Communication Issues in a Leadership Team for Systemic Change in a School District

Abstract

Fundamental change, or systemic transformation, in public school systems is increasingly recognized as essential for best meeting all students’ needs in a digital, information-based society. The success of this kind of change depends to a large extent on the effectiveness of a district-wide Leadership Team (LT), which in turn depends on the communication practices of that team. This study describes the communication practices of the LT in a district-wide systemic transformation, focusing on the members’ values and beliefs about communication within the team, communication problems, communication channels, and communication sources. The purpose of the study was to improve the guidance offered by the School System Transformation (SST) protocol, a knowledge-base about the systemic transformation process, by identifying preventive measures that could reduce communication problems in a LT. Based on the findings, suggestions are made to improve several of the 18 continuous processes in the SST Protocol, namely sustain motivation, develop and maintain appropriate leadership, develop group-process and team-building skills, establish team spirit, engage in reflection, communicate with stakeholders, and foster organizational learning.

Keywords

• Systemic transformation, Change process, Leadership team, Communication

References

1. Barrett, D. J. (2008). Leadership communication. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
2. Colletta, N. J., & Perkins, G. (2007). Participation in the education and training sector. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook.
3. Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Rallying the whole village: the Comer process for reforming education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
4. Duffy, F. M., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2008). The school system transformation (SST) protocol. Educational Technology, 48(4), 41-49.
5. Duffy, F. M., Rogerson, L. G., & Blick, C. (2000). Redesigning America's schools: A systems approach to improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
6. Fiordo, R. A. (1990). Communication in Education. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
7. Jenlink, P.M., Reigeluth, C.M., Carr, A.A., & Nelson, L.M. (1996). An expedition for change: Facilitating the systemic change process in school districts. Tech Trends, 41(1), 21-30.
8. Jenlink, P.M., Reigeluth, C.M., Carr, A.A., & Nelson, L.M. (1998). Guidelines for facilitating systemic change in school districts. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 15(3), 217- 233.

9. Joseph, R. (2003). Formative research on a design theory to facilitate systemic change in public school districts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
10. Mclntire, R. G., & Fessenden, J. T. (1994). The self-directed school: Empowering the stakeholders. New York: Scholastic Inc.
11. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Analyzing qualitative data: A source book for new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
12. Pascoe, S. M. (2008). Factors influencing attendance for a leadership team in a school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
13. Reigeluth. C. M. (1997). Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections. Educational Technology, 37(1), 42-47.
14. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Reigeluth, C. M. & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In Reigeluth, C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Reigeluth, C. M. & Joseph, R. (2001). The systemic change process. Facilitating systemic change [PowerPoint Presentation]. Department of Instructional Systems Technology, School of Education. Indiana University.
17. Schlechty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the 21st century. Leadership imperatives for educational reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18. Schlechty, P. C. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers, principals, and superintendents (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. SDD – Social Development Department (1995). Technical note on enhancing stakeholder participation in aid activities. Overseas Development Administration.
20. Senge P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency.
21. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. The first report from a study of high schools, cosponsored by the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the Commission on Educational Issues of the National Association of Independent Schools. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
22. Sizer, T. R. (2002). The Common Principles. Coalition of Essential Schools. http://www.essentialschools.org/pub/ces_docs/about/phil/10cps/10cps.html). CES National Website.
23. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2001). Success for All: Research and reform in elementary education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Stringfield, S., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. (1996). Bold plans for school restructuring: The new American schools designs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Correspondence: Charles M. Reigeluth, Professor, Department of Instructional Systems
26. Technology, School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.