TQM AND RADICAL CHANGE IN EDUCATION Chicago school reform meets TQM Donald R. Moore -- Designs for Change Through a major change in state law in 1989, the Chicago Public Schools have been radically restructured to shift decision making authority from a central bureaucracy to the parents, principals, and teachers at each of Chicago's 540 public schools. Urban education historian Michael Katz has called the Chicago reform the most radical restructuring of a US urban school system in the last century. Our organization, Designs for Change, has been centrally involved in designing this Chicago reform strategy and in the subsequent campaign to carry it out, which involves both continued advocacy to protect reform and concrete help to schools as they struggle to improve. The methods and concepts of total quality management (TQM) are playing an important part in Chicago's change process, as they are adapted to the political and organizational transformation now under way. In this effort, TQM consultants from Participation Associates also are playing a key leadership role. Key elements of the Chicago change strategy The foundation of Chicago reform is a legally mandated redistribution of power and resources, which has the following key elements: Elected local school councils (LSCs) were established in each Chicago school, consisting of six elected parents, two elected community representatives, two elected teachers, and the school's principal. More than 5,500 people have been elected to serve on these councils. LSCs have the authority to hire their principal, help develop and approve a plan to set school improvement priorities, and help develop and approve a school budget. The concept of the life-time principal has been abolished. Principals serve for four-year performance contracts, similar to most school superintendents nationally. A special Chicago principals' exam has been abolished, and principals need only hold state certification, opening up the process to thousands of new applicants. Principals have increased authority in selecting and supervising staff, and teachers have an increased voice in determining the school's curriculum and in setting school priorities. The authority of the board of education and central administration has been drastically reduced, and they are now to focus on setting standards for educational results, providing services to schools, and monitoring school progress and school compliance with basic rules. The reform law puts a cap on the size of the central administration. The law requires that substantial additional funds must be targeted to schools serving low-income students, which can be spent at the discretion of the LSC. In the current school year, the average school has gained about $400,000 in new discretionary money that they didn't have before school reform. Legal restructuring was only step one -- For those involved in the Chicago process, the legal restructuring of the system was viewed as merely the first step in a change process that will take a decade to carry out. We see two major ingredients as critical, if the promise of reform is going to be translated into improved educational quality and student performance. Overcoming continued resistance First, the same aggressive advocacy that brought the reform law into being must be continued long-term. The central office administrators and other interests that benefited from the old system are fighting vigorously to turn the clock back, and they must often be aggressively opposed, as well as won over. Already, for example, the reform coalition has repulsed efforts to take new discretionary dollars away from schools and put them under control of the central administration and to permit the system's superintendent to appoint 500 teachers to open teacher positions, whether school principals wanted them or not. Nurturing a decentralized approach Second, reformers are nurturing a decentralized strategy for assisting schools with the improvement process. We believe that schools should be empowered as consumers who can choose the organizations to which they can turn for help, and that the school system's central administration must compete with universities, non-profits, and for-profits as potential sources of assistance. Decentralization has spawned support organizations Already, the increased autonomy and resources available to schools have spawned a network of more than 100 organizations that have made a serious commitment to helping schools -- on issues ranging from staff development for teachers in reading, writing, math, science, and the arts, to improving school safety and energy efficiency, to increasing volunteer parent involvement. Thirty-five of these independent groups currently provide sustained on-site help to 180 schools. First fruits -- Three years after the first Local School Council elections, the basic school-level structure is in place. A just-released survey of principals' views about reform indicates, for example, that the average Local School Council meets more than once a month, and 93 percent of these meetings have a quorum. Further, nearly half of the school system's principals have been replaced since the reform law passed, through a combination of retirement and LSCs decisions not to renew principals' contracts. Reactions from principals Since the principal's role has changed the most radically under reform, it is also encouraging that principals are generally positive about the initial impact of reform. For example: 83 percent agree that "since reform, this school is getting better." 66 percent agree that "since reform, staff development is more responsive to teachers' needs." 71 percent disagree that "since reform, there is more conflict in this school." 87 percent disagree that "the LSC pressures me to spend money in ways that I think are inappropriate." 65 percent agree that "The SIP [School Improvement Plan] has led to academic improvements in this school." Changes in individual schools These survey results are consistent with changes that we have observed in a network of low-income neighborhood schools that we are assisting with school improvement. We have, for example, observed the following: At Roque de Duprey, an Hispanic elementary school on Chicago's Near Northwest Side, teachers have begun to teach through thematic multi-cultural projects that cut across traditional academic disciplines. The first such project, focused on students' monitoring and analyzing the 1992 national elections, is culminating in the election of a school student council that will have a significant voice in school decision making. At Brownell, an African-American elementary school on Chicago's South Side, disciplinary incidents have dropped dramatically under the leadership of a new principal and students have planted and harvested a large vegetable garden in cooperation with senior citizens who live nearby. Teachers have, of course, built science units around the garden project. At Barton, another South Side elementary school, parents have organized a sophisticated parent patrol to help children get safely to and from school and to help maintain discipline on the playground. Similar parent patrols have been organized in about 80 other schools. Thinking about educational change We have sought to influence the process of school-level improvement both through participating in the citywide debate about the direction that school-level change should take and through our assistance to the member schools our firm's Network for Leadership Development. Central to our strategies for school- level change in Chicago are a set of conclusions drawn from our past research. Think school community -- The key influences that determine whether or not Chicago's children learn extend far beyond the school's walls and include the student's family and neighborhood. Thus, we urge Chicago's Local School Councils, not to think school, but rather to think school community. The school community includes parents, neighbors, teachers, principals, students, other school staff, and local businesses. It also extends beyond the school's geographic neighborhood and includes any individual or organization that can be drawn into the school's process of improvement. Think in new ways about change Thinking school community requires new models for the change process. For example, some educational change strategies have viewed the principal as the school's supervisor, the teachers as workers, the students as the school's product, and the parents as one of the school's customers. However, we view the students as workers, and both their teachers and their parents as supervisors -- supervisors who should function as coaches to their students. There is a day-shift and a night-shift of supervisors, and coordination among both shifts of supervisors is essential if students are to become effective learners. The strength of community Experience with Chicago school reform to date indicates that an effectively functioning school community can marshal assistance for improving the quality of children's education that the school by itself cannot. Parent safety patrols, a major citywide increase in school volunteers, apprenticeships for students in local businesses, and political pressure needed to get building repairs completed are some initial tangible benefits of mobilizing the school community in support of its children. Focus on improving students' educational experiences -- But what should be the long-term focus of the school community's improvement efforts? Of course, an overriding priority is to improve levels of students' abilities to read, write, and solve mathematics problems; the traditional academic priorities of education in which Chicago students have performed so dismally in the past. The only way to improve these educational results is to improve the quality of students' day-to-day educational experiences, both in and out of school. Focusing on the quality of educational life We help school communities to focus like a laser beam on changing these day-to-day realities. School communities will make progress by identifying the types of educational experiences that will lead to better results, analyzing the realities of current student experiences, and then developing strategies to move from current to desired student experiences. Nurturing a richer reading life versus current realities For example, research clearly indicates that students who become good readers read a range of reading materials independently both inside and outside of school. But an analysis of the current realities of many Chicago school communities indicates that: Teachers don't encourage independent reading during the school day Schools lack enough high-interest books for students to read Students are not permitted to take available books home Parents are not encouraging independent reading outside school. These gaps between the ideal and the current reality suggest practical steps that various leaders of the school community can take to help students to read well and to enjoy reading. A systematic analysis of the changes needed to improve students' educational experiences quickly leads beyond a focus on improving classroom instruction, as important as classroom improvement is. Five critical targets -- Our research indicates five critical targets for improving students' educational experiences that are essential for achieving superior results, targets that must become the focus for coordinated school community action that involves school staff, parents, neighbors, and community organizations: Enable and encourage student attendance and graduation Students cannot benefit from even the best classroom instruction if they are not in school. The school community can substantially improve student attendance through such initiatives as making sure students can travel to and from school safely, obtaining help for families whose needs hinder their children's attendance, recognizing students who improve their attendance, and providing an educational program that children want to attend. Minimize student sorting Historically, Chicago's children have been highly tracked and grouped, often with the accompanying belief that only the "top" children were capable of learning and that the rest need only receive custodial care. Minimizing student tracking and creating high expectations that all children can learn are thus essential to opening up the possibility that students will be taught differently. Create decent, humane school and community environments Chicago's schools have frequently been in physical disrepair, and students have lacked both physical safety and psychological support. Creating decent, humane environments for children, both inside and outside of school, will contribute to better student achievement. But children and their teachers also deserve a decent environment to work and learn in as a basic right, regardless of whether, for example, fixing a leaky school roof or strictly enforcing the school system's ban on corporal punishment have been empirically shown to boost achievement. Create school and community environments that facilitate instruction It has been shown that improving some aspects of school and community environments clearly improves student learning. For example, high-achieving urban schools frequently have principals who set and act on clear educational goals and work actively with teachers in the classroom to achieve these goals. Good classrooms with committed teachers will be isolated exceptions without a larger school environment that actively encourages high quality instruction. Provide high quality instruction in schools and communities High quality instruction is the critical payoff for the hard work of building an effective school community. The research base about the features of effective instruction in specific academic subjects is expanding rapidly. An effective school community moves from traditional instructional practices to these research- based best practices. However, learning does not take place only in the classroom; conscious efforts to improve the teaching process in the home and other community settings are also critical. Community linkages and commitment are critical -- While many Chicago schools are still largely unchanged as a result of reform, many others have already made significant strides in pursuing these targets for improvement. And some of the most impressive progress has frequently occurred in schools where a local school council and principal committed to change have linked with an organization that can provide concrete assistance in learning the skills needed to change and in managing the change process. School-level change and TQM: a work in progress As part of the citywide effort to assist schools that has grown up in Chicago, we provide sustained on-site assistance and related citywide workshops to a network of six low-income neighborhood schools through our Network for Leadership Development. TQM and Lovett Elementary -- In one of these Network schools, we have begun to collaborate with Participation Associates. This collaboration aims to blend TQM concepts with our past research and experience concerning urban school change and with the specifics of the Chicago restructuring law. Lovett Elementary School, an African-American elementary school on Chicago's West Side, is a partner in this collaboration. In Lovett's first year as a Network member, we carried out an in-depth needs assessment to help the local school council and school staff sharpen their improvement priorities and to increase the investment of the whole school community in a refined school improvement plan. Setting priorities Among the resulting priorities were: An agreement to focus on reading and mathematics achievement To increase the coordination of support services for the school's students To initiate on-site group staff development for teachers To increase parent involvement in the school's academic program. As the 1991-92 school year ended, the local school council and various staff and parent committees made specific plans to incorporate these priorities into their legally-required school improvement plan. Many specifics of the resulting plan were initiated in Spring and Fall of 1992, such as a school-wide Read-A-Thon to encourage independent reading, a contract for intensive staff development in writing with the Illinois Writing Project, and the hiring of a parent involvement coordinator. The Z Process John Simmons and Terry Mazany joined us in aiding Lovett in the Summer of 1992. Simmons and Mazany have refined a change process based on TQM principles called the Z Process, which is highly compatible with our perspective on school community change. The Z Process consists of three basic steps: Readiness During the readiness phase, the strengths and weaknesses of the school are assessed, and agreements are reached about the client's initial vision and needed next steps. Redesign In the redesign phase, principles of work redesign and total quality management are studied and applied to the conditions in the school. At the end of the second phase, a clear vision and detailed plans for continuous improvement are developed. Implement and improve In the third phase, implementation begins, and teaching and learning systems are then continuously improved using TQM concepts and tools adapted for schools. This model is based on Simmons' and Mazany's experience in working with both private firms and public agencies over the past fifteen years and is now being used in over 100 schools. Foundation assumptions for whole school change The Simmons and Mazany strategy for whole school change is based on two assumptions: Successful change requires authentic involvement of all school stakeholders. Change is a whole school process. Robust change must be the creation of those who are responsible to implement it. This approach is consistent with the constructivist view that the learner must construct meaning. Those who will implement new practices must construct these changes as part of their way of thinking about the learning processes of students. Is the community ready? A key to success, based on experience in applying the Z Process, is assuring that the whole school community is ready to begin redesign. All the stakeholders need to reach consensus and commit to the task. If the readiness phase is rushed or false consensus is reached, the change effort has a high risk of failing in the second or third phase. Building a solid base Based on our joint analysis of Lovett Elementary School, some key priorities were to build the skills of school and community stakeholders to manage the change process and to deepen teacher commitment to reform ideas that had frequently been initiated by the elected Local School Council. In a September 1992 weekend retreat, parent and community representatives on the LSC, the principal, and leaders among teachers and teacher aides refined their analysis of the groups who shared a stake in the school's success, learned new decision making skills based on consensus, and identified existing paradigms for teaching and working together that they wanted to change. Videotaped segments of the retreat were then used to provide concrete feedback to additional teachers and parents who had not attended the retreat, and to begin to teach such skills as consensus decision making to more school community members. It's not easy, but it's slowly becoming a reality The change process at Lovett is often painstakingly slow from week to week. Yet some moments crystallize for us the realization that an extraordinary change is taking place. In the rough-cut of the retreat videotape, no names and titles were superimposed on the participants. When an outsider unfamiliar with Lovett viewed the videotape, he was consistently unable to distinguish parents from teacher aides from teachers as they talked about their dreams and plans for the school. Such moments sustain us. The concept of a unified school community focused on improving children's lives is slowly becoming a reality. Donald R. Moore has been executive director of Designs for Change (DFC), a Chicago-based children's research and advocacy group since 1977. Under Moore's direction, DFC played a leading role in developing and advocating a major restructuring plan for Chicago's public school system. Moore has a doctorate in education from Harvard University. Moore was recently invited as Visiting Scholar to Stanford University to reflect on his experiences on the Chicago school reform process. This article first appeared in a special Excellence in Education issue of the Journal for Quality and Participation (Jan/Feb 1993): AQP 801-B W. 8th. St., Ste. 501, Cincinnati, Ohio 45203, Tel. 513-381-1959, Fax 513-381-0070. Call Sara Olberding at AQP Information Center for more articles and conference presentations on TQ in K-12 education and other topics. Nominal fee for reprints.