). Changingdistrict culture and ca-pacity: The impact ofthe Merck Institute forScience Educationpartnership. Philadel-phia: University ofPennsylvania.

Cox, T. R. (1999). A Quali-tative Study of a Ca-pacity Building Profes-sional DevelopmentExperience. Unpub-lished doctoral disser-tation. University ofWest Virginia, Morgan-town, WV.

Datnow, A., & Stringfield,S. (2000). Working to-gether for reliableschool reform. Journalof Education for Stu-dents Placed at Risk,5(1&2), 183-204.

Duffy, F. M. (2006). Step-Up-To-Excellence: Achange navigation pro-tocol for transformingschool systems. Re-trieved on July 27,2006 at http://cnx.org/content/m13656/latest/

Duffy, F., Rogerson, L.G.,& Blick, C. (2000). Re-designing America’sschools: A systemsapproach to improve-ment. Norwood, MA:Christopher-GordonPublishers, Inc.

Epstein, J.L. (1997).School, family, andcommunity partner-ships: Your handbookfor action. ThousandOaks, CA: CorwinPress.

Fullan, M. (2000). Thethree stories of educa-tion reform. Phi DeltaKappan, 81(8), 581-584.

Greene, J.C., (1988).Stakeholder participa-tion and utilization inprogram evaluation.Evaluation Review, 12(2), 91-116.

Hafner, A.L. (1992). De-veloping model stu-dent information sys-tems: Promising prac-tices. (ERIC DocumentReproduction ServiceNo. ED358516). SanFrancisco, CA: FarWest Laboratory forthe Educational Re-search and Develop-ment.

Hatch, T. (2000). WhatDoes It Take to Breakthe Mold? Rhetoricand Reality in NewAmerican Schools.Teachers College Re-cord, 102(3), pp. 561-589.

Henry, G.T., Dickey, K.C.,& Areson, J.C., (1991).Stakeholder participa-tion in educational per-formance monitoringsystems. Educationalevaluation and policyanalysis, 13 (2), 177-188.



16

Hertling, E. (2000). Com-prehensive School Re-form. ResearchRoundup, 16(2), pp. 1-4. (ERIC DocumentReproduction ServiceNo. ED440470)

Jenlink, P. M. (1995). Sys-temic change: Touch-stones for the futureschool. Palatine, IL:Skylight.

Jenlink, Reigeluth, C. M.,Carr, A. A., & Nelson,L. M. (1996). An expe-dition for change: Fa-cilitating the systemicchange process inschool districts. Tech-Trends, 41 (1), 21-30.

Jenlink, Reigeluth, C. M.,Carr, A. A., & Nelson,L. M. (1998). Guide-lines for facilitatingsystemic change inschool districts. Sys-tems Research andBehavioral Science,15(3), 217-233.

Joseph, R. (2003). Forma-tive Research on aDesign Theory to Fa-cilitate SystemicChange in PublicSchool Districts. Un-published doctoral dis-sertation. Indiana Uni-versity, Bloomington,IN.

McChesney, J. (1998).Whole-school reform(No. 124). Eugene,OR: ERIC Digest.

Nelson, H. G., & Stolter-man, E. (2003). TheDesign Way: inten-tional change in anunpredictable world.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technol-ogy Publications.

Omerod, R. (1995). PuttingSoft OR Methods toWork: Information sys-tems Strategy Devel-opment at Sainsbury’s.The Journal of the Op-erational ResearchSo-ciety, 46(3), 277-293.

Pourdehnad, J., & Hebb,A. (2002). Redesign-ing the Academy ofVocal Arts (AVA). Sys-tems Research andBehavioral Science,19, 331-338.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1993).Principles of educa-tional systems design.International Journal ofEducational Research,19 (2), 117-131.

Reigeluth, C. M. (2006).The Guidance systemfor transforming edu-cation. Tech Trends,50(2), 42.

Saegert, S. (1996). Grow-ing the seeds ofstrength in high riskurban neighborhoods.Presented at the An-nual meeting of theAmerican Psychologi-cal Association, To-ronto, Ontario, Can-ada.

Schlechty, P. C. (1990).Schools for the 21stcentury: Leadershipimperatives for educa-tional reform. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schuler, D., & Namioka, A.(1993). Participatorydesign: Principles andpractices. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Smart, K.L, & Whiting,M.E., (2001). Design-ing systems that sup-port learning and use:A customer-centeredapproach. Informationand management, 39,177-190.

Squire, K. D. (1999). Op-portunity initiated sys-tems design. SystemicPractice and ActionResearch, 12(6), 633-648.

Squire, K. D. & Reigeluth,C. (2000). The manyfaces of systemicchange. EducationalHorizons, 78(3), p.143-152.

Sugar, W.A., & Boling, E.(1995). User-centeredinnovation: A modelfor“early usability test-ing.”Article presentedat the Annual NationalConvention of the As-sociation of Educa-tional Communicationsand Technology, Ana-heim, CA.

The catalog of school re-form models. (2005).Retrieved April 29,2006 from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/ cata-log/modellist.asp

Vredenburg, K. (1999).Increasing ease ofuse. Communicationsof the ACM, 42, (5),67-71.



17

Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D.,& Walberg, H.J.,(1995). Effective fea-tures of collaborativeschool-linked servicesfor children in elemen-tary school: What dowe know from re-search and practice?(ERIC Document Re-production Service No.ED399309). Nairobi,Kenya/Philadelphia,PA: Coordinating cen-ter for Regional Infor-mation Training.

About the Authors

Charles Reigeluth has aB.A. in Economics fromHarvard University and aPh.D. in Instructional Psy-chology from BrighamYoung University. Hetaught high school sciencefor three years. He hasbeen a Professor in theInstructional SystemsTechnology Department atIndiana University since1988, and was chairman ofthe department for threeyears. He co-founded theDivision for SystemicChange in the Associationfor Educational Communi-cation and Technology(AECT) and founded theRestructuring SupportService at Indiana Univer-sity. He has worked withseveral school districts tofacilitate their change ef-forts. He served on theIndiana Department ofEducation RestructuringTask Force and proposalreview team, and he ad-vised several of the sixpilot schools on how toconduct systemic change.He has been facilitating a

systemic change effort in asmall school district in In-dianapolis since January2001, and is using that asan opportunity to advanceknowledge about how tohelp public school districtstransform themselves to alearner-centered paradigmof education. His E-mailaddress [email protected].

Alison A. Carr-Chellman isa professor in Penn StateUniversity’s InstructionalSystems Program in theDepartment of Learningand Performance Sys-tems, College of Educa-tion. She teaches courseson educational change,diffusion of innovations,and qualitative research,as well as an undergradu-ate course on the impactof e-learning globally. Herresearch interests are cen-tered on phenomenologi-cal understandings ofchange, systems theories,user-design, and systemicreform. She has had tworecent books, Global Per-spectives on E-Learning:Rhetoric and Reality pub-lished by Sage in 2005,and User-Design pub-lished by Erlbaum publish-ers coming out this year.She may be contacted [email protected].

Brian R. Beabout is a doc-toral candidate at thePennsylvania State Uni-versity in the InstructionalSystems Department. Heis also a teaching assistantin the Department of Cur-riculum and Instruction atPenn State. His E-mail

address [email protected].

William Watson is a Lec-turer of Computer and In-formation Technology inthe Purdue School of En-gineering and Technology,Indiana University/PurdueUniversity at Indianapolis(IUPUI). He may bereached [email protected].

Thank you for your interestin these Reports.

Francis M. Duffy

G R O U P

The F.M. uffyD

Please feel free to share copies ofthese reports with your col-leagues. All that I ask is that theinformation you find in thesereports be attributed to the au-thor(s).

For references to this article,please use the following format:

Reigeluth, C. M., Carr-Chellman, A. A., Beabout, B. &Watson, W. (2006). Creatingshared visions of the future forK-12 education: A systemictransformation process for alearner-centered paradigm. TheF. M. Duffy Reports, 11(3), 1-18.

In the past, these reports oftencontained articles written byreaders. If you would like towrite an article for these reportson a topic related to whole-system change in school districts,please send a copy of it as an E-mail attachment [email protected].



18

Endnotes

1 Based on our definitionof idealized design, it isimpossible for piecemealchanges to emerge froman idealized design proc-ess.

2 The New AmericanSchools enterprise mergedwith the American Insti-tutes for Research in 2004.

3 Knowledge Work Super-vision has evolved into athree-step transformationprocess preceded by aPre-Launch PreparationPhase. The modifiedmethod is now known asStep-Up-To-Excellence(Duffy, 2006)

the f. m. duffy reports - purdue universityweb.ics.purdue.edu/~brwatson/publications/volume 11,...

Documents