Skip to main content
Log in

Changing organizational culture and instructional methods in elementary schools: Perceptions of teachers and professional educational consultants

  • Published:
Journal of Educational Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study examines teachers’ perceptions of organizational changes in their elementary schools. These changes occurred following the implementation of a long-term comprehensive school improvement project (CSIP). One hundred and seventy one teachers who taught in six elementary schools located in two different school districts in Israel responded to a questionnaire both before and after a period of 3 years during which they participated in a CSIP. The teachers, assisted by six professional consultants, one in each school, studied cooperative learning as well as new forms of collaborative staff work. The study addressed two primary research questions: What changes in teachers’ perceptions of their schools’ organizational culture emerged from teachers’ participation in the project? How were the professional relationships between the schools’ supervisors and the teachers in the two districts reflected in the teachers’ perception of school organizational changes? Results indicated that teachers in three schools from one district recorded a significant improvement in their perceptions of their schools’ organizational culture at the end of the project, whereas the teachers from the other district indicated either no change, or a significant decline in their evaluation of their schools’ organizational culture. A cross-validation of the teachers’ data was performed through a content analysis of 500 reports written over the course of 2 years, submitted by six external consultants. The analysis yielded four categories: general difficulties to work with the school’s staff, problems implementing the project, teacher resistance, and cancellations of planned meetings. The analysis provided valuable information as to why the teachers from the two districts differed in their reactions to the project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, G., & Jones, F. (2000). Knowledge generation in educational administration from the inside out: The promise and perils of site-based administrator research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 428–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1999). Implementation of shared governance for instructional improvement: Principals’ perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 37, 476–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E., Lotan, R., Whitcomb, J., Balderama, M., Cossey, R., & Swanson, P. (1999). Complex instruction: Higher order thinking in heterogeneous classrooms. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (2nd ed., pp. 82–96). Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, J., Ross, J., & Maynes, F. (1994). The reported nature and consequences of teachers’ work in three exemplary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 94(4), 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 153–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, L., & Cobb, L. (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership through professional development schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1996). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. In M. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 202–218). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy, 22(4), 357–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A. (2002). Can we transplant educational reform, and does it last? Journal of Educational Change, 3, 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A., & Castelano, M. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership in success for all schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 219–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donahoe, T. (1997). Finding the way: Structure, time and culture in school improvement. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The challenge of school change (pp. 235–255). Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, W., Mangin, M., Martinez, C., & Polovsky, T. (2005). Leading coherent professional development: A comparison of three districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1992). Successful school improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing in the depth of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2005). Resiliency and sustainability. School Administrator, 62(2), 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). What’s worth fighting for in your school? Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gitlin, A., & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103, 377–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, M. (2001). Redefining government roles in an era of standards-based reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannay, L., Ross, J., & Seller, W. (2005). Clashing cultures, clashing paradigms: Lessons from district research on secondary school restructuring. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., & Chapman, C. (2004). Towards differentiated improvement for schools in challenging circumstances. British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(3), 219–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, M. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative educational policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (1994). School improvement in an era of change. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houston, P. (2001). Missing in action: The district office. School Administrator, 32(10), 417–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, C., & Jones, N. (2008). A case study of mis-management of educational change: An interpretation from an affective standpoint. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muncey, D., & McQuillan, P. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Introduction: Framing the project. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of educational administration (2nd ed., pp. xxi–xxvii). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J., & Wells, A. (1996). Beyond the technicalities of school reform: Policy lessons from detracking schools. Los Angeles: UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, L., McCarthy, J., & Elmore, F. (1996). Learning from school restructuring. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 119–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purky, S., & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, D., & Packer, A. (1992). School effectiveness and school improvement in the 1990’s. In D. Hopkins & D. Reynolds (Eds.), School effectiveness (pp. 171–188). New York: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozenholtz, S. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93, 352–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarason, S. (1995). School change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarason, S. (2002). Educational reform: A self-scrutinizing memoir. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmuck, R., & Runkel, P. (1994). The handbook of organization development in schools and colleges (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seller, W. (2005). School and school districts in educational reform: Examining the space in-between. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shachar, H. (1997). Effects of a school change project on teachers’ satisfaction with their work and their perceptions of teaching difficulties. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharan, S., Shachar, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group (Bergin & Garvey).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youngs, P. (2001). District and state policy influences on professional development and school capacity. Educational Policy, 15(2), 278–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanna Shachar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shachar, H., Gavin, S. & Shlomo, S. Changing organizational culture and instructional methods in elementary schools: Perceptions of teachers and professional educational consultants. J Educ Change 11, 273–289 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9128-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9128-8

Keywords

Navigation