The Self-Organizing School Theory: Leading Change for Learning

Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 25)

Abstract

This chapter provides a set of theoretically derived principles for school reform that can be employed by school leaders to guide their engagement with school improvement and change processes. The principles are empirically derived from theories of self-organization and complexity and tested over a 12-year period in a longitudinal school reform project. They show the way in which theory can provide a practical design metaphor for understanding and enacting change in schools.

Keywords

Simple Rule Cooperative Learn School Leader Professional Development Program School Reform 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aladjem, D., & Borman, K. M. (2006). Examining comprehensive school reform. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Federation of Teachers (1999). The importance of staff buy-in in the selection of proven programs. Retrieved May 25, 2005 from: http://www.aft.org/topics/school-improvement/downloads/buy-in.pdf.
  3. Appelbaum, D., & Schwartzbeck, T. D. (2002). Defining, measuring and supporting success: Meeting the challenges of comprehensive school reform research. CSR Connection. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED467446).Google Scholar
  4. Bain, A. (2005). Emergent feedback systems: Lessons learned from a ten year school reform initiative. International Journal of Educational Reform, 14(1), 89–111.Google Scholar
  5. Bain, A. (2007). The self-organizing school. Next generation comprehensive school reforms. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Bain, A. (2010). A longitudinal study of the practice fidelity of a site-based school reform. Australian Educational Researcher, 37(1), 107–124.Google Scholar
  7. Bain, A., & Hess, P. (2000). School reform and faculty culture: A longitudinal case study. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED472 655).Google Scholar
  8. Bain, A., & Parkes, R. J. (2006). Curriculum authoring tools and inclusive classroom teaching practice: A longitudinal study. The British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bain, A., & Ross, K. (2000). School re-engineering and SAT-1 performance: A case study. The International Journal of Educational Reform, 9(2), 148–154.Google Scholar
  10. Bain, A., & Swan, G. (In Press). Professional growth tools: Knowledge management from feedback.Google Scholar
  11. Bain, A., Huss, P., & Kwong, H. (2000). Evaluation of a hypertext discussion tool for teaching English literature to secondary school students. The Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barabasi, A. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. New York: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  13. Berends, M., Nataraj Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., & McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and performance in New American Schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  14. Berends, M., Bodilly, S. J., & Nataraj Kirby, S. (2002). Facing the challenge of whole school reform, new American schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  15. Bodilly, S. J. (1996). Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation’s Demonstration Phase. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  16. Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools’ scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  17. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis (Center For Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk Report No. R-117-D40005). Retrieved March 20, 2004 from: http://www.csos.jhu.edu
  18. Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N., & Chambers, B. (2005). Success for all: First year results from the national randomised field trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41, 1069–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63(4), 513.Google Scholar
  21. CFTL (2009). The status of the teaching profession. Retrieved January 14, 2010 from: http://www.cftl.org/documents/2009/TCFReport2009.pdf
  22. Cheng, Y. C. (1996). School effectiveness and school-based management: A mechanism for development. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cicchinelli, L. F., & Barley, Z. (1999). Evaluating for success. Comprehensive school reform: An evaluation guide for districts and schools. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  24. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  25. Cook, T. D., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R. A., Shagle, S. C., Serdar, M., & Degirmencioglu, S. M. (1999). Comer’s school development program in Prince George’s County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 543–597.Google Scholar
  26. Cuban, L. (2009). A naked truth about technologies in schools? Retrieved January 10, 2010 from: http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/
  27. Datnow, A. (2003). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts. Retrieved April 15, 2004, from University of Southern California Education Department Web site: http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/publications/sustainability.pdf
  28. Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). An inside look at success for all. A qualitative study of implementation and teaching and learning. CRESPAR report 45. Retrieved July 15, 2005 from: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report45.pdf
  29. Datnow, A., Borman, G., & Stringfield, S. (2000). School reform through a highly specified curriculum: Implementation and effects of the core knowledge sequence. Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching and research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals (Review of Research). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Dede, C., & Honan, J. (2005). Scaling up success: A synthesis of themes and insights. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation (pp. 227–239). New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479.Google Scholar
  34. Dimmock, C. A. J. (1997). Innovative school principals and restructuring: Life history portraits of successful managers of change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Dimmock, C. A. J. (2000). Designing the learning-centered school: A cross cultural perspective. London: Falmer Press, Garland Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Doremus, R. R. (1981). What ever happened to… John Adams High School? Phi Delta Kappan, 63(3), 199–202.Google Scholar
  37. Earl, L., Torrance, N., & Sutherland, S. (2003). Manitoba school improvement program final evaluation report. Toronto, ON: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto).Google Scholar
  38. Eastabrook, G., Fullan, M., & Bliss, J. (1977). Action research in the school involving students and teachers in classroom change. In R. Carlton, L. Colley, & N. Mackinnon (Eds.), Education and change in society. Toronto, ON: Gage.Google Scholar
  39. Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–78.Google Scholar
  40. Elsworth, G., Kleinhenz, E., & Beavis, A. (2004). Evaluation of the middle years reform program. Melbourne, VIC: RMIT.Google Scholar
  41. Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance and the real-life problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  42. Faddis, B. J., Beam, M., Hahn, K. J., Willardson, M., Sipe, D., & Ahrens-Grey, P. (2000). The implementation of the comprehensive school reform demonstration program: The work of 40 schools in seven Midwest States. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED472637).Google Scholar
  43. Fink, D. (2000). Good schools/real schools: Why school reform does not last. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  44. Franceschini, L. (2002). Memphis, what happened? Notes on the decline and fall of comprehensive school reform models in a flagship district. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED468517).Google Scholar
  45. Fraser, B., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W., & Hattie, J. (1987). Syntheses of educational productivity research. The International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 145–252.Google Scholar
  46. Fullan, M. (2001). Whole school reform: Problems and promises. Retrieved 17 July, 2004 from: http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_01/06_01.pdf
  47. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  48. Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  49. Gertler, P., Patrinos, H. A., & Rubio-Codina, M. (2007). Impact evaluation for school-based management reform (Vol. 10). Washington, DC: Poverty Reduction and Economic Management.Google Scholar
  50. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  51. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  52. Guhn, M. (2008). Insights from successful and unsuccessful implementations of school reform programs. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hargreaves, D. H. (1995). School culture, school effectiveness and school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(1), 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hattie, J. A. C. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Australian Council for Educational Research Conference on Building Teacher Quality. Retrieved November 20, 2005, from: http://www.visionschools.co.nz/assets/documents/john_hattie.pdf
  55. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Hodge, W. (2003). The role of performance pay systems in comprehensive school reform: Considerations for policy making and planning. New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  57. Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: TIP Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  59. Jones, E. M., Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1997). Success for some: An evaluation of the success for all program. Evaluation Review, 21(6), 643–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of complexity and self-organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 411–419.Google Scholar
  62. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Lachat, M. A. (2001). Data driven high school reform: The Breaking Ranks Model. Retrieved April 19, 2005 from The Brown Educational Alliance website: http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/hischlrfm/datdrv_hsrfm.pdf
  64. Levin, H. (2001). Learning from school reform. Retrieved 20 December, 2005 from: http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/coce/pdf_files/b4.pdf
  65. Little, J. W. (2002). Professional community and the problem of high school reform. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 693–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem-solving. New York: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Marzano, R. (1998). A theory-based meta-analysis of research on instruction. Retrieved April 20, 2006 from: http://mt.educarchile.cl/mt/jjbrunner/archives/Instruction.pdf
  69. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2004). The inclusive classroom. Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  70. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Merry, U. (1995). Coping with uncertainty. Insights from the new sciences of chaos, self-organization and complexity. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  72. Miller, D., Sen, A., & Malley, L. (2007). Comparative indicators of education in the United States and other g-8 countries: 2006. Jessup, MD: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  73. Morrison, K. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  74. Muncey, D. E., & McQuillan, P. J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the coalition of essential schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  75. NCES. (2008). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  76. NEASC. (1996). Self-study report-Brewster Academy for re-accreditation – New England Association of Schools and Colleges. Wolfeboro, NH: Brewster Academy.Google Scholar
  77. O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K 12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Odell, J. (1998). Agents and emergence. In Complex adaptive systems, distributed computing, April 1998. Retrieved October 10, 2002 from http://www.jamesodell.comDC9810JO.pdf.
  79. OECD. (2008). Education at a glance 2008: OECD indicators. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Papert, S. (1997). Why school reform is impossible. Journal of Learning Sciences, 6(4), 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pascale, R. T., Millemann, M., & Gioja, L. (2000). The new laws of nature and the new laws of business. New York: Crown Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  82. PPSS. (2003). Findings from the field-focused study of the comprehensive school reform demonstration program, Vol. I. Final Report. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from: www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/ other/field-focused-study/ffs-vol1.doc
  83. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  84. Ridley, K., & Kendall, L. (2005). Evaluation of Excellence in Cities primary pilot 2001–2003 (Research Report No. 675). (London: National Foundation for Educational Research).Google Scholar
  85. Rowe, K. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and the outcomes of schooling. Australian Council for Educational Research Conference on Building Teacher Quality. Retrieved November 20, 2005, from: http://www.acer.edu.au/research/programs/documents/Rowe_ACER_Research_Conf_2003_Paper.pdf
  86. Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of school and the problem of change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  87. Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting the culture of school and the problem of change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  88. Scheerens, J., & Creemers, B. P. M. (1989). Conceptualizing school effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(7), 691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sense-making about comprehensive school reform: The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 949–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Seel, R. (nd). Complexity and organizational development: An introduction. Retrieved October 20, 2005 from: http://www.new-paradigm.co.uk/complex-od.htm
  91. Sharp, C., Schagen, I., & Scott, E. (2004). Playing for success: The longer term impact. A multilevel analysis (Vol. RB593). Nottingham, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  92. Sharp, C., Eames, A., Sanders, D., & Tomlinson, K. (2005). Postcards from research engaged schools. Slough, UK: NFER.Google Scholar
  93. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s compromise, the dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  94. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Smethurst, J. B. (1997). Of practice and pattern language. Journal of Transition Management. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from: http://www.mgtaylor.com/mgtaylor/jotm/summer97/community_of_practice.htm
  96. Smith, M., & Fried, C. (1999). The emergency department as a complex system. Retrieved November 10, 2005 from New England Complex Systems website: http://nesci.org/projects/yaneer/emergencydeptcx.pdf
  97. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  98. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  99. USDOE. (2002). Guidance on the comprehensive school reform program. Retrieved July 11, 2005, from Ed.Gov website: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/csrd-outcomes/index.html
  100. van Veen, K., & Lasky, S. (2009). Emotions as a lens to explore teacher identity and change: Different theoretical approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 895–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Touchstone, Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  102. Walker, A. D. (2002). School based management reform – Leadership challenges. Journal of Basic Education, 11(2), 119–136.Google Scholar
  103. Walker, A. D., & Dimmock, C. (2005). Leading the multi-ethnic school: Research evidence on successful practice. The Educational Forum, 69(3), 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  105. Weston, M. E., & Brookes, D. M. (2008). Critical constructs as indicators of a shifting paradigm in education: A case study of four technology-rich schools. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 2, 281–291.Google Scholar
  106. Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Young, B., & Hoffman, L. M. (2002). Public high school dropouts and completers from the common core of data: School years 1991–92 through 1997–98. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  108. Zhang, Y., Shkolnik, J., & Fashola, O. (2005). Evaluating the implementation of comprehensive school reform and its impact on growth in student achievement. Paper presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations