The School Culture Must Change if Student Achievement is Not Being Supported

By John S. Bell

John S. Bell is the Coordinator of the Office of Leadership Development at hte Alabama Department of Education.

Allowing a toxic culture to remain in the midst of efforts to improve student achievement is like pouring a cup of sugar into the ocean with the intent of making the ocean sweet rather than salty. Both are a waste of time and energy. Leaders who dismiss change with statements similar to the following are only fooling themselves and those around them:

• “The culture of my school won’t allow me to change teacher assignments.”
• “I wish we could get our parents to be more involved, but lack of involvement is just part of the culture in our part of the city.”
• “I would have teachers post student work, but our school culture just would not allow that.”
• “You just can’t change too much in our school because everyone is pretty happy with the way things are now.”

School leaders who are successful in changing the negative aspects of the culture rarely dwell on how difficult changing a toxic culture is. They don’t usually have the energy. They are usually too busy ensuring that the foundation of change is being built. They are busy bringing together the forces of change that will ultimately move people to new patterns, behaviors, thoughts, ideas, actions, and knowledge. Effective leaders know the changes that must be made, learn how best to ensure they happen, have the patience to keep at it, and to move forward. These leaders are often referred to as “change agents.” They are rarely popular at first, always controversial, and much sought after when they are successful. 

First, Do No Harm
This mantra of the medical profession should be held in highest regard by school leaders, especially by those who would change school culture to create fertile ground for student achievement.  Sometimes “change agents” in their determination to change a toxic culture create unintended damage. Instructional leaders are often bewildered when they finally get policies, procedures, teaching methods, and focuses changed to meet the needs of struggling students only to find that the data show that while some intended consequences occurred, other negative ones did as well. For years, state governments have sent “expert” teams into schools to “help” leaders whose students are struggling. In many cases, student achievement did improve in schools in which state teams worked. However, more often than not, as soon as the team left, student achievement declined, often below levels before the team interceded. In addition, because leaders often felt relieved or useless while the state team was present, little was accomplished to make the permanent leader the catalyst for improvement.

The culture was impacted by an outside force, but change did not really occur. As soon as the force was removed, the culture went back to its normal state. The state with good intention actually did more to decrease effective leadership and student achievement by taking the reigns out of the leader’s hands. Even with the intention of mentoring the leader, often the leader knows that the “state person” will fix the problem because he/she has been sent to do so. The result is a leader who knows that he/she does not really have control no matter the intention. For these reasons, many states’ education departments are now supporting the local central office staff as they support their permanent leaders to make change. Leadership and accountability are left firmly in the hands of the permanent leader in these support configurations. Capacity for change is much more likely with this arrangement.

Reinforce What is Right with the School Culture
An effective leader also knows that there must be support for those things in the culture that are positive and that support student achievement. Often, these positive aspects of the culture can be so much a part of the fabric of the school that they become invisible. They may become part of the collateral damage that can be done when trying to make instructional improvement.

Mrs. Smith had taught at Pierce Middle School for thirty years. Now retired, she volunteered to help the librarian three days per week. Mrs. Smith was a rather humorous looking little lady who wore much too much jewelry and always had a smile for the students who came to the library. She sat just outside the doors to the library and checked student passes as they entered and left the library. She often talked to students about the research they were doing. Everyone knew Mrs. Smith. Some students’ parents had her for English when they went to Pierce. On Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, Mrs. Smith could be seen giving students magazines she brought from home because she had seen an article that might help them with a report or a project. Mrs. Smith was a fixture at Pierce. Numerous times Mrs. Smith had seen something that troubled her. She had on several occasions reported a change in the demeanor of a student to the guidance counselor. She had also reported unusual behavior to the assistant principal. Once, she even reported a person in the building who she did not recognize and who turned out to be an intruder.

In an effort to make better use of instructional time at Pierce Middle School, the decision was made to let students only go to the library during their English or Social Studies classes or before and after school. After all, the internet had made library research a thing of the past. There was no need for Mrs. Smith to check passes. She was asked to help in the office calling absentees. After a few weeks, Mrs. Smith grew tired of this volunteer work and decided that her volunteer time could be better spent at her church. Mrs. Smith announced her decision. The principal thanked her for her volunteer worked and wished her well with her new church duties.

Making all of the Wrong Decisions for What Appears to Be All the Right Reasons
Sometimes leaders make the wrong decision for what appears to be the right reasons. This happens more often than most people understand. School leaders often make bad decisions because of real and seemingly logical concerns. The result is often negative and unintended. Below is a chart that gives examples of what is meant:

John Bell is Coordinator of the Office of Leadership Development at the Alabama Department of Education. John has been a headmaster, a high school principal, a middle school principal, a university adjunct instructor, and a high school English teacher. John is the project administrator for Alabama Governor Bob Riley's Congress on School Leadership. The Governor's Congress created the new Alabama Standards for Instructional Leaders, the redesign of Alabama's university leader preparation programs, the Office of Leadership Development, and a tiered certification system that rewards leadership excellence.

For seven years John has been a group leader at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education Principals' Center. He has also served on the Harvard Principals' Center Advisory Board. John has also worked extensively with the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) who has supported the reform work in Alabama.

A focus of John's work is the need for states to mount reform initiatives that address every aspect of leadership if lasting improvement is to be achieved. This work includes standards, university redesign, professional development, certification, and the improvement of working conditions. John is co-author of From At Risk to Academic Excellence: What Successful Leaders Do, published by Eye on Education.