AE-Extra March 2004

Visioning Strategy and School Effectiveness: A New Paradigm View

Linda M. Mckay, Ph.D.
Professor, Faculty of Education
University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Glenn W. Rideout, Ph. D. candidate
Sessional Instructor, Faculty of Education
University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada
E-mail: rideou1@uwindsor.ca

Introduction

This study will examine the relationship between the visioning strategy of secondary schools in south-western Ontario and the success of those schools in providing new paradigm effectiveness outcomes, based on the perception of senior students in those schools. The term 'visioning strategy' refers to the process of formulating and implementing a school vision. Visioning strategy is primarily concerned with the processes, not the value or substance of the vision itself. A visioning strategy can be top down, bottom up, inclusive (many stakeholders' visions) or exclusive (principals' vision only), and so on. (Bechtol & Sorenson, 1993; Dlugosh, Norton, Sybouts, & Webb, 1996; Rideout, Mckay, & Morton, 2003). 'New paradigm' school effectiveness focuses on people, participative leadership, innovative work style, strong client orientation, and a mind-set that seeks optimum performance of the full range of capacities resident in individuals. The open, inclusive, synthesizing nature of this approach to school effectiveness is seen by many educators as more likely to impact more students as their traditional and non-traditional intelligences are valued (Newberry, 1994, Shantz & Rideout, 2003; Symons, 1997).

The primary purpose of the paper is to examine the relationship between the school's visioning strategy and the effectiveness of the school, as indicated by senior students, and to explore the question of whether schools with a stronger visioning strategy are rated as more effective by their students. A secondary purpose is to examine whether there is a significant difference in the effective ratings of schools of three different categories (Public, Catholic, Private) of schools.

A brief overview of the historical literature that contextualizes visioning strategy and views of school effectiveness is followed by an examination of the instruments used to operationalize the research questions. Information regarding the procedure and data analysis is provided and discussion of the findings concludes the paper.

Literature Review

Brief History of Visioning Strategy

The increased pace of industrialism during the nineteenth and twentieth-century was the framework upon which the public schooling system developed (Stoll & Fink, 1996). Initially referred to by other names that reflected its industrial roots, the concept of visioning strategy was heavily laden with top-down directives, spreading conformity from industry to school. Taylor (1914) stressed the importance of management's setting of the overall direction, and ensuring the workers' compliance. As a scientific management classicist, Taylor viewed these goals as directives to the worker, and while creating order in the organization, the worker would not have been required to participate in the formulation of or take ownership of these goals. This model for goal achievement was the natural systems perspective that measured the output as the only significant issue. Owens (1987) illustrated an efficiency modelling between industry and school, indicating that early in the twentieth-century, schools were seen as factories in which the raw materials were shaped into products to meet the various demands of the workplace.

By mid-century, education administrators began to look for alternative approaches to schooling (Bedard & Lawton, 2000). According to Stoll and Fink (1998), the focus in the 1960's and 1970's on top-down change led to very little lasting impact in schools; it became viewed as management imposed improvements. Lieberman (1995) felt that, in various incarnations, visioning strategy through the 1980's continued to be directive, output orientated, and non-inclusive. This resulted in the 1980's effectiveness movement in which the principal, as head of school improvement efforts, saw the job as head of the instructional process to simply align the curriculum, and expected teachers to co-operate and support this move. The resulting bottom-up approach did not fare much better, as it did not lead to improvement in student performances.

By the 1990's, scholars were suggesting that the best improvement occurred as a result of the top-down bottom-up approach where the larger system provided direction and support, and the actual change process was left to schools through school based decision making and development planning.

Lieberman (1995) illustrated in case studies the need for involvement of many levels of the organization in the formulation and implementation of effective vision. The collaborative aspect of this process allowed for the effective leadership of the 1990's, where the principal collaborated in examining school practices to ensure that the school was doing all it could for all of its students, supporting rather than controlling the education process. In this inclusive approach, students were encouraged to deal with real-world problems, to think conceptually in integrated ways, to work co-operatively, and to use broad-based means of assessing their skills and knowledge. Through bottom-up participation, teachers built commitment, supported the vision, acted on the vision, and invented ways of making it a reality. This was facilitated by bringing teachers to meetings, encouraging many and varied conversations, providing structures for discussion and action, holding retreats, procuring grants, creating teams and team leaders, and the linking of student success with teacher participation. The trust, support, and commitment of those who implemented the vision, as well as those who formulated it kept the process relevant, and balanced against the competing issues of traditional iterations of power and control.

Elements of Visioning Strategy

Bechtol and Sorenson (1993) illustrated the fundamental steps and stages of school visioning strategy. They pointed out four characteristics that confirm the importance of personal development programs and personal visions: there must be commitment to the school mission, knowledge by staff of effective education practices, use of team skills, and the establishment of a 'learning community concept' in the school. Each of these steps blended the values of individuals into the receptive atmosphere necessary for the visioning process to result in improved school effectiveness.

Ballantine (1997) set out further conditions for effective visioning strategy. With an open system in place, the degree to which visioning strategy as a major change could be expected to succeed depended on the extent to which these conditions were present during implementation: clarity of goals and plans, capabilities of administrators and staff, availability of resources, compatibility of the organizational structure with the proposed changes, and willingness of those involved to expend time and effort.

Sheetz and Benson (1994) focused on the crucial visioning process as a tool for improving effectiveness in educational institutions, by providing insight into the actual operation of an educational institution. These authors provided a step-by-step guide through the process of building from an individual to a shared vision and then on to articulating the specific goals of the organization. They found that this process was best started by an examination of personal beliefs, through questioning such things as what the organization needed to achieve for various stakeholders, what the results looked like, and how views of success differed among stakeholders. Sheetz and Benson continued by pointing out that the movement in clarifying a vision started with the clear focus that resulted from the visioning process and ended with the specificity of achieving desired results.

A more concise visioning strategy was detailed by Dlugosh, Norton, Sybouts, and Webb (1996). These authors also focused on the school system's past, its historical foundations, beliefs, values, and traditions. In formulating a vision, a significant amount of time was devoted to each of these phases.

A New Approach to School Effectiveness

A number of educators and researchers during the 1990s and early in the new century provided insight into a new approach to school effectiveness. This approach is referred to as 'new paradigm' effectiveness. Within this approach, the level of a school's effectiveness was determined by its success in facilitating the full development of students, taking into account their diverse intelligences and learning styles. This contrasts with the old paradigm approach of meeting the institutionalized standards and expectations placed upon the school by vested interests of the political and economic elite. (Shantz & Rideout, 2003). 'New paradigm' schools could be seen as having progressivist as opposed to traditionalist educational philosophies (Silvernail, 1992) and following constructivist rather than mimeticist approaches to classroom management (Kickbusch, 1996). Teachers would be more facilitators than directors of classroom activity, while students would exercise more control of their learning process.

Fink (1995) was concerned that schools address the cognitive imperatives necessary for students to function in the postmodern world, and that they also clearly focus on the individual, and identify characteristics of each student's humanity. Several characteristics surfaced from Fink's survey of educators in eleven countries concerning the implication of this new paradigm. Curriculum must lead to learning outcomes that were less subject-based and more holistic. Outcomes must be relevant in context, and assessed via real-life tasks that were integrated into instruction. There must be greater organizational flexibility, within which professional teachers were encouraged by leaders who were creating a learning community. The 'top-down bottom-up' approach must be valued, so that policy development could be influenced by the local school community. Fink concluded that the common core curriculum must reflect the new learning paradigm of emphasis on quality and equity. The humanity of each student must be recognized and nurtured, as a reflection of the democratic notion of education for the benefit of the child, not the political or economic elite.

Cheng (1997) made the case for a broader perspective of effectiveness beyond academic outputs. This writer held the view that it was necessary to clarify the aims and functions of a school before discussing for a particular school what effectiveness was and how to evaluate and monitor it. Cheng listed several aims and functions around which a vision that leads to effectiveness could be constructed, and which formed the basis for its evaluation. Potential school aims and functions were classified into five types, including the human/social function, the political function, the cultural function, and the educational function. Each of these functions brought attention to the role and capacity of the individual developing within society, where the interests of the individual were at least equally as important as those of economic interests.

This present study examined the relationship between visioning strategy and new paradigm effectiveness. The purpose of the study was to explore visioning strategy as a factor that might be positively related to the development of the whole child, a concept to be disassociated from market-based 'child as commodity' thinking. It was hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant relationship between the use of a visioning strategy and school effectiveness.

Participants

The participants in this study were drawn from the secondary schools of the 11 of 24 school boards who responded positively to the initial request to participate in this research as well as from the private secondary schools operating in the same geographical area of South-Western Ontario. Of the 11 school boards that returned letters of permission allowing the researcher to proceed in contacting the principals of their secondary schools, 24 of these 77 secondary schools participated in the study for a participation rate of 31.2%. Of the 35 private secondary schools that were listed by the Ministry of Education in the same geographic region, nine participated, for a participation rate of 25.7%. This gave an overall participation of 33 schools out of 112 contacted, for a total of 29.5%, creating sample sizes of 638 senior students and 33 principals.

The principals of each of the 33 schools that consented to participate became the sample from which data concerning visioning strategy was drawn. One graduating class from each school, for a total of 33 classes and 638 senior students, became the sample from which school effectiveness data was gathered. Because the schools that responded could be identified as either Catholic, Private or Public, this sample was further divided into independent samples in order to allow an examination of potential differences in effectiveness among the groups of schools.

Instruments

The study attempted to determine if there was a meaningful relationship between the input factor of visioning strategy and the outcome of new paradigm effectiveness. In order to accomplish this, two instruments were used to gather data. The "Measure of Characteristics Present in the Formulation and Implementation of Visioning Strategy (MCP-FIV)", an instrument developed by the researchers, provided data from principals concerning the presence and quality of the vision process and whether the schools led by those principals operationalized vision through a clearly defined visioning strategy. Each section of the instrument measured a specific element of visioning strategy, as detailed by Sheets and Benson (1994), Dlugosh, Norton, Sybouts, and Webb (1996), and Lieberman (1995).

The second instrument, "A School for the Eighties and Nineties: A Priorities Search" was constructed for and used by the Colorado Department of Education to assist in their move toward new paradigm effective schools. Through it, high school students in their graduating year were asked to indicate on a scale of 0 (Disagree - not a characteristic of our school) to 3 (Agree strongly) the extent to which they believed each item described their school. The instrument measured student perception of the new paradigm effectiveness of their school. The items included in the instrument were divided into three sections that focused on The Learning Community, The Learning Process, and The Learning Program. The specific items on the instrument correlated closely with the indicators of new paradigm school effectiveness as put forward by many educational theorists, and allowed a measuring of the responses of students in relation to the presence in their schools of this particular set of school effectiveness criteria. The futuristic threads that emerged from the literature and that formed a basis for the items were:

Education must focus on outcomes;
The process of education must become individualized;
The process of education must also include group learning experiences;
The outcomes of individualization must focus upon self-knowledge and learning how to learn;
The outcomes of group learning must focus upon skills for social interaction and increasing responsibility for one's own development;
To obtain the above processes and outcomes, the teacher must become a learning facilitator;
The facilitation role for teachers requires a wider involvement of the whole school and the whole community as learning resources and as supports for learning;
The school and community must become one great learning community that provides students with the opportunity to learn the nature of work, to cultivate self-interests, and thereby empower young people to set their own course based on their own inner resources.

As a reliability analysis for this effectiveness scale, Chronbach's Alpha of .8601 was determined. The instrument has been validated by a cluster of 35 educators who had a significant knowledge of studies of education and the future. The instrument was modified in the following two ways for the present study: (1) a second scale for each item asking students to indicate the extent to which they felt this item should be a characteristic of their school was removed from the instrument as it was not relevant to the purposes of this investigation at this time; (2) the instrument was only administered to one segment of school stakeholders, students, instead of several groups.

Procedure

The MCP-FIV instrument was mailed to the secondary school principals from the 11 participating Public and Catholic school boards. This instrument was also mailed to all Private secondary school principals in the geographic areas covered by the Public and Catholic school boards. All principals were asked to complete a six-page questionnaire concerning the presence, formulation and implementation of a visioning strategy at their school or board. Concurrently, the school effectiveness questionnaire was also distribution to these principals, which they were asked to give to a teacher to distribute to one class of senior students. In order to create conditions that were consistent across the study, the students were asked to follow specific instructions for completing the questionnaire, as described to the teacher in the cover material.

An initial pre-approach letter was sent to each principal of the consenting boards approximately 4 days before the instrument mailing, alerting them that a research request was forthcoming. An attempt was made to speak with each principal by phone within 2 weeks of the instrument mailing, in order to ascertain that the material had been received, and to encourage the principal to complete and return the questionnaires.

Ontario legislation defines two types of boards, based on religious or non-religious alignment. Public School boards and Separate School boards (Catholic) both receive public funding. A third type of school board exists that is not included under the provisions of provincial funding. These Private boards operate schools without the benefit of provincial funding.

Because of the stratification into three sub-groups based on board type, it was possible to divide the student sample into three independent samples in order to explore the emerging question related to this variable of whether there was any difference among school effectiveness scores by board type. The data pertained to the intrarelation amongst the schools regarding effectiveness as well as the interrelation of the variables to the visioning strategy process. This allowed conclusions to be drawn from the data, which related to the research question as well as the question of differences within the samples. Some statistically significant results arose when the schools were grouped by board type.

The second set of data was collected from the principal of each school. The MCP-FIV instrument asked principals to describe their participation, if any, in the process of vision formulation and implementation through 33 questions and selections. This sample provided data for the variable of visioning strategy.

Analysis of Data

There were four statistical tests or groups of tests performed on the collected data. The first statistical test was the t-test for two independent samples, for which the school sample was divided into two groups that indicated the level of involvement in a visioning strategy for each school - those that had visioning strategy scores greater than 0 and those that had visioning strategy scores of 0 and where the principal had been at the school for at least two years. This test was used to measure the existence of any statistical difference for the variable of school effectiveness between schools with and without visioning strategies. By considering schools where the principal had been in place for more than two years, and the visioning strategy score equalled 0, schools that may have had visioning strategies in place but where the current principal had not been involved were eliminated.

Of these two groups, there were 17 schools with visioning strategy scores greater than 0, and 10 schools with visioning strategy scores equalling 0 and principals in place for at least two years. Both of these samples were measured for school effectiveness in order to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between the two samples. The t-test for two independent samples showed there was no statistically significant difference between the two samples in relation to the variable of school effectiveness (t(27) = 0.62, p > .05). Whether the school did or did not have a Visioning Strategy did not affect the school effectiveness outcome as measured by the selected instrument.

The second statistical test performed on this data measured whether there was a statistically significant correlation between the two variables of school effectiveness and visioning strategy, as measured by the selected instruments for the sample of 33 secondary schools. The test used was the Test for Product-Moment (Pearson) Correlation Coefficient r. There was no statistically significant correlation between school effectiveness and visioning strategy, r (33) = .05, p > .05.

The third statistical treatment was completed to test the emerging question of whether there was a difference in school effectiveness based on board type. A Oneway ANOVA for the three independent samples of Catholic schools, Private schools, and Public schools revealed a significant difference for the variable of school effectiveness, F (33) = 4.87, p < .05. This finding indicated that there was a difference in school effectiveness among the board types. Post Hoc (Scheffe) Tests were performed to determine in which pairings of school board types the significant differences occurred.

For the Catholic (mean = 44.38, S. D. = 2.81) and Public (mean = 43.75, S. D. = 5.66) pairing, P (24) =.95, p > .05, indicating that there was no significant difference between schools of these board types for the variable of school effectiveness. For the Private (mean = 49.86, S. D. = 5.74) and Catholic (mean = 44.38, S. D. = 2.81) pairing, P (22) =.04, p < .05, indicating that there was a significant difference between schools of these board types. This finding indicates that schools of Private boards scored significantly higher for the school effectiveness variable than schools of Catholic boards. For the Private (mean = 49.86, S. D. = 5.74) and Public (mean = 43.75, S. D. = 5.66) pairing (P(20) = 0.27, p < .05, indicating that there was a significant difference between schools of these board types. Schools of Private boards scored significantly higher for the school effectiveness variable than schools of Public Boards.

Based on the statistically significant difference for school effectiveness scores between the schools of Private boards and those of the Public and Catholic boards, a fourth set of statistical tests were performed to reveal if these differences were based on a broad range of factors represented in the school effectiveness instrument. As described above, the school effectiveness instrument was divided into three sections: I. The Learning Community; II. The Learning Process; and III. The Learning Program. These sections (EFFSECT1, EFFSECT2, and EFFSECT3) were used as the dependent variables and Board Type as the factor in Oneway ANOVAs. A significant difference at the .05 level of significance occurred for EFFSECT1, F (33) = 6.90, p < .05, and EFFSECT3, F (33) = 3..88, p < .05. For EFFSECT2, no significant difference was detected, F (33) = 3.02, p > .05. This indicated that there was a significant positive difference in school effectiveness for the Private schools in relation to the publicly funded schools based on The Learning Community and The Learning Program sections, but not for The Learning Process section.

Discussion

There are three primary limitations to this study. The sample comprised those principals and students from schools whose principals chose to participate. This may have caused a pre-selection of subject characteristics and attitudes, since it is possible that those principals with a favourable view of visioning strategy were more likely to respond. Further, the data regarding the formulation and implementation process of the visioning strategy was reported from the perspective of the principal. It is possible that other stakeholders would hold differing views regarding some of the items measured by MCP-FIV. Regarding the generalizability of the study, due to the degree of confusion that currently exists in the definition of schools effectiveness, it is important not to generalize the findings of this study across school effectiveness generally, but to adhere to the student-centred definition of effectiveness when interpreting the results.

The statistical results indicated that there was no significant correlation between the variables of visioning strategy score and school effectiveness score. The higher visioning strategy scores did not correlate with higher school effectiveness scores. Neither was there a difference between schools that did and did not have visioning strategy, as measured by vs = 0 and vs > 0. The statistical tests discounted visioning strategy as having a significant relationship with school effectiveness.

While approximately 50% of the schools reported expending effort in the area of visioning strategy in the past two years, these efforts appear to make no difference in increasing student perceptions of the effectiveness of their schools from a new paradigm perspective. Efforts in the area of visioning strategy did not create any statistically significant difference when compared to those schools that reported spending no effort on visioning strategy. It can be concluded that students felt that the efforts of stakeholders in the area of visioning strategy was non-impacting in relation to making the school effective from the new paradigm perspective.

The two groups of publicly funded schools (Catholic and Public) were not significantly different from each other in relation to school effectiveness scores. Despite the fact that none of the school systems appeared to score particularly highly on the school effectiveness instrument, the third set of statistical tests identified the statistically significant difference between the publicly and privately funded schools. There was a significant difference between the schools of the Private boards, and those of either the publicly funded Catholic or Public boards. The study provides evidence of the improved effectiveness of a school 'system' not directly under the provincial mandate of a top down provincial Ministry of Education (Bedard & Lawton, 2000).

There were several primary differences between the privately and publicly funded schools, as reported by Carnie (2002), Krysiak and DiBella (2002), and Owen, Cooper, and Brown (2002). Private schools were smaller, tended to have higher parent participation rates, identified more closely with the culture and values of an identifiable community, were staffed by individuals who were seen as participants and supporters of these values, were governed by a board whose mandate was to provide an alternative approach to education, were funded primarily by tuition payments (which created a need for a very direct responsiveness to the school's constituency), could choose alternative curriculum materials, and generally operated in a much less centralized and standardized manner. These items seem to align closely with the Post Hoc finding that it was primarily in the areas of Learning Community and Learning Program that students identified a higher degree of effectiveness in Private schools than publicly funded schools. The Learning Community of Private schools tend to be smaller schools in the Ontario Context, with higher degrees of parent participation, and more identifiable set of shared values. Such schools also often develop or utilize a Learning Program that uses alternative curriculum materials (Rideout, Mckay, & Morton, 2003).

The nature of the MCP-FIV was generic in its attempt to gather information about the characteristics of the school vision, giving the higher score to one that was inclusive and followed up with a specific implementation plan. It did not focus on substance, or values espoused in the vision, but instead focused on the structure of the whole process. It was a measure of the traditional literature-based visioning strategy that focused on the system.

The study was designed to indicate the presence of a process, not to evaluate the value of the vision itself. This may explain why there is no correlation between the presence of visioning strategy and school effectiveness, since there may have been quite a variety of understandings of effectiveness present and promoted by the various visioning strategies. It may be reasonable to conclude therefore, particularly in relation to new paradigm outcomes, that issues concerning visioning strategy, such as substance of the vision, are at least as important as the strategy for its formulation and implementation. Further study is encouraged in the area of school visions that value student centred approaches to education, and the relationship of such visions to new paradigm school effectiveness.

References

Bechtol, W.M., & Sorenson, J.S. (1993).: Staff development in restructured schools. In Restructuring schools for individual students. Toronto, ON: Allyn and Bacon.

Bedard, G. & Lawton, S. (2000).: The struggle for power and control: Shifting policy-making models and the Harris agenda for education in Ontario. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 241-269.

Carnie, F. (2002).: Small is beautiful: Lessons from America. Education Revolution, 36(Aut), 36-39.

Cheng, Y.C. (1997).: Monitoring school effectiveness: Conceptual and practical possibilities and dilemmas in developing a framework. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Education Forum on School-Based Indicators of Effectiveness, Quilin, China. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED. 407 730).

Dlugosh, L.L., Norton, M.S., Sybouts, W., & Webb, D. (1996).: The school superintendency: New responsibilities, new leadership. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

Kickbusch, K. (1996, June).: Teaching for understanding: Educating students for performance. Retrieved on Jan. 10. 2003 from http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/under.htm [Opens in new window]

Krysiak, B. & DiBella, C. (2002).: Why small schools now? School Business Affairs, 68(7), 25-29.

Lieberman, A. (1995).: The work of restructuring schools: Building from the ground up. NY: Teacher's College Press.

Newberry, A. (1994).: Organizational change: Overcoming the inevitable depression. The Canadian School Executive 14(5), 3-6.

Owen, R., Cooper, K., & Brown, M, (2002).: Getting small: Transforming our high schools. Leadership, 32(1), 8-10.

Owens, R.G. (1987).: Organizational behavior in education (3^rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rideout, G, Mckay, L, Morton, L. (In Press).: The framework and measure of effective school visioning strategy (MCP-FIV). Alberta Journal of Educational Research.

Shantz, D., &. Rideout, G. (2003).: Education versus schooling: Seeking new paradigms for a new century. Education, 124(1), 203-211.

Sheetz, M., & Benson, T. (1994).: Structuring schools for success, A view from the inside. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Silvernail, David L. (1992a).: The educational philosophies of secondary school teachers. The High School Journal, Feb/Mar, 162-166.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1998).: Educational change: Easier said than done. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), International handbook of international change. Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996).: Changing concepts of teaching and learning. In Changing our schools, (pp.118-132). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Symons, C. (1997).: Redesigning career counselling. Guidance and Counselling, 12(3), 7-12.

Taylor, F.W. (1914).: Scientific management: A collection of the more significant articles describing the Taylor system of management, (C.B. Thompson, ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Academic Exchange - EXTRA / Top

------------------------------ Page Citation Reference:
AE-Extra. Available Online.
[URL: < >.
Created: 24 February 2004. Updated: --. Accessed: ]