Leadership for Change Group Activity
Directions:
Your Critical Friend will randomly assign members of the larger group to small groups of
6 participants per group. As you read the Leadership for Change Scenario you will note
that the superintendent has established a typical set of expectations for change in the
school. The principal has developed a plan of action to respond to the superintendent’s
challenge. Your first tasks are to read the scenario, critique and discuss the principal’s
plan of action, and identify the positive and negative leadership strategies evident in the
scenario. Your Critical Friend will serve as your group leader for these tasks and will
explain in more detail the final task for this Leadership for Change Group Activity.
Your specific tasks and timeline for this activity are listed below:
1. INDIVIDUAL READING (10 MINUTES): You will have approximately ten
minutes to quietly read the Leadership for Change scenario (pages 3-5), making
notes as needed and identifying the positive or negative leadership steps taken by
the principal. You are encouraged to use the Change Notes/Worksheet (page 6) to
record your impressions about the positive and negative aspects of the scenario and
consider key leadership and change concepts.
2. SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS (15 MINUTES): After all
members of your small group have had time to read the scenario and make personal
notes about the leadership, you will have approximately 15 minutes in your small
group to critique the principal’s plan of action, reaching consensus on the positive
and negative leadership behaviors and strategies used by the principal. Identify a
recorder who is willing to capture your comments in writing and share/explain them
with the whole group.
3. WHOLE GROUP SHARE-OUT AND DISCUSSION (15 MINUTES): Your leader
(Critical Friend) will ask you to take turns sharing one or two of the positive
leadership strategies described in the scenario. A member of your whole group will
take notes on poster paper so your comments are available for everyone to view
during the last step of this activity. This brief discussion is an opportunity to
consider the commonalities and differences among responses across the different
groups.
1
4. DEVELOPMENT OF A BETTER RESPONSE (20 minutes): Working with the
other members of your small group, your responsibility is to develop a scenario that
represents a stronger leadership approach to the superintendent’s challenge than
the one presented in the scenario you just read and discussed. This will require, at
the very least, a set of outline notes describing how the principal could have
responded, or at the very best, a written scenario of two or three paragraphs
detailing how the principal could have respond. Remember, your challenge is to
describe how a principal who understands the nature of school change would
respond to the superintendent’s challenge. You are encouraged to review the Key
Questions for School Leaders about the Change Process (page 7) as you develop
your list of “better responses.”
5. DISCUSS THE BETTER RESPONSES (20 minutes or as time permits): Using the
remaining minutes allotted to this activity, your Critical Friend will facilitate a
whole group discussion about the “better” responses from each group. Be prepared
to share your responses and the key leadership strategies and behaviors you believe
are necessary for the principal to make in order to meet the superintendent’s
challenge. A member of your whole group will take notes on poster paper during
this discussion.
2
Leadership for Change Scenario
Background Information
The faculty members of the school are a very likeable group of teachers. They are rather typical
in years of experience, collegiality, and their trust and working relationships with the each other
and the principal. There are a few faculty members who welcome all forms of change and there
is only two or three faculty who would be classified as resident cynics, always against almost
every form of change.
The current principal is in the second year as the principal of the school. The current principal
was a teacher in this school for ten years and then the assistant principal for three years. The
previous principal served in that role for 12 years. Under the leadership of that previous
principal, the school just barely met AYP each year for each of the categories measured by the
state. When the previous principal announced retirement nearly two years ago, the
superintendent hand picked the current principal and privately charged the new principal with the
responsibility to “be the strong leader the school always needed.” The superintendent told the
new principal that the school must make significant strides in student achievement and meet state
standards. In the new principal’s first year, the school achievement scores slipped slightly below
AYP for all categories for the first time. With the first year as a principal under the belt, the
principal was looking forward to the slower pace of the summer and a bit of time for a family
vacation. The principal was really ready for a break. But as is often the case, a mental break
was not likely to happen…continue reading.
The Superintendent’s Challenge for Change
In mid-June the superintendent called the new principal into the office for a “personal
discussion” about the school. This meeting quickly became an explanation by the superintendent
of expectations for change for the following year. The principal realized the gravity of the
discussion and began taking notes as the superintendent talked about the expectations for the
school.
As the new principal headed into the summer, the principal studied the notes taken during the
recent discussion with the superintendent. The principal was looking over and over the notes for
any hints from the superintendent about how to make the necessary changes. The principal
found none. All the principal was able to discern was that the superintendent was going to hold
the principal responsible for making changes and those changes were to result in moving
students in all categories back above AYP. The only specific statements in the principal’s notes
indicated that the superintendent expected the principal to make changes in (a) the quality of
instruction across the entire school, (b) the use of assessment data to inform both curriculum and
instruction, and (c) the weaker personnel who were slowing down the school’s progress. The
principal had recently heard other principals in the district discuss their respective “meetings”
with the superintendent. The principal did not realize that each of the other principals in the
district was given a similar list of expectations without any specifics or details about how to
approach the tasks for changing their schools.
3
The Principal’s Response to the Superintendent’s Challenge for Change
Throughout the remainder of June and July the principal pondered how to reach the goals the
superintendent had established for the school. The principal quickly read the latest books on
instructional practices and assessment. The principal also read books on strategic planning that
went well beyond the coursework the principal had taken at the state university in the late
nineties while working on a graduate degree and principal certification. The principal also met
four times with the district’s Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, seeking
advice on the types of changes that would make the most immediate impact on student
achievement.
By the end of July, the principal had developed a plan of action that included a detailed list of the
changes the principal would ask the faculty to make as soon as they returned for the start of the
upcoming school year. In addition to the list of changes the principal wanted the faculty to make
immediately, the principal decided that the school should begin to discuss creating an alternative
approach to the relatively traditional schedule that had been in place since the school was opened
in 1980. Further, the second-year principal concluded that the school should participate in a
major reform initiative, or at the least secure outside support that would change the way the
school collected and used formative assessment data, including software to manage student
achievement data, common and periodic learning assessments, and strategies for instructional
redesign. On August 2, with the endorsement of the assistant superintendent and superintendent,
the principal contacted the state regional service agency by phone and negotiated for two years
of intensive assistance for the school, with monthly site visits and support. The principal also
negotiated with the teacher union two days of staff development in place of “classroom prep
time” prior to the start of classes.
By the time the principal began greeting the teachers as they returned for the start of the school
year, the principal was feeling extremely confident that the school was on a path of continued
success and improvement. During the first faculty work session on the teachers’ first day back
on the job in August, the principal talked for two hours, explaining with enthusiasm, conviction,
and optimism the details of the plan of action the principal had drafted, the upcoming two days
of professional development, and the role the state service agency would play in supporting the
school’s efforts for change. As the principal talked, most of the teachers nodded politely, smiled
when the principal made eye contact, and generally looked supportive of the plan. The principal
was clearly excited and interpreted the teachers’ nods and smiles as a sharing of that enthusiasm.
As the principal and faculty moved into the months of September and October, the principal’s
enthusiasm and commitment for change remained high. But as the principal led the faculty in
discussions at faculty meetings, the principal began to realize that the faculty did not truly share
the principal’s same level of enthusiasm and commitment. During the Thanksgiving break, the
principal had time to stop and reflect about the first three months of the school year. In doing so,
the principal began to realize that little real change in instruction and assessment had taken place,
that the two days of staff development on assessment were resulting in few changes in
assessment practices, and that the role the state agency was playing seemed to have staff more
confused than ever about what was expected of them in the classroom. The change efforts
lacked cohesion and the more the principal mentioned the importance of changing the schedule
and also joining a major change reform initiative, the quieter the teacher became and the less
4
they interacted with him or with each other in professional development meetings and faculty
meetings.
The principal was now becoming confused. The principal was not sure if the plan of action and
change effort the principal was supporting were falling apart completely or if the faculty was
simply going through a temporary downward spiral or “implementation dip,” as some change
experts would describe the early “reverse” effects of a change effort. The only thing the
principal was becoming certain of was that the school was not positively changing, and in fact,
the school may be moving in the wrong direction.
5
Change Notes/Worksheet
Positive Leadership Strategies and Behaviors
Negative Leadership Strategies and Behaviors
Other Notes or Comments of Importance
6
Key Questions For School Leaders about the Change Process
What leadership strategies and behaviors build positive answers to the following key
questions for change?
1. Does the school have a process for change that is known and understood by all faculty?
2. Does the school have a school improvement team or teacher-leader team coordinating or
facilitating the change effort?
3. Does the school have external support to provide ideas, knowledge, and strategies?
4. Does the change process meaningfully engage all faculty in direction-setting, decision
making, and implementation of the changes?
5. Does the change process foster on-going collaborative faculty conversations about teaching
and learning?
6. Does the change process foster collaborative faculty conversations clarifying what we
believe and value for our students and school?
7. Does the faculty view the change efforts as externally mandated or internally developed?
8. Does the faculty understand the difference between first-order and second-order change and
value both?
9. Does the faculty understand the potential for an implementation dip and strategies for
diminishing the dip?
10. Does the faculty understand the importance of using data about student learning, instructional
practices, and assessment practices as the basis for on-going collaborative conversations?
11. Does the faculty understand that meaningful change takes time and quick-fix innovations,
particularly externally mandated innovations, seldom make a difference in student learning?
12. Does the faculty understand the comprehensive, systemic nature of school improvement and
the necessity to address the broad, interrelated set of key issues that effect student success?
7