Two Types of Change in Schools

Since I have been an educator, and probably long before that, one of the constants of the K-12 educational system is that someone is always trying to change it. Some of the changes implemented are well thought out, well articulated, and even well researched. So why are they so short lived?

One reason may be the assumption that the magnitude of the change represented by all innovations are the same. This is definately not the case. Some changes are what is referred to as first-order change and others can be referred to as second-order change.

First-order change is incremental. It can be thought of as the next most obvious step to take in a class, school or district. Second-order change is anything but incremental. This type of change involves a radical departure from the norm.

It has been my experience that the common perspective used to address all problems in schools is to view them as first-order change issues. In other words, we tend to approach new problems from the perspective of our experiences. Unfortunately, solutions to the most pressing challenges facing our schools require a second-order perspective. We need deep, radical change to our schools if we are to maintain a competitive edge in the world.

Second-order change is never a small task. In fact, second-order change is so complex that it is not to be entered into lightly. Prestine (1992) cautions that second-order change cannot approach hesitantly. Sizer asserts that second-order change calls for decisive, swift action. Fullan (1993) states "I'm increasingly persuaded that schools that go slow and a little at a time end up doing so little that they succeed in only upsetting everything without accuring the benefits of the change."

Furthermore whether a change is considered first or second order varies based on the perceptions of individual staff members. To some, an innovation is a natural extension of everyday practice. To others, it is a radical departure from the past. For example, using computers to teach writing is easy for some, but is very scary for others.

In my most recent post, I described 21 responsibilities of the school principal. Interestingly, the importance of each responsibility varies according to the perception of the types of changes a school district is experiencing. Second-order change is associated with 7 of the 21 responsibilities I described. These include:
* Knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment.
* Optimizer
* Intellectual stimulation
* Change agent
* Monitoring/evaluating
* Flexibility
* Ideals/Beliefs
In other words, to be successful a school leader striving to provide leadership for a second-order change initiative must prioritize these aspects of leadership.

Unfortunately, second-order change initiatives negatively impact on four of the other principal responsibilities. These are:
* Culture
* Communication
* Order
* Input

A school leader must pay a certain price for the implementation of second-order change initiatives. Team spirit, cooperation, communication, order and routine and the level of input from all members of the staff typically deteriorate as a result of second-order change initiatives. Fullan (1993) states that "those individuals and organizations that are most effective do not experience fewer problems, less stressful situations, and greater fortune, they just deal with them differently."

To successfully implement a second-order change initiative, school leaders must ratchet up their idealism, energy and enthusiasm. Additionally, they must be willing to sustain these behaviors when confronted by frustration and even anger from some staff members. While this may take a personal toll on that school leader, this is the price we must pay for long-term progress.