Culture is created; it is not an accident. That doesn’t mean culture is always intentional (unless neglect or inertia can be classified as ‘intentions’). Culture is expressed through the ordinary, permissible actions of everyone in the school, not by the aspirational rhetoric of senior management or the ambitions of a strategic plan. Nonetheless, school boards and the senior leadership are ultimately responsible for the culture that pervades ‘their’ school because they possess all the authority needed to change culture intentionally – if they choose to exercise that authority.
Schools everywhere in the world possess a shared culture that is quite unlike any other type of organisation. The mission of schools is centred on long-term results that focus explicitly on transmitting knowledge and values rather than goals for the next financial statement or appraisal cycle. The outcomes of schools’ work may not be seen for several decades, and even then, their value may be easier to describe in words than to quantify in numbers.
Perhaps the most significant distinctive characteristic of schools relates to the people who work in them. In general, teachers share a strong service ethic and desire for job security. They seldom express a thirst for risk and competition. They work co-operatively, but they love autonomy, a characteristic that often require patience and improvisation on the part of school leaders. Staff in schools understandably and justifiably want higher salaries, and yet they react negatively to proposals for merit pay. Teachers share a strong collegial/communal ethic which means their primary motivation tends to be achieving qualitative rather than quantitative outcomes – or to express it in another way, most teachers believe that many things which count cannot be counted.
If we look at the typical classroom in Victorian England shown in the photo above, we see a large class size by today’s standards, a rigid seating layout and teacher-dominated instruction. Today’s classrooms might have smaller student numbers (in most parts of the world), but philosophically they still share many features of classrooms a century ago.
This suggests that change is often difficult in schools. As a father of four children, a grandfather with ten grandchildren, and someone who has worked in and with schools for five decades, I feel I am qualified to make this bold statement: the only people who really like change are babies with wet nappies.
It is said that implementing change is more difficult in schools than almost any other type of organisation with the possible exceptions of families and religious organisations. Teachers invariably demand to know details of “why?”, “what?” and “how?” for any proposed change.
Resistance to change in schools can present a significant barrier to reform. Whenever a school board introduces a new strategic plan or the Principal introduces a new policy, change is an inevitable consequence. Change has always been a feature of education, but today’s challenge for school leaders is ensuring that change is intentional, deliberate, directional, supportive of the school’s mission and vision, while also being sensitive to different viewpoints and predispositions.
Unless a school is conducted in a dictatorial, authoritarian manner, managing what is often a complex process of change can be a daunting proposition for the school’s governing body and senior management. In any process of change in a school, there are likely to be five types of people involved:
My anecdotal research shows that the proportion of these types of people is fairly constant in school irrespective of their location, size and philosophy:
It is important that people in all five groups are provided with opportunities to express their viewpoints and be heard by those in the other groups. Those people who are in the red range of the graph must not ignore those who are in the blue zone. Similarly, those in the blue zone must not be allowed to shoot down those in the red zone.
Change will be most effective if key roles are allocated to the optimists and evangelists (those in the red zone) provided the procedural rule is followed that all ideas must be considered with respect, based on the assumption that the underlying motive of everyone involved is to do whatever is best for the students in the school.
Realistically, of course, resistance to change should be expected. This can take many forms such as passive refusals – “We didn’t have enough time to meet, test or measure”, aggressive refusals – “Absolutely not! You can’t tell me what to do”, through to outright sabotage. Many of the common excuses will resonate with experienced school leaders:
Resistance can be the result of many factors:
The lesson for school boards and leaders is that if they wish to implement significant deliberate change, such as introducing a new strategic plan, or a new organisational structure, or a new curriculum, then that change is more likely to be effective if everyone in the school community shares a common understanding of the proposed change. In other words, school boards and leaders should do everything they can to be transparent and ensure that there is “common knowledge” and understanding. As explained in Knowing when it’s time to go, “shared knowledge” allows space for individuals to harbour ill-informed views and habits that resist change, but “common knowledge” does away with this limitation. “Common knowledge” achieves this because at its best, it builds a pathway to replace destructive prejudice with enlightened consensus.
The key to appreciating and harnessing this power of “common knowledge” is understanding that effective collaboration requires a stronger consensus than “shared knowledge” can ever provide. “Common knowledge” is pivotal in enabling effective change because unlike “shared knowledge”, it can foster a cohesive sense of community where every participant – teacher, administrator, student, parent – arrives at a shared understanding of the goals, strategies and values underlying the proposed changes.
Although “common knowledge” is a powerful tool in implementing effective change because of the consensus it generates, it is of course not the only factor. As I argue in my book “Optimal School Governance”, effective change requires vision, skills, incentive, resources and an action plan in addition to consensus (or “common knowledge”). If any one of these factors is missing, then the change is likely to fail, as the diagram below illustrates.
- Dr Stephen Codrington
We offer support for school leaders and board members in many areas, including workshops on leading and managing change in schools.
Further information on this and many other facets of best practice in school leadership and governance is provided in the books “Optimal School Governance", and “Insights into School Leadership and Board Governance”, which can be ordered directly through Pronins.
You may also be interested in previous articles which are archived at https://optimalschool.com/articles.html. You can subscribe to receive future articles by e-mail using the red button below.
