Changing the Future-Michael Fullan

Gary BatesEDUL 7043

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Fall 2005

Michael Fullanwww.michaelfullan.com

• Michael Fullan is the former Dean of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. • Known as an international specialist on educational

change. Mr. Fullan is involved in training, consulting, and evaluating change projects around the world. His ideas for managing change are used in many countries, and his books have been published in many languages.

• Michael Fullan led the evaluation team which conducted the four-year assessment of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy in England from 1998-2003.

• In April 2004 he was appointed Special Advisor to the Premier and Minister of Education in Ontario.

His widely acclaimed books include:• What’s Worth Fighting For Trilogy (with Andy

Hargreaves)• Change Forces trilogy• The New Meaning of Educational Change, 3rd

Edition• Leading in a Culture of Change which was

awarded the 2002 Book of the Year Award by the National Staff Development Council

• The Moral Imperative of School Leadership, March 2003

• Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action, 2005

What creates change?“The single factor common to successful

change is that relationships improve. If relationships improve, schools get better. If relationships remain the same or get worse, ground is lost.”

(Fullan, 2002) • According to Fullan, 2005, currently

the school system has structural barriers which make it difficult for people to have time to get together.

Professional Learning Communities“Professional Learning Communities are

powerful cultures for bringing about improvement in learning at the school level.” (Fullan, 2002)

“A powerful way to improve the quality of teaching in schools is to spread the practices of “positive deviant teachers” (Fullan, 2002).

Professional learning communities are the most efficient way to do this.

Change in mindset is needed:• Respect those you want to silence.• Move toward the danger in forming new

alliances.• Manage emotionally as well as rationally.• Fight for lost causes.

“Reform often misfires because we fail to learn from those who disagree with us. Conflict and differences can make a constructive contribution in dealing with complex problems.” -Michael Fullan

Leadership Improvement“Creating and sharing knowledge is

central to effective leadership.” (Fullan, 2001)

When schools or districts adopt external models, which in itself is not always a bad thing, they fail to focus on changing the culture of the school, and consequently the models fail to become embedded or cause overall change.

Successful leaders combine 5 “core mind action sets”:(Leading a Culture in Change M. Fullan, 2002)

• Moral purpose• Understanding change• Developing relationships• Knowledge sharing• Coherence making

Teacher LeadershipStrong teacher leadership was apparent in each successful sample

school. Teacher leadership appeared to develop when three conditions were present.

• First, the teachers had ample opportunities to make decisions about teaching and learning. Successful schools provided teachers with time to meet as grade-level or subject-matter teams. Moreover, teachers at successful schools reported that they regularly used this collaborative time to review student work and to discuss how to strengthen their classroom instruction.

• Second, teachers engaged in various forms of informal action research. They used the results of their students‘ assessments to compare different instructional strategies and different classroom environments to see which strategies and environments encouraged student learning. Working together in this way enabled them to create a continual improvement cycle for their instruction.

• Third, teachers developed their own internal leadership structures such as team teaching, mentoring new teachers, and collaborating to share lesson designs to support one another's resolve to improve student achievement.

Principal Leadership• The successful schools in the study had the same principal for the

last three years.

• Principals at the successful schools were more likely to create time for teachers to collaborate and to provide them with structured support. This included the principal's frequent attendance at grade-level or department meetings and the expectation that teachers provide feedback on the meetings and let the principal know what he or she could do to help them.

• When asked what they did to improve student achievement at their schools, principals produced lists of programs, interventions, and professional development opportunities that contributed to this goal.

• These successful principals were comfortable using data and making changes when the data demonstrated that student achievement had not risen.

District LeadershipWhen asked to list three factors that were most likely to improve test

scores, districts would:

• The successful schools benefited from focused district wide professional development on pedagogy. Professional development for new hires is provided so that all teachers would have the opportunity to learn the same teaching strategies.

• Usually new principals are placed in schools in which parent demands and conflicts are expected to be fewer. These schools tended to be in the lowest socioeconomic areas of the district. This practice contributed to a belief that ultimately became part of the culture—that assignment to low socioeconomic schools was either an entry-level position for new principals or a way of penalizing them for being unable to effectively handle parent conflicts. Transferring from lower to higher socioeconomic areas naturally represented a promotion. A few districts changed this negative perception by placing principals alternately at high-achieving schools and at state improvement program schools. Experience at both types of schools helped principals develop high expectations for their students' academic achievement and increased the number of principals who had firsthand knowledge of both types of schools. The practice also fostered a new belief that both kinds of schools offer opportunities for professional growth.

District Leadership (cont.)• Workload and pressure is greater for principals at low-performing

schools. Principals from the successful schools said that their districts scheduled monthly cohort meetings with all the district's state improvement program schools. The principals so valued these meetings that they have continued to meet two years after leaving the state improvement program.

• Some districts implemented a policy for state improvement program schools to receive additional district services. These services included additional professional development, additional visitations and support in curriculum and instruction from district personnel, district-provided grant writers, more comprehensive data analysis, and greater on-site visibility of the district superintendent.

Fullan’s Change Puzzle

References• Barber, M. & Fullan, M. (2005). ‘Tri-Level Development: It’s

the System’. Education Week. V. 24, No.25.• Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up

strategies for educational reform. Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education- September 1994. www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/SysReforms/fullan1.html.

• Fullan, M. Leading in a culture of change. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. University of Toronto. www.michaelfullan.ca.

• Fullan, M. (1997). What’s worth fighting for in the principalship? 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

• Fullan, M. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school. New York: Teachers College Press.

• Fullan, M. Leadership for the 21st century. www.pa.ash.org.au/pecnsw/Leadership_-_Fullan.html.

• Sparks, D. (2003). Interview with Michael Fullan: Change Agent. Journal of Staff Development, Winter 2003 (Vol. 24, No. 1). www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/fullan241.cfm.