Abstract
The importance of trust as a critical resource for school improvement is well known. However, less is known about how schools—particularly chronically under-performing schools plagued by low levels of trust—ought to collectively work on building trust in order to improve teaching and learning. Utilizing data from a sample of Success for All (SFA) schools from the Study of Instructional Improvement (SII) at the University of Michigan from 1999–2004, this chapter investigated the extent to which growth in relational trust among teachers occurs in concert with the SFA model’s design and implementation strategy, which, it is argued, relies heavily on formal control mechanisms, and explores the factors related to its instructional improvement processes which are most related to change in trust among teachers. A 3-level HLM growth model of teacher-teacher relational trust on a sample of 1170 teachers in 29 schools implementing the SFA program found that the formal control mechanisms unique to the SFA program such as instructional guidance and monitoring were not significantly related to change in teacher relational trust. However, the shared instructional experience which is created as a result of the SFA instructional process was significantly related to change in teacher relational trust, as were several established constructs including collective responsibility and critical dialogue among teachers. Further evidence suggests that the ability of school leaders to control teacher turnover and hire key staff for the improvement effort might also increase teacher-teacher trust over the course of program implementation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note that the descriptions of the SFA program are based on its design at the time of the SII study (1999–2004).
- 2.
For theoretical reasons, the original scale was modified, as there were several other items which the author felt more accurately captured instructional guidance as envisioned for this study.
- 3.
The choice of which year to “center” the TIME variable has important consequences for interpretation, as the grand mean will reflect the “initial status” of the outcome at that year. Thus centering at Year 1 would seem logical to understand where the SII schools were on trust when the study began. However, while schools within each CSR model had begun implementation by the beginning of the SII study, some had initiated implementation up to 2 years before the SII study began. This fact makes interpretations of initial status less useful in this analysis. Therefore, centering on Year 3 seemed most logical in order to understand trust growth trajectories, while ensuring that all schools would be well into implementation.
- 4.
One disadvantage, however, is that there is no formal statistical test available for comparing models using AIC. In these instances, model fit was assessed simply by considering models with larger AIC statistics to have the greater fit. The calculation for AIC is d + 2q, where d is the deviance statistic and q is the number of parameters estimated.
- 5.
Examination of the correlation Table (Table 11.2) demonstrates that some of the predictors used in this analysis have moderate correlations with one another. An OLS regression was performed with the raw, uncentered data in order to take advantage of the collinearity diagnostics available in SPSS. After entering all Level 1 predictors, VIF statistics indicated no value for a single predictor over 1.6, and all condition indexes were well below 8. This, coupled with grand-mean centering , provides some assurance that collinearity will likely not become a significant issue in the analysis, particularly because not all predictors are likely to be used in a single model.
- 6.
These findings and conclusions are not necessarily the opinion of the author and remain an area of debate among researchers. They are nevertheless common criticisms often leveled against the SFA program. We must also acknowledge again that research has shown that considerable variation may exist in the extent to which SFA schools employ the procedural system of controls. Therefore, these results must be interpreted with caution.
References
Adams, C. M. (2008). Building trust in schools: A review of the empirical evidence. In W. K. Hoy & M. F. DiPaola (Eds.), Improving schools: Studies in leadership and culture (pp. 29–54). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Argyris, C. (1952). The impact of budgets on people. New York: Controllership Foundation.
Bachmann, R. (2006). Trust and/or power: Towards a sociological theory of organizational relationships. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of trust research (pp. 393–408). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Ball, D. L., & Rowan, B. (2004). Introduction: Measuring instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 3–10.
Beatty, B. (2011). The dilemma of scripted instruction: Comparing teacher autonomy, fidelity, and resistance in the Frobelian kindergarten, Montessori, Direct Instruction, and Success for All. Teachers College Record, 113, 395–430.
Bickel, R. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It’s just regression! New York: Guilford Press.
Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Pantheon.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2004). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. In C. Cross (Ed.), Putting the pieces together: Lessons from Comprehensive School Reform Research (pp. 109–150). Washington: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A. C., Chamberlain, A. M., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 701–731.
Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K.S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Coletti, A. L., Sedatole, K. L., & Towry, K. L. (2005). The effect of control systems on trust and cooperation in collaborative environments. The Accounting Review, 80, 477–500.
Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 298–338.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B-S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23, 491–512.
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. E. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 775–799.
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. E. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership in Success for All schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 219–249.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ford, T. G. (2010). Building relational trust within comprehensive school reform models: Exploring the relationship between trust and instructional improvement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Ford, T. G., & Youngs, P. (2009). How Success for All promotes trust in a high performing urban Midwestern district. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Forsyth, P. B. (2008). The empirical consequences of school trust. In W. K. Hoy & M. F. DiPaola (Eds.), Improving schools: Studies in leadership and culture (pp. 1–27). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Forsyth, P. B., Barnes, L. L. B., & Adams, C. M. (2006). Trust effectiveness patterns in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), 122–141.
Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can’t improve without it. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Goddard, R. D. (2003). Relational networks, social trust, and norms: A social capital perspective on students’ chances of academic success. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 59–74.
Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 3–17.
Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (1987). Strategies and styles: The role of the centre in managing diversified corporations. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Goold, M., & Quinn, J. J. (1990). The paradox of strategic controls. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 43–57.
Harris, A. (2003). Behind the classroom door: The challenge of organizational and pedagogical change. Journal of Educational Change, 4, 369–382.
Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2009). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques. New York: Routledge.
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic Books.
Kirsch, L. J. (1996). The management of complex tasks in organizations: Controlling the systems development process. Organizational Science, 7, 1–21.
Kochanek, J. R. (2005). Building trust for better schools: Research based practices. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Kreft, I., & DeLeeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
Kruse, S. D. (2001). Creating communities of reform: Continuous improvement planning teams. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 359–383.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary students. American Journal of Education, 104, 103–147.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325–340.
LoGerfo, L., & Goddard, R. (2008). Defining, measuring, and validating teacher and collective responsibility. In W.K. Hoy & M.F. DiPaola (Eds.), Improving schools: Studies in leadership and culture (pp. 73–97). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Louis, K. S. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 1–24.
Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., & Associates (Eds.). (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McCoach, D. B., & Black, A. C. (2008). Evaluation of model fit and adequacy. In A. A. O’Connell & D. B. McCoach (Eds.), Multilevel modeling of educational data (pp. 245–272). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25, 833–848.
Peurach, D. J. (2011). Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, possibilities, and success for all. London: Oxford UP.
Porter, A. C. (1994). National standards and school improvement in the 1990s: Issues and promise. American Journal of Education, 102, 421–449.
Porter, A. C., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Schmidt, W., & Schwille, J. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In D. Grouws & T. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Pounder, D. G. (1998). Teacher teams: Redesigning teachers’ work for collaboration. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 65–88). Albany: SUNY Press.
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rowan, B., & Correnti, R. (2009). Interventions to improve instruction: How implementation strategies affect instructional change. In W. K. Hoy & M. DiPaola (Eds.), Studies in school improvement: A volume in research and theory in educational administration (pp. 45–76). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with Comprehensive School Reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 252–297.
Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2009). SII Multi-component survey data files user’s guide. Ann Arbor: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., Miller, R. J., & Camburn, E. (2009). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of educational policy research (pp. 637–651). Washington DC: AERA.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. London: Oxford University Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A. (Eds.). (2001). Success for All: Research and reform in elementary education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Datnow, A. (2007). Research in, research out: The role of research in the development and scale-up of Success for All. In S. H. Fuhrman, D. K. Cohen, & F. Mosher (Eds.), The state of education policy research (pp. 261–279). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Chambers, B., & Haxby, B. (2009). 2 million children: Success for all (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Tenbrunsel, A.E., & Messick, D. M. (1999). Sanctioning systems, decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 684–707.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308–331.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wolf, S. A., Borko, H., Elliott, R. L., & McIver, M. C. (2000). “That dog won’t hunt!”: Exemplary school change effort within the Kentucky reform. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 349–393.
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.
Yasumoto, J. Y., Uekawa, K., & Bidwell, C. E. (2001). The collegial focus and high school students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 74, 181–209.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Teacher Questionnaire (TQ) and School Leader Questionnaire (SLQ) Items Used in Rasch Measures
Appendix: Teacher Questionnaire (TQ) and School Leader Questionnaire (SLQ) Items Used in Rasch Measures
Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Item | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TQ: Relational Trust Among Teachers (4-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree) | |||||
0.84 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.77 | ||
TQ1_1a | TQ2_1a | TQ3_1a | TQ4_1a | Teachers respect colleagues who are expert in their craft | |
TQ1_1b | TQ2_1b | TQ3_1b | TQ4_1b | Teachers in this school trust each other | |
TQ1_1c | TQ2_1c | TQ3_1c | TQ4_1c | Teachers in this school really care about each other | |
TQ1_1d | TQ2_1d | TQ3_1d | TQ4_1d | Teachers respect other teachers who take the lead in school improvement | |
TQ: Critical Discourse Among Teachers (4-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree) | |||||
0.78 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.76 | ||
TQ1_1e | TQ2_1e | TQ3_1e | TQ4_1e | Many teachers openly express professional views at meetings | |
TQ1_1f | TQ2_1f | TQ3_1f | TQ4_1f | Teachers are willing to question on another’s views | |
TQ1_1g | TQ2_1g | TQ3_1g | TQ4_1g | Teachers do a good job of talking through views, opinions, and values | |
TQ: Climate of Innovation and Risk Taking (4-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree) | |||||
0.78 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.80 | ||
TQ1_1h | TQ2_1h | TQ3_1h | TQ4_1h | Teachers expected to continually learn and seek out new ideas | |
TQ1_1i | TQ2_1i | TQ3_1i | TQ4_1i | Teachers are encouraged to experiment in their classrooms | |
TQ1_1j | TQ2_1j | TQ3_1j | TQ4_1j | Teachers are encouraged to take risks to improve their teaching | |
TQ: Shared Instructional Experience Among Teachers (4-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree) | |||||
0.75 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.77 | ||
TQ1_4a | TQ2_4a | TQ3_4a | TQ4_4a | I have detailed knowledge of content covered and instruction of other teachers | |
TQ1_4b | TQ2_4b | TQ3_4b | TQ4_4b | I have detailed knowledge of what students have learned previously | |
TQ1_4c | TQ2_4c | TQ3_4c | TQ4_4c | It’s easy for other teachers to know what students learned in my class | |
TQ1_4e | TQ2_4e | TQ3_4e | TQ4_4e | Teachers with similarly students cover same content and use similar methods | |
TQ: Collective Responsibility for Improving Teaching and Learning (5-point scale, no teachers to nearly all teachers) | |||||
0.86 | 0.85 | 0.84 | 0.84 | ||
TQ1_2a | TQ2_2a | TQ3_2a | TQ4_2a | Teachers take responsibility for helping one another do well | |
TQ1_2b | TQ2_2b | TQ3_2b | TQ4_2b | Teachers help maintain positive student behavior in the entire school | |
TQ1_2c | TQ2_2c | TQ3_2c | TQ4_2c | Teachers take responsibility for improving the quality of teaching in the school | |
TQ: Instructional Guidance (4-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree) | |||||
0.89 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.89 | ||
TQ1_47a | TQ2_48a | TQ3_45a | TQ4_48a | There is a detailed plan for improving instruction | |
TQ1_47b | TQ2_48b | TQ3_45b | TQ4_48b | The steps for improving instruction are carefully staged and sequenced | |
TQ1_47c | TQ2_48c | TQ3_45c | TQ4_48c | The steps to promote classroom improvement are clearly outlined | |
TQ1_47d | TQ2_48d | TQ3_45d | TQ4_48d | Instructional goals for students are clearly defined | |
TQ1_47e | TQ2_48e | TQ3_45e | TQ4_48e | My participation has exposed me to program examples of student work | |
TQ1_47f | TQ2_48f | TQ3_45f | TQ4_48f | My participation has exposed me to program examples of classroom teaching | |
TQ1_47g | TQ2_48g | TQ3_45g | TQ4_48g | Staff of CSR program provided ideas/resources to improve classroom practice | |
TQ: Quality Teacher Professional Development Opportunities (4-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree) | |||||
0.88 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.86 | ||
TQ1_56a | TQ2_57a | TQ3_54a | TQ4_57a | Gave me many opportunities to work on aspects of my teaching | |
TQ1_56b | TQ2_57b | TQ3_54b | TQ4_57b | Provided me with knowledge helpful to me in my classroom | |
TQ1_56d | TQ2_57d | TQ3_54d | TQ4_57d | Allowed me to focus on a problem for an extended period of time | |
TQ1_56f | TQ2_57f | TQ3_54f | TQ4_57f | Provided me with useful feedback about my teaching | |
TQ1_56g | TQ2_57g | TQ3_54g | TQ4_57g | Made me pay closer attention to particular things I was doing in the classroom | |
TQ1_56h | TQ2_57h | TQ3_54h | TQ4_57h | Led me to seek out additional information from another teacher, leader or source | |
TQ1_56i | TQ2_57i | TQ3_54i | TQ4_57i | Led me to think about my teaching in a new way | |
TQ1_56j | TQ2_57j | TQ3_54j | TQ4_57j | Led me to try new things in the classroom | |
TQ: Depth of Program Implementation (4-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree) | |||||
0.80 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.79 | ||
TQ1_3a | TQ2_3a | TQ3_3a | TQ4_3a | Policies about how I should teach are often contradictory (reverse coded) | |
TQ1_3b | TQ2_3b | TQ3_3b | TQ4_3b | I have difficulty choosing what to do in classroom out of all options (reverse) | |
TQ1_3c | TQ2_3c | TQ3_3c | TQ4_3c | Out of all the information about teaching, unsure about the priorities (reverse) | |
TQ1_3d | TQ2_3d | TQ3_3d | TQ4_3d | Instructional policies I am supposed to follow seem inconsistent (reverse coded) | |
TQ1_48a | TQ2_54a | TQ3_51a | TQ4_54a | I am capable of making the changes called for by the program | |
TQ1_48b | TQ2_54b | TQ3_51b | TQ4_54b | Changes called for by the program help students’ achievement | |
TQ1_48d | TQ2_54d | TQ3_51d | TQ4_54d | I value the changes called for by the program | |
SLQ: Supportive Instructional Monitoring (5-point scale, never to more than 2 days per week) | |||||
0.74 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.80 | ||
SL1_15b | SL2_18a | SL3_18a | SL4_18b | I monitor classroom instructional practice to see that they reflect improvement efforts | |
SL1_15c | SL2_18b | SL3_18b | SL4_18c | I observe in classrooms to examine what students are learning | |
SL1_15d | SL2_18d | SL3_18d | SL4_18d | I evaluate teachers using criteria directly related to school improvement efforts | |
SL1_15e | SL2_18e | SL3_18e | SL4_18e | I praise, publicly recognize teachers whose instructional practice support improvement | |
SLQ: Teacher and Leader Hiring for School Improvement (4-point scale, not at all to a great extent) | |||||
0.74 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.80 | ||
SL1_17a | SL2_20a | SL3_20a | SL4_20a | Hiring new administration/support staff with expertise and interest in improvement | |
SL1_17b | SL2_20b | SL3_20b | SL4_20b | Hiring new teachers whose expertise supports school improvement activities | |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ford, T. (2014). Trust, Control, and Comprehensive School Reform: Investigating Growth in Teacher-Teacher Relational Trust in Success for All Schools. In: Van Maele, D., Forsyth, P., Van Houtte, M. (eds) Trust and School Life. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8014-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8014-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8013-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8014-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)