Far too many school reformers, regardless of ideology, forget two key principles in pushing for changes that will stick in community institutions.

The first principle is an organizational fact. Both change and stability are constants in every societal institution. Institutions are not static. They are stable in adhering to rules and daily routines while simultaneously adopting small and big changes.

Think of state, federal and local government, big and small business,  hospitals and clinics, police and court systems, and yes, K-12 schools and universities. Planned and unplanned changes occur all the time amid officials and practitioners going about their daily duties. But these changes–from installing computers in police cars to doctors using electronic health records for diagnosing ill patients to teachers allowing students to use their cell phones as clickers in answering classroom questions–are not what reformers seek.

The changes that current school reformers of every stripe seek–charter school advocates, remote instruction enthusiasts, pay-for-performance champions, Common Core Standards boosters–are not these everyday changes that occur in classrooms, schools, districts, and states. Often they dismiss those changes as not “real” or “true” reform but ones of little significance. Instead, they want to “revolutionize” the institution. They want big changes that carry the odor of major improvements, nay,  “transformation.”

Knowing that change and stability are inherent to every societal institution and in tense equilibrium is important because reformers consistently paint existing institutions as “traditional,” “resistant to change,” and in need of a “revolution.” In wanting their version of “true reform” they have to dismiss the daily changes that occur as inconsequential or even changes that perpetuate the “status quo.” That forgetfulness of this institutional fact on the part of reformers is forgivable if they acknowledge that it is a fact of life and build on it rather than dismiss it as insignificant.

The second principle is publicly making clear the theory of change that drives the proposed reform.  What do reformers believe will cause a desired result to occur? What assumptions are being made about the institution, the participants, and how the change will unfold once adopted?

Based on these two principles, often ignored by reformers, I want to shrink both to fit the classroom and school where teachers and principals, often in concert with parents, work daily to plan and implement changes that they hope will lead to improved teaching and student learning.

I believe that it is the spirit of democracy to debate proposed district changes in policies and practices for those affected. I believe that it is practical in getting those who are expected to alter their work routines to understand fully the proposed change. I believe that is morally responsible for those engaged in seeking improvement to lay out answers to the following questions:

1. What are the problems you want to solve? What are your goals for proposed changes?

2. What assumptions are built into the proposed change?

3. What strategies are you using to solve those problems? Are these strategies consistent with your assumptions?

4. What capacities (knowledge and skills) are needed to carry out the strategies to effect desired change? Who has the capacities and skills? If absent, where can they be gotten?

5. What has to be done in the school and classroom for the desired policy to be completely implemented?

6. How will you know that these changes worked in the short-, mid-, and long-term?

What such questions do is lay out the theory of action embedded in the proposed change. When the  daily work of those touched by proposed change are affected, their knowing the theory driving the change is essential. Without getting at the innards of a proposed change–which is what these questions do–students, teachers, administrators, parents, taxpayers, and voters can only guess at its logic.

When I offer these questions to teachers, principals, superintendents, and school board members, I usually do it with many clear-cut examples. I also portray these questions in a graphic figure with boxes and arrows that illustrate the  problems that a proposed change will potentially solve, the actual change itself, the assumptions embedded in the proposal, strategies, and outcomes [see below].

Take, for example, a reform highly desired by many educational associations, district officials, principals, teachers, and researchers: create professional learning communities (PLC). The following shows my answers to the above questions.

Theory of Action for PLC

I invite readers to read and discuss the theory of action that has driven so much talk about professional learning communities. For those readers who are thinking of making similar changes or have already embarked on such changes in their classrooms, schools, and districts, I would like to know whether the questions and figure were helpful or unhelpful.