Understanding the Process of Change

		Throughout the first and second module we have consistently referred to the processes of continuous improvement and school improvement. At the core of both of these processes is the concept of change. We often talk about change as if there were little to understand. Yet the existence of theories, models, and research about change within a variety of contexts speaks to its elusive nature.

		When considering the concept of change, we need to contemplate its type and direction. As we have previously discussed, there are different types of change, including more superficial first-order change, which involves minor modifications, and more transformative second-order change, which involves modifying how different stakeholders in the entire system relate and behave. When we aim for school reform, we must aim for change of the second-order. School systems, particularly those within BIA, are inherently complex and involve many stakeholders.

		Students, teachers, schools, parents and community members, school boards, agency offices, the Center for School Improvement, and the Office of Indian Education Programs are all important stakeholders in the system that can and must take a role in improving student achievement. Thinking more broadly, we may also consider tribal councils, area businesses, community-based programs, and higher education as stakeholders with a vested interest in the quality of our schools and the students we serve. This kind of system requires change of a large scale. Consistent with second-order change, it implies that not just one component of the system should improve (e.g., classroom, school, agency office) but that all components are improving to some degree (Elmore, 2000). That is, to be successful, fundamental change in one aspect of the system requires fundamental changes in others (Reigeluth, 1994).

		The direction change takes is fundamental to the concept of improvement. According to researcher Richard Elmore, school reform efforts gone awry can produce lots of change and not much improvement. "Improvement", he says, implies change "with direction, sustained over time, that moves entire systems" towards consistently improved quality and performance. Change can be positive or negative, but improvement is clearly change for the better.

		What we have not discussed is what to expect from the change process. This has been a topic of interest across many professions, which has led to the generation of various models of change. Each of the models implies that by describing the change process, change agents may better predict and manage it to enhance the probability of success and improvement for themselves or their organizations.

		Several of these models will be presented to help you gain a sense of what you may have ahead of you in your journey towards school improvement. Although the models are general enough to apply to situations and organizations and various fields, examples will be given that pertain to education. The details of each model vary, but many of the general themes are the same. Understanding these commonalities can help ground you and your school as you move ahead, then strive to sustain change over the long haul.

		Models of Change. Stages of Change. By the late 1970's, the field of psychology had become overwhelmed with an excess of psychotherapy models. In 1979, Time magazine reported that there were over 200 therapy models, all aiming to help change human behavior. The multitude of diverging models was likened to a cancer of uncontrolled growth that was leading the field to a crisis point. Responding to this, psychologists James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente studied 18 of the major psychotherapies in an effort to identify common principles of change. The change model they developed in 1982 is now being used by organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and American Lung Association. Their model, called the "transtheoretical model", but often referred to as the "Stages of Change" model, has been scientifically tested and is widely accepted as an effective tool for change intervention. Although originally created to capture the personal process of change, Prochaska and DiClemente's Stages of Change model is relevant to change in any context. The stages include:

		Precontemplation. The person has no intention of changing their behavior in the foreseeable future.

		Contemplation. The person is developing an awareness of the need for change and is "thinking about" it.

		Preparation. The person has made a commitment to change in the near future and is preparing for it.

		Action. The person is actively engaged in the change process, has taken steps to modify some behaviors or the environment, and is doing some of the hardest work of the entire model.

		Maintenance. The person has changed their behavior for more than 6 months. The behavior change seems to be well learned and is demonstrated consistently. This stage is a critical time for preventing relapse to the earlier, undesired behavior.

		As they applied this model in their research, they discovered other important phenomena. Moving through the change process is associated with the individual's degree of motivation, or their sense that although change may be difficult, it will be worth it in the end. It is also associated with the individual's sense of competency, or the degree they believe that they are capable of making the change. As people move toward the "action" stage of change, they tend to be highly motivated and have a sense that they will be able to accomplish the change. The example in Handout 1 shows the teacher becomes motivated to change when confronted with information about her students' performance. She gains competency teaching certain Mathematics standards by observing other teachers' lessons, then maintains both her motivation and competency by inviting others into her classroom and soliciting their feedback on her performance. Prochaska and DiClemente also found that long-lasting behavior change is not a linear process; that is, most people do not progress through the model step by step. Rather, people often recycle through the middle stages several times until the change is anchored in the person's daily habits.

		The Stages of Change model shows us that acting on and maintaining change is not an immediate process and is a function of readiness. Readiness can be influenced. With increased information, the problems with maintaining the status quo and the benefits of changing can be illuminated, and motivation can increase. In addition, as skills are built, individuals can come to see themselves as competent of making the desired change.

		Satir Change Model. Virginia Satir, a pioneer in family therapy, developed a five-stage model that describes the change patterns she saw when working with families. Yet the patterns she describes occur with any group of people or any system facing change. Satir noted that change is not an event; rather, it is a process. In her model, each stage of the change process relates to certain feelings, thoughts, performances, and even physical responses.

		Figure 1 illustrates how performance is effected throughout the change process, becoming more variable and potentially worse before it eventually stabilizes at a higher, improved level.

		Stage 1: Old Status Quo. For Satir, the change process begins here. The old status quo describes the system's existing condition, and what is left behind when the change process begins. When in old status quo, members of the system are functioning at a familiar place. Although the status quo may be dysfunctional and ineffective, it can be comfortable for members since performance and expectations are consistent. Members function by explicit and implicit rules: they know what to expect, how to react, and how to behave.

		Feelings like anger and guilt are common during this stage, and members cope with these by simultaneously blaming (e.g., "If only the first grade teacher had done his/her job, these students would be performing better in my classroom") and appeasing each other (e.g., "There is only so much we can do for these students considering their backgrounds"). Stress that occurs during this stage may lead to physical symptoms such as headaches that create an unexplainable increase in absenteeism.

		During this stage, new information and concepts from outside the group, such as viewing objective data about performance or gaining feedback from a trusted expert can open members up to the realities of their situation and possibility of improvement.

		Transition 1, Foreign Element. Disrupting the old status quo, the group confronts a foreign element which stimulates transition into the change process. This element requires members to acknowledge crucial issues and threatens the stability of the current power structures.

		Most members resist the foreign element with their familiar coping mechanisms: denial, avoidance, and blame.

		These are essentially blocking tactics to try to minimize the impact of the foreign element. Such tactics are often accompanied by unconscious physical responses, such as shallow breathing and closed posture. This resistance further impedes awareness to the problems of the organization. In education, there are plenty of examples of foreign elements that upset the status quo of a system. At the local level, a new administrator may enter a school with a personal agenda, new management style, or prior experiences that he or she wishes to implement.

		Policy decisions made at the local, state, and federal level also challenge the status quo of the school. In this case, the No Child Left Behind legislation is an excellent example. Educators at all levels of the system are looking closely at their data to discern the degree that learning is improving for all student subgroup. In many cases, educators are being forced to reconsider the way they educate their children in response to this information. When a foreign element is introduced, it is important for leaders to help members become receptive to it while overcoming the tendency to deny, avoid, or blame.

		Stage 2: Chaos. Once the foreign element has been introduced, the group enters unfamiliar territory. Their reactions may include confusion, a sense of vulnerability, mixed feelings, and physical distress. In this period of Chaos, old expectations may no longer be valid; old reactions may cease to be effective; and old behaviors may not be possible. Rules and relationships change. Members may become concerned for their "survival" in the changing system, and may therefore behave in ways that are uncharacteristic. During this stage, group performance becomes erratic and, at times, may plummet. Most educators with any time in the system have undergone periods of chaos, when "foreign elements" have been introduced to their working environments and they have been forced to make adjustments. For example, if a new teaching methodology is being emphasized at the school, teachers may have mixed feelings about it. Changing their approach means abandoning some of the lesson plans, materials, and techniques with which they have invested time and become familiar. Teachers may become anxious about new expectations for their teaching, unsure if they can and will meet them. Some teachers may welcome the new instructional methodology in theory, but need significant training to put it into practice.

		With all of these variables and a general lack of stability in the system, it follows that performance will go through this chaotic period of unpredictable ups and downs. All members in this stage need help focusing on their feelings, acknowledging their fear, and using their support systems. As difficult as this stage can be, leaders must recognize it and embrace it as vital to the transformation process. Attempts to "short circuit" the chaos stage with magical solutions will be ineffective and will only slow the system's movement towards improvement.

		Transition 2, Transforming idea. At this point, the members discover a transforming idea, stimulating another transition in the change process. This idea shows members how the foreign element can benefit them. Instead of being threatened and confused by the foreign element, the group becomes excited about its potential. This begins the group's move to a new equilibrium rather a return to the old status quo.

		For educators in our previous example, a transforming idea may be to organize various professional development activities that will allow teachers to transition-in the new techniques as they are learned while providing ample, non-judgmental feedback on their performance. This may then provide teachers with a sense of hope that they will be supported as they learn the new methodologies and given time to gain mastery of them.

		In all systems, including schools, transforming ideas are everywhere, often residing within the creative minds of staff members. Good leaders create an environment that encourages staff to share ideas, build consensus around different strategies, and support each other as they implement them.

		Stage 3: Practice & Integration. This stage is characterized by efforts made to integrate new knowledge and skills into the group's repertoire. The group becomes excited and sets new rules. New relationships emerge that offer the opportunity for identity and belonging. Performance improves rapidly as members understand the new expectations and practice the desired behaviors. Members may feel euphoric and invincible.

		To gain understanding of new teaching methods, teachers may attend a conference highlighting how other schools have implemented the techniques and the improvements they have in student achievement. They may then identify strategies for how the methodology will be rolled-out and evaluated in their school. Trainers may be brought in to the school to ensure that all teachers have the knowledge and skills needed to implement the new techniques.

		Peer observations may be used to allow teachers to gather data on the quality of the new technique's implementation from classroom to classroom. Regular meetings may be scheduled to allow teachers to informally discuss how they are doing with the new techniques and to offer feedback from their peer observations and assistance. All of these activities provide support for teachers as they learn and practice the new techniques, while also giving them opportunities to forge new types of relationships with each other. Staff members in this stage need support. They can become frustrated as they try new approaches and strategies, finding that it takes time to perfect their new skills. A common pitfall for leaders is failing to allow time for ample practice, integration, and the inevitable mistakes that occur during this stage. Non-judgmental feedback and patience gives staff members the confidence to practice and improve, which will continuously move the system to higher levels of performance.

		New Status Quo. If the change has been formulated and implemented well, the group and its environment are in better accord and performance stabilizes at a higher level than it began in the late status quo stage. The group is now "healthy"; members are calm, centered, and alert. They feel free to observe and communicate what is really happening in the organization without fear of repercussion. A sense of accomplishment and possibility is apparent.

		One thing that should be reinforced about the "new status quo" is that it would be impossible to know if the system has reached this level without reflecting upon data. Data, both quantitative and qualitative, related to both teaching processes and student outcomes, must be used to signal when the system is beginning to stabilize and to what level student performance has been raised. In addition, we should keep in mind that there may be a time when this "new status quo" no longer serves the organization or its students for a variety of reasons. Therefore, arriving at this stage does not necessarily imply that change is "done". New policies, changing student needs, new research, and so on, may introduce future "foreign elements" that render this stage of status quo "old" and require the system to cycle through the stages again.

		Therefore, even as staff members continue to practice and improve, everyone in the school must keep an open mind to the changing needs of students, teachers, and the community. Continuous reflection on relevant data is an important tool to keep the staff up to date on these ever-changing needs.

		Evaluating Continuous Improvement - The Kirkpatrick Model. In 1959, Donald Kirkpatrick, a former president of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), designed a simple, flexible, and complete evaluation model. Kirkpatrick's model focuses on measuring four kinds of outcomes that should result from highly effective training programs and is used by 67% of organizations conducting evaluations of this kind. If the purpose of our lesson is to understand change, then why are we learning about an evaluation model?

		The Kirkpatrick model represents a process for change and suggests that initial outcomes, such as positive attitude and learning, must occur before actual changes in behavior will take hold. In addition, the need for professional development for educators is ongoing, and becomes a critical element in most school improvement plans.

		Level One, Reactions. Evaluation at this level measures how favorably participants react to training in terms of how much they liked the training and how relevant they felt the material was to their work.

		This information is important because the interest, attention, and motivation of the participants are critical to the success of the program. When people are receptive to and positive about what they are hearing, they are more likely to learn. Thus the participants' reactions will have consequences for level two, "Learning".

		For example, if a consultant is to provide training in the use of a certain instructional methodology, but teachers feel he or she is ill-prepared or does not relate well to the them, they will be less likely to listen to the consultant, learn the desired skills, and apply them to their classroom teaching. On the other hand, an effective trainer sets the stage for learning by preparing for and delivering a quality presentation while ensuring a positive experience for participants. A positive reaction at Level One does not guarantee learning, but a negative reaction is almost always prohibitive.

		Level Two, Learning, is straightforward. This level measures the degree to which participants have gained new knowledge, skills, and attitudes as a result of training. Positive results at this level help results at the next level, Transfer of behavior.

		Keeping with our previous example, evaluation at this level is critical. Simply perceiving training to be positive and relevant does not move us close enough to real change. We must gauge the degree that learning has occurred to consider next steps in the improvement process. Findings at level two may suggest that additional training is needed to bolster the important concepts and skills. It may also indicate that participants are sufficiently knowledgeable and may be encouraged to apply their new skills in their jobs.

		Level Three, Transfer, measures the degree to which knowledge, skills, and attitudes are transferred from the training context to the workplace.

		This level is also known as "behavior", as true transfer is evident in changed behaviors in response to newly acquired skills. Level three, one might say, is where the "rubber hits the road" in terms of change. New learning is no good to an organization unless the participants actually use the new skills in their work activities. This is where changes in the process of instruction can have an indirect effect on student outcomes. The quality of the training has an impact on the degree to which transfer occurs, but "workplace factors" have an impact as well. Clearly, the conditions at schools, such as leadership, supervision, staff collaboration, and use of school resources, must support transfer for new behaviors to take hold.

		Level Four, Results, measures final results that occur because the participants attended and participated in the training. It seeks to learn whether the training has made a difference, and at what cost to the organization.

		Here, we are looking at any outcomes that are "good for the system." Examples of desired outcomes for education include, but are not limited to: improved student achievement, improved student attendance rates, a decrease in behavioral incidents, and increased retention of quality teachers.

		It is important to remember that it takes time for the reactions, learning, and changed behaviors to make their impact on final outcomes. From the time a school obtains training in new instructional methods, sufficiently learns the new techniques, begins to apply the new behaviors to their work, and masters how to best integrate the new skills into their existing repertoire, several months to a year may have elapsed. In addition, the degree to which student outcomes can be detected is related to the frequency and sensitivity of the measures that are used to assess it.

		In the case of student achievement, this speaks to the need for various measures of learning, including formative assessments, which can be used at the classroom level, and summative assessments, which are less frequent, but potentially hold more weight for other stakeholders.

		The Kirkpatrick model, intended to guide evaluation, also provides a model for change that is particularly applicable to professional development scenarios in education. First, educators must have open minds and positive attitudes toward change, which corresponds to the Reaction stage. Next, they must be given the opportunity to gain the knowledge and skills that are needed to move the school in the desired direction, corresponding to the Learning stage. Then, educators must transfer what they have learned to their everyday practices, which will be demonstrated with new and modified behaviors. Ultimately, educators should see the Results of this work through improved outcomes, be they student achievement, student attendance, increased parental involvement, or other numerous objectives.

		Importantly, this model emphasizes the need to collect and reflect upon data as the change process unfolds. Understanding how educators are responding to and applying what they have learned through various professional development opportunities provides valuable information to those that are supporting and guiding the system.

		Stages of Data-Driven Change. The final change model loosely relates to Elisabeth Kübler-Ross's well-known stages of grief. According the Kübler-Ross model, there are five stages of grief related to illness or dying that go in progression through denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. This model has been widely adopted by others and applied to many other situations where someone suffers a loss or change. Certain components of the Kübler-Ross model have been consistent with the responses of educators to their school data. The Stages of Data-Driven Change are offered as a description of these similarities and reflect frequently-observed response patterns during data retreats. This model rings particularly true when educators are confronted with data that are surprising or disheartening.

		Stage One: Denial: Participants, when confronted with data that are less than positive, often have the impulse to deny its validity. During this stage, educators have reported feeling tension within their team and a general feeling of discouragement. Comments heard from team members during this stage have included, "There must be some mistake!", "This cannot be!", and "I know my students" and these data don't reflect their true abilities".

		Stage Two: Anger: Participants often follow-up denial with anger. "Why us?" and "I don't know why I stay at this school", have been overheard during data retreats. Feelings of anger are sometimes projected on the facilitators. At one data retreat, a school team, including the principal, walked out of the event after viewing their results for the first time.

		Stage Three: Blame Game: Blaming others, rather than looking inward, is another common reaction to distressing data. Participants say things such as, "It is not my fault, I have no control", "It's the parents' fault", or "The students don't try hard enough". Blaming may be a convenient way to deal with feelings of helplessness. If participants are not encouraged to identify goals and strategies for improvement, they may feel like they do not have the tools to make things better. In this case, blaming others may serve to relieve their stress, but will ultimately undermine improvement efforts.

		Stage Four: Soul Searching: Part of the data retreat process involves urging participants into this stage. Facilitators encourage school teams to resist blaming, and instead, identify what needs to change. Given the opportunity, schools begin to communicate constructively. "Is our curriculum aligned to the standards?", "How can we increase our teachers' skills?", and "What might I need to change?", are remarks heard during this stage.

		Stage Five: Acceptance: At this stage, participants not only embrace what the data tell them, but have a sense of how they can respond to make things better. School teams begin getting on with the process of school improvement. "We know what we need to do.", "This is a challenge, but we can do it.", and "The data have helped us to get focused" are common responses during this stage.

		Not every school team will go through these stages as described, but it is helpful to be aware of them. At times, stages may overlap, such as "Anger" and "Blaming". And there may be individuals at a school that will follow this pattern, even if the whole team does not. Recognizing the stages can help leaders understand the behavior of individuals or a team within the context of the overall change process. Facilitators of groups using data can help participants cope through the stages, knowing that as individuals work with the data and constructively share ideas for improvement, they will naturally begin to move towards acceptance.

		The facilitator's most important task is creating an effective environment for collaboration that focuses on improving the future rather than blaming situations on the past.

		Conclusion It is frequently assumed that when we discuss "change", we all understand it in the same way. Yet the fact that the process of change has been described by many disciplines suggests that it is more complex than we may have believed. First, change can be good or bad, effecting the organization at the surface level only, or truly transforming all levels of a system. "Improvement" is change for the better, and for schools to achieve lasting gains, they must seek second-order, systemic change. Next, change comes in stages. Put along a continuum (see Handout 3), each of the models in this lesson has commonalities. During the process of change, individuals move from inaction and lack of awareness to the point where they have accepted responsibility for their current status, have identified what needs to happen, and have begun to implement new behaviors.

		Common to each of the models is the need for patience, perseverance, and time. For improvement to happen, individuals and systems must be supported through the learning process, which inevitably includes mistakes as well as victories. Leaders can provide support by ensuring that educators are ready for change, armed with the knowledge and skills that will be needed. They must also ensure that the working environment, including policies, opportunities for collaboration, supervision, and resources, will facilitate the implementation of new behaviors and the generation of fresh ideas.

		Setbacks during the change process are to be expected and should not be seen as catastrophic. The continuous improvement process, a theme throughout each of these lessons, does not assume perfection. Rather, it builds in room to gather evidence on the effectiveness of the work at hand and make modifications and improvements as needed.

		Keeping this in mind should allow us to be patient and persevere through the uncertainties of change.

Using Data for Continuous Improvement