Big Mountain High School’s Curriculum Change

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction and Understanding of the Problem
Summary of the Case
Frameworks for Analysis
Goals, Challenges, Potential Outcomes, and Consequences
Leadership Lessons and Takeaways
References

Introduction and Understanding of the Problem

Teaching in an ever-evolving practice, and the implementation of new, effective educational strategies is impossible without the active involvement of school and district level administration. Various studies show that proper management of change process on several organizational levels is vital to the initiative’s success (Bovey and Hede 372; Waks, 2007, p. 277).

In the case of Big Mountain High School, the school management’s initiative to change school curriculum has not gone smoothly due to the school staff’s resistance to cooperating on the subject of change, the development of the new curriculum.

The larger issue associated with the problem faced by the school administration is the problem of collaboration between teachers, policymakers, and stakeholders in the process of change, and the importance of the application of relevant managerial methods during the change process. In this case study, the researcher will provide a summary of the case, analyze the issue present by applying Deal and Bolman’s frame theory, and provide recommendations for the district level and school administrators to assist the reorganization process at Big Mountain High School.

Summary of the Case

The only high school in its county, Big Mountain receives generous community support and is established as a well-recognized comprehensive school, with high teachers’ satisfaction, strong educational programs and style of management which has been recognized as efficient. The current management of the school gives a substantial amount of anatomy to the departments but limits teachers’ involvement in educational and administrative matters. The school is governed by department chairs and school administration, with the former providing feedback from teachers on current issues.

In the light of new state curriculum mandates, the administration of Big Mountain High School proposed changing the curriculum to provide a more challenging learning environment. The issue is with semester electives, which can be skipped by students. In the absence of these electives, students do not receive the highest quality education. The administration’s concerns are in line with the views on the new governor.

A group of teachers has been established to oversee the progress of change, led by the Department Chair. The first step towards reform is changing the curriculum of language arts class. There are mixed opinions on the subject of change. The Department Chair expresses his wish to eliminate elective and establish a year-long core program instead, while teachers argue that this would limit their choices in the classroom.

Frameworks for Analysis

Bolman and Deal define frame as “a coherent set of ideas that enable you to see and understand more clearly what goes on day to day” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 41). The authors outlined four different frames, which affect people’s view of the world: structural, human resources, political and symbolic (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Each of these frames comprises a range of concepts that act as a framework for shaping the experience of the world. In the context of educational change in Big Mountain High School, the two most important frames for case analysis are structural and human resources frames.

The structural frame is concerned with the allocation of responsibilities within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003). In the case of the Big Mountain change initiative, structural mechanisms were not established to help facilitate change.

Indeed, the current school structure, which limited administrators’ participation in the classroom activity and encouraged teachers’ autonomy, promoted a culture of isolation and independence, rather than collaboration and commitment. As Fullan (2016) points out, “collaboration across schools and districts […] pays enormous dividends concerning new knowledge and wider commitments” (p. 56). At the operational and strategic level, the administration failed to create a structure that facilitated change, which led to confusion and anxiety among staff regarding the subject of change.

The human resources frame is another important frame to consider. From this perspective, implementing change in Big Mountain High School needs to be based on the idea that the current system exists to support the needs of community and educators. The challenge is to apply change management strategies to change the staff’s opinions on the subject of change and get their support.

It should be emphasized that reorganization will lead to better student performance and that to make the process of change effortless, centralized management should be responsible for decision-making and base their decisions on the feedback from the educators and the community. A process of social negotiation between various stakeholders is to be initiated, with proposals in line with the change to be rewarded (Waks, 2007, p. 290). The lack of support from the employees means that the change process is not happening in the most efficient way possible, and maybe met with skepticism and resistance on the employees’ part (Piderit, 2000, p. 783).

Goals, Challenges, Potential Outcomes, and Consequences

Change management is generally defined as the process of adjusting the structure, direction, and resources of the organization in response to the needs of stakeholders (By, 2005, p. 369). As such, to efficiently manage change, the administration has to establish the following goals:

Gradually increase the role of school administration in the classroom by adjusting school-wide policies and regulations to improve operational efficiency (Moffett, 2000, p. 35).
Eliminate electives and establish a year-long core program.
Gradually develop a new organizational culture in line with the change.
Engage teachers in the change process by communicating the necessity and value of change.

Thus, the administration has to gradually increase its role in the educational process and build collaborative relationships with stakeholders through education and higher participation of the school staff in the change process. The challenge the administration is likely to encounter include the staff resistance to the increased involvement of the administration in the educational process. The administration has to promote the process of change as incremental, but inevitable in the light of educational reforms, and emphasize the role of centralized leadership.

Leadership Lessons and Takeaways

Professional educators at administrative positions are on the frontline of educational improvement and change, their views, values, and commitment shape the future of education. The success of change in the field of education is largely dependent upon the management’s ability to overcome various barriers to change, such as the reluctance and disagreement on the subject of change among school staff.

Several attributes of the Superintendent will help facilitate change by improving collaboration between conflicting groups and creating a vision of the strategy to bring about community unity. To achieve these goals, the Superintendent has to be able to manage people, be confident and have an authoritative voice to resolve conflicts or find a solution to the problem. The leader also has to be charismatic and a visionary to inspire people and make them follow the leader.

References

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bovey, W., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 372-382.

By, R. (2005). Organisational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380.

Fullan, M. (2016). The New Meaning of Educational Change (5th ed.) New York: Teachers College Press.

Moffett, C. (2000). Sustaining Change: The Answers Are Blowing in the Wind. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 35-38.

Piderit, S. (2000). Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: a Multidimensional View of Attitudes toward an Organizational Change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794.

Waks, L. (2007). The Concept of Fundamental Educational Change. Educational Theory, 57(3), 277-295.

Click Here To Order Now!