SYSTEM CHANGE 59
sources needed to do the work; (c) general functions, major tasks, activi-
ties, and phases that must be pursued; (d) infrastructure and strategies
needed to carry out the functions, tasks, and activities; and (e) positive and
negative results that emerge.
Strategic planning for school improvement should account for each of
these elements, first with respect to a school’s prototype for ensuring that
all students have an equal opportunity to succeed in school and then with
respect to how the school will accomplish essential changes. At the district
level, the need is for a strategic plan that clarifies how the district will facili-
tate replication and scale-up of prototype practices. Each element, as it re-
lates to systemic change, is highlighted briefly on the following pages.
Vision, Aims, and Rationale
Intentional interventions are rationally based (Adelman & Taylor, 1994).
Vision statements hint at the rationale by conveying a set of ideals that are
meant to lay the foundation for what follows. The rationale underlying
any general vision statement is much more extensive. It is an outline that
shapes the nature of intervention aims and procedures. It consists of views
derived from philosophical (including ethical), theoretical, empirical, and
legal sources. It incorporates an understanding of institutional mission
and the policies and practices related to implementing and being account-
able for desired improvements. Those concerned with understanding
school improvement and systemic change as practiced must analyze the
rationale underlying such activity, even though it may not be explicitly
stated.
Although rationales guide interventionists’ thoughts and actions, there
is little evidence that they are systematically formulated and explicitly
stated in developing school improvement plans. Even when not explicitly
stated, however, underlying rationales have major ramifications for out-
comes because they both guide and limit the nature of subsequent activity.
As Brickman and his colleagues (1982) suggested, “Each set of assump-
tions has characteristic consequences for … competence, status, and
well-being … [and] the wrong choice … will undermine effective [out-
comes]” (p. 368).
Of course, not all intervention rationales are equal. Some reflect a higher
level of scholarly sophistication; some cover a broader range of relevant
considerations; some have greater philosophical, theoretical, and empiri-
cal consistency. An intervention rationale’s sophistication, breadth, and
consistency are not the only important considerations. Systematic biases
that arise from dominating models also are of concern. For instance, pre-
vailing views of intervention for emotional, behavioral, and learning prob-
60 ADELMAN AND TAYLOR
lems tend to (a) attribute cause to factors within the individual, and (b) fo-
cus intervention on changing the individual. This shapes how problems
are described and labeled and plays down the causal role of environmental
factors, such as social policies, and the characteristics of community, home,
work, and school settings. It also underemphasizes environmental factors
as a primary focus in correcting the problem.
Sophistication, breadth, consistency, bias—all must be considered and
can be judged appropriately only if an underlying rationale is explicitly
stated. Generally speaking, all efforts to understand, improve, and diffuse
successful intervention activity are hampered by the absence of explicitly
stated underlying rationales. As Rossi and his colleagues (1979) cautioned,
if the parties involved in program development and implementation fail (or
refuse) to apply themselves to unraveling and specifying the assumptions
and principles underlying the program, there is no basis for understanding
what they are doing, why they are doing it, or for judging whether or not
they are doing what they intend to do. (p. 19)
Resources
Operationalizing and implementing a vision for systemic change requires
first and foremost a focus on ensuring adequate resources (e.g., dollars,
real estate space, equipment, human and social capital, etc.). Pursuing ma-
jor systemic changes in an era of sparse resources generally means rede-
ploying and weaving together some of the system’s available resources to
underwrite the change process. If enough resources cannot be devoted to
essential change processes, it is likely that substantive school improve-
ment will not be achieved.
Of particular importance in identifying resources for systemic change is
a “big picture” awareness of prevailing and pending policies, institutional
priorities, and allocation of resources. Such understanding provides an es-
sential foundation for formulating sound recommendations about how re-
sources might be redeployed to underwrite desired systemic changes.
Resources that might be redeployed include those expended for
nonproductive programs or ones that are addressing low priority needs. In
addition, federal law (e.g., provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001) allows districts to redeploy some federal dollars for systemic im-
provements (e.g., changes that enhance how student supports are co-
alesced). Moreover, increasing concern for sustainability and scale-up
makes it feasible to use facets of some project funding from government
agencies and foundations to pursue systemic changes.
