The following year, the district’s middle schools successfully reached their five-year, milestone. One of theparticipants gave reasons for the success:
…we had stability in terms of principal leadership and central office leadership. We had agreement andcommitment to the vision. We had focus and support for continuing the journey, from the superintendent and all of the district officeadministrators. For five straight years we had stability.
During the sixth year of implementation, the stability of personnel changed. A number of the teachers andadministrators, including the superintendent, retired. When others were hired to replace them, the newcomers were unfamiliar with thecore structures, purpose, values, and vision of the district’s middle schools. For the newcomer, the core structures were easilylearned during the daily, on-the-job interactions; yet, the thinking that grounded the processes remained unexplained. Withouta designated person to coordinate their indoctrination into the district’s middle school culture, the responsibility for district continuity was left to each school. At approximately the same timeas the retirements occurred, the new superintendent and school board members refocused their educational initiatives toward anational agenda to reform curriculum. With the spotlight off the middle schools, some participants wondered if the district wouldgradually slip back to the junior high model for educating adolescents. To the contrary, because second-order change hadaltered the deep beliefs about schooling adolescents, the middle school mindset was solidly institutionalized within the district’s culture. And, today, the district’s middle school operations and philosophy still have the strong support and pride of parents,teachers, and students.
In the next section of this article we will synthesize the process that occurred during this change effort andidentify major strategies that facilitated and hindered the institutionalization of middle schools in this district. In thefinal section we present insights into organizational change that emerged from the perspectives given by participants who werepersonally involved in the transition.
Results of the Study
Second-Order Change
This district’s transition from a junior high philosophy to a middle school model for early adolescent learningis an example of second-order change. As suggested by Levy (1986) and Walzawick, Weakland, and Fisch (1974), the change fostereddisequilibrium and ambiguity among participants and led to the development of new concepts and behaviors. The process of deeporganizational change caused a reordering of meaning on the district, team, and personal levels, and schooling for adolescentswas transformed. Because the new model of schooling was deeply embedded in the organization’s memory, the middle school survived the changes in district leadership and the passage of time.
A close examination of the changes reveals dramatic shifts in the district’s core structures, purpose, and values of adolescent learning. A number of examples illustrate thispoint. An interdisciplinary team structure replaced curricular departments. Teams of teachers shared a daily planning time anddetermined the daily schedule for their students. Families and school personnel communicated directly, frequently, and in a numberof ways, rather than solely through report cards. The purpose changed from a subject-centered junior high with curriculum andpractices that mirrored the high school to a student-centered middle school that responded appropriately to the distinct,developmental needs of early adolescents. Interdisciplinary teams of teachers and students were valued and used as the main andessential mechanism for organizing the middle school and supporting the continuous improvement of students and educators in the school.In terms of personal change, teachers’sense of professionalism strengthened and they increased their willingness to beintrospective about themselves and their relationship to the school organization.