Eliminating the Christmas tree school effect: A case study of collaborative planning for the coordinated implementation of special programs at an elementary school.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

An elementary school faculty was experiencing what Bryk et al (1998) referred to as the “Christmas tree schools” (p. 123) effect. In other words, special programs prolificated with scant attention paid to their coordination. Consequently, programs were poorly implemented. Once conditions reached “the edge of chaos” (Fullan, 1999, p. 5), the faculty was given permission to restructure the master schedule of the school to resolve the problem.
How to manage the process of scheduling was addressed in this paper on two conceptual levels. One was microcosmic in nature. How did one school cope with the complexity of organizing and implementing a large number and frequently changing array of instructional programs? The other was macrocosmic. How can schools develop into “self-organizing systems” (Wheatley, 1999, p. 82) to maintain a balance between order and chaos?.
Research questions included: (a) How does one elementary school cope with the complexity of developing and implementing a new master schedule for the purpose of coordinating instructional programs? (b) What are the constraints to managing change? (c) What are the supports for managing change?.
This study presents an ethnography that included a historical review of the special program mandates and a historical review of the traditional management theories that provided the foundation for the bureaucratic structure of school districts. The characteristics of the traditional management model and the complexity theory of organizations model (Fullan, 1999, Stanford, 1998, & Wheatley, 1999) were compared. This comparison provided the framework for explaining the findings from this study.
Three themes emerged from the data: (a) legal mandates—intent versus practice, (b) effects of leadership, and (c) the relationship of structure to the change process. One finding that emerged from the theme—intent versus practice, was that practice fell short of intent. Other findings for this same theme were paradoxical. While tightly prescribed mandates contributed to the chaotic conditions for scheduling and presented a barrier to the change process, they also presented the impetus for change and instructional improvement. Findings from the themes, effects of leadership and the relationship of structure to the change process, overlapped. For example, it was found that traditional leadership behaviors and traditional organizational structures presented barriers. They restricted communication, fragmented responsibility, and narrowed perspectives which interfered with the collaboration needed to coordinate programs and policies. On the other hand, the collaborative structure established by the scheduling committee provided support by empowering teachers, opening communication, unifying ownership and commitment, and providing a problem-solving forum.