Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 27–52 | Cite as

Professional background and working practices of consultants in school development: Initial empirical findings from Germany

  • Kathrin Dedering
  • Martin Goecke
  • Melanie Rauh
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In Germany, it can be observed that schools increasingly take advantage of experts from the outside in their further pedagogical and organizational development. Regarding their profession and the area of content to which they are assigned, these experts represent a heterogeneous group. This contribution assumes that several patterns can be observed that have to do with the professional background of the consultants as well as with the content and the way these consultants work. It takes up insights from a larger research project conducted in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia from 2009 to 2012. The project’s findings were gained by means of a standardized survey of 957 school administrations and case studies at six schools with standardized interviews of teachers (20–87 per school), qualitative interviews with school administrations and teachers (5–8 per school), as well as document analyses on the design, the process and results of the external consultation of schools. The results indicate that there are two different types of consultation: the consultation of the entire teaching staff in the area of teaching development with a consultant who is directly connected to the school system (type 1), and a consultation of subgroups of the teaching staff in the area of organizational and personnel development with a consultant from outside the school system (type 2). This contribution provides new insights into a field that has in the German speaking context so far not been well researched.

Keywords

School development research School development External consultants Interview study Case studies 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arnold, E., & Reese, M. (2010). Externe Beratung. In T. Bohl, W. Helsper, H. G. Holtappels, & C. Schelle (Eds.), Handbuch Schulentwicklung (pp. 298–302). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  2. Bastian, J., & Rolff, H.-G. (2001). Vorabevaluation des Projektes “Schule & Co”. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  3. Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfieffer.Google Scholar
  4. Cameron, D. H. (2010). Working with secondary school leadership in a large-scale Reform in London. UK: Consultants’ Perspectives of Their Role as Agents of School Change and Improvement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3), 341–359.Google Scholar
  5. Dalin, P., Rolff, H.-G., & Buchen, H. (1990). Institutionelles Schulentwicklungsprogramm. Eine neue Perspektive für Schulleiter, Kollegium und Schulaufsicht. Soest: Soester Verlagskontor.Google Scholar
  6. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy, 22(4), 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dedering, K., Tillmann, K.-J., Goecke, M., & Rauh, M. (2013). Wenn Experten in die Schule kommen: Externe Schulentwicklungsberatung—empirisch betrachtet. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehmke, T., Klieme, E. & Stanat, P. (2013). Veränderungen der Lesekompetenz von PISA 2000 nach PISA 2009. Die Rolle von Unterschieden in den Bildungswegen und in der Zusammensetzung der Schülerschaft. In N. Jude, & E. Klieme (Eds.), PISA 2009—Impulse für die Schul- und Unterrichtsforschung (Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Beiheft 59) (pp. 132–150). Weinheim u.a.: Beltz.Google Scholar
  9. Gitlin, A., & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103(4), 377–405.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  13. Havelock, R. G. (1973). The change agent’s guide to innovation in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Havelock, R. G. (1976). Schulinnovation—ein Leitfaden. Bern/Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt.Google Scholar
  15. Havelock, R. G., & Hamilton, J. L. (2004). Guiding change in special education. How to help schools with new ideas and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hazle Bussey, L., Welch, J. C., & Mohammed, M. B. (2014). Effective consultants: A conceptual framework for helping school systems achieve systemic reform. School Leadership & Management, 34(2), 156–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmes, K., Clement, J., & Albright, J. (2013). The complex task of leading educational change in schools. School Leadership & Management, 33(3), 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holtappels, H. G., Klemm, K., & Rolff, H. G. (Eds.). (2008). Schulentwicklung durch Gestaltungsautonomie. Ergebnisse der Begleitforschung zum Modellvorhaben ‘Selbstständige Schule’ in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  19. Holzäpfel, L. (2008). Beratung bei der Einführung von Selbstevaluation an Schulen. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  20. Hord, S. M. (1992). Facilitative leadership: The imperative for change. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
  21. Hynds, A. (2010). Unpacking resistance to change within-school reform programmes with a social justice orientation. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 13(4), 377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (2010). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leithwood, K., Holmes, M., & Montgomery, D. (1979). Helping school change: Strategies derived from field experience. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lippitt, R. (1979). Consultation: traps and potentialities. In R. E. Herriott & N. Gross (Eds.), The dynamics of planned Educational Change: Case studies and analyses (pp. 258–273). Berkeley, CA: McCurthan Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Lippitt, C., & Lippitt, H. (1978). The consulting process in action. San Diego, CA: University Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (11th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  27. McCallister, C. (2001). From ideal to real: Unlocking the doors of school reform. In F. O. C. Rust & H. Freidus (Eds.), Guiding school change: The role and work of change agents (pp. 136–154). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  28. Miles, M., Saxl, E., & Lieberman, A. (1988). What skills do educational change agents need? An empirical view. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(2), 157–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Philipp, E. (2007). Die Steuergruppe steuert—und irritiert. Problemskizze und Strategieempfehlungen aus Beratersicht. In N. Berkemeyer & H. G. Holtappels (Eds.), Schulische Steuergruppen und Change Management (pp. 56–95). Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  30. Reid, G. (1990). A struggle against inspection. Curriculum Perspectives, 10(4), 56–58.Google Scholar
  31. Roach, A. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Frank, J. L. (2009). School-based consultants as change facilitators: Adaptation of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to Support the Implementation of Research-Based Practices. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19(4), 300–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rolff, H.-G., Buhren, C. G., Lindau-Bank, D., & Müller, S. (2000). Manual Schulentwicklung. Handlungskonzept zur pädagogischen Schulentwicklungsberatung (SchuB). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  33. Sanders, M. G. (2012). Achieving scale at the district level: A longitudinal multiple case study of a partnership reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 154–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  35. Sarason, S. B. (1995). School change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sarason, S. B., & Fried, R. L. (2003). The skeptical visionary: A Seymour Sarason Education Reader. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schein, E. H. (1969). Process consultation: Its role in organizational development. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  38. Schein, E. H. (2000). Prozessberatung für die Organisation der Zukunft: Der Aufbau einer helfenden Beziehung. Köln: Ed. Humanist. Psychologie.Google Scholar
  39. Schönig, W. (2000). Schulentwicklung beraten. Das Modell mehrdimensionaler Organisationsberatung der einzelnen Schule. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  40. Schönig, W., & Brunner, E. J. (Eds.). (1993). Organisationen beraten. Impulse für Theorie und Praxis. Freiburg: Lambertus Verlag.Google Scholar
  41. Shachar, H., Gavin, S., & Shlomo, S. (2010). Changing organizational culture and instructional methods in elementary schools: Perceptions of teachers and professional educational consultants. Journal of Educational Change, 11(3), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Speth, R. (2010). Stiftungen und Think Tanks. In D. Simon, A. Knie, & S. Hornbostel (Eds.), Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik (pp. 390–405). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stiftungen, B. D. (2013). Stiftungen in Zahlen. Errichtungen und Bestand rechtsfähiger Stiftungen des bürgerlichen Rechts in Deutschland im Jahr 2011. Retrieved January 28, 2013, from http://www.stiftungen.org/fileadmin/bvds/de/Presse/Dokumente/Stiftungen_in_Zahlen_2011.pdf.
  44. Tajik, M. A. (2008). External change agents in developed and developing countries. Improving Schools, 11(3), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erziehungswissenschaftliche FakultätUniversität ErfurtErfurtGermany
  2. 2.Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options